The Restoration of

Gregorian Chant

Dom Pierre Combe, O.S.B.

            

The Restoration of

Gregorian Chant

Solesmes and the Vatican Edition

Translated by †Theodore N. Marier

and William Skinner

The Catholic University of America Press

Washington, D.C.

Originally published under the title Histoire de la restauration du chant grégorien d’après des documents inédites: Solesmes et l’Edition Vatican,

©  by the Abbaye Saint-Pierre de Solesmes.

Copyright © 

The Catholic University of America Press

All rights reserved

Published in paperback 

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Combe, Pierre.

mm[Histoire de la restauration du chant grégorien d’après des documents

minédites. English]

mmThe restoration of Gregorian chant : Solesmes and the Vatican edition /

mDom Pierre Combe, O.S.B., monk of Solesmes ; translated by Theodore N.

mMarier and William Skinner.

mmmcm.

mmTranslation of : Histoire de la restauration du chant grégorien d’après des mdocuments inédites.

mmIncludes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.

mm ---- (cloth : alk. paper)

mm ---- (paper : alk. paper)

mm. Gregorian chants—History and criticism. I. Title.

mm . 

mm.´´—dc

mm



C O N T E N T S

Introduction / xi

Translators’ Note / xxxiii

THE RESTORATION OF GREGORIAN CHANT

Foreword / 

List of Plates / 

ONE. THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES / 

I. Dom Guéranger’s Rationale / 

. New Documents / 

. Dom Guéranger’s Principles / 

Comparing the manuscripts / 

The testimony of the staffless neume manuscripts / 

Dom Guéranger reforms the chant at Solesmes. / 

. The Chant Books of the Old Solesmes / 

. Dom Guéranger’s Hesitations / 

. Dom Guéranger’s Authority / 

II. Period of Preparation / 

. Dom Paul Jausions / 

. The Labors of Dom Jausions—The Wilton Processional / 

. Gontier’s Méthode Raisonnée () / 

. The Paris Congress () / 

. The First Directorium Chori / 

. Dom Jausions and Dom Joseph Pothier—The Reform

of the Chant Books Decided at Solesmes / 

. The First Transcripts of Manuscripts in Staffless Neumes / 

vi CONTENTS

. Problems in Restoring the Melodies () / 

. Rhythmic Problems () / 

. State of the Work in  / 

. Benedictiones Mensae and Directorium Chori / 

. The “Corrected Gradual” / 

. Agreements and Disagreements / 

. Researching the Manuscripts () / 

. The “Manuscript” of Dom Jausions () / 

. Dom Pothier’s “Memorandum” () / 

. The Work Drafted by Dom Pothier () / 

. Gregorian Travels () / 

. Various Difficulties () / 

. The First Version of the Mélodies Grégoriennes () / 

. Dom Pothier’s Style / 

. Preparation of the Antiphonal / 

. The First Version of the Liber Gradualis () / 

. L. Baptiste’s Méthode / 

. A Letter from Dom Jausions / 

. The Years – / 

. The Mélodies Grégoriennes and the Liber Gradualis in  / 

III. The First Publications / 

. Gregorian Chant and the Council () / 

. The Lithographed Processional () / 

. The Gregorian Apostolate / 

. The First Gregorian Congress of Aiguebelle () / 

. The Mélodies Grégoriennes () / 

. The Arezzo Congress ()—

The Papal Brief of April ,  / 

. The Liber Gradualis ()—Papal Briefs to Dom Pothier () / 

. Various Publications / 

Conclusion / 

TWO. THE VATICAN EDITION

A. Preliminaries of the Gregorian Reform under Leo XIII

I. Dom André Mocquereau and the Paléographie Musicale / 

. Dom Mocquereau at Solesmes () / oo

. Initial

Work

/



CONTENTS vii

. Catalogue

of Manuscripts— Scriptores / 

. Establishment

of the

Paléographie Musicale / 

. The Project () / 

. Journey for Subscriptions () / 

. Opposition—The Vow to Our Lady of Chartres () / 

. Dom Couturier and the Gregorian Movement / 

. The Prospectus / 

. A Trip to Switzerland () / 

. The Manuscript Chosen for Publication / 

. Episcopal Approvals / 

. Volume I () / 

. Publications by Dom Pothier / 

. Dom Mocquereau in Rome () / 

. Dom Mocquereau and Father de Santi / 

. At the French Seminary / 

. Pustet’s Visit / 

. Discovery of the “Old Roman” Chant / 

. Travel within Italy / 

. The Influence of the French Seminary / 

. The Gregorian Conversion of Father de Santi / 

. Volume II—Trip to Belgium and Holland () / 

. Congress of St. Gregory the Great () / 

. Dom Pothier and Dom Mocquereau in Rome () / 

. Results / 

. Dom Mocquereau’s Assistants / 

. Journey to Chartres () / 

II. Father de Santi and Monsignor Carlo Respighi / 

. New Orientation / 

. The Report by Father de Santi () / 

. Miscellaneous Efforts / 

. The Gregorian Apostolate of Father de Santi—

Volume III () / 

. Father de Santi’s Method / 

. The Work of Dom Pothier / 

. The Votum of Cardinal Sarto () / 

. The Exiling of Father de Santi () / 

. Perosi at Solesmes () / 

viii CONTENTS

. The Decree of July  / 

. Volume IV (–) / 

. The Gradual of  / 

. New Hopes (–) / 

. The Gregorian Apostolate of Dom Mocquereau / 

. Suppression of the Decree of April ,  () / 

. Perosi’s Actions (–) / 

. The Paléographie Musicale in  / 

. Msgr. Respighi vs. Msgr. Haberl (–) / 

. Liberating Words () / 

. The Memorandum Requested of Solesmes () / 

. The Plan for an International Commission () / 

. The Brief Nos Quidem to the Abbot of Solesmes () / 

. First Draft of the Vatican Edition () / 

. The Rhythmic Synthesis of Dom Mocquereau—

Volume VII () / 

. The Rassegna Gregoriana (–) / 

. A Time for Waiting—Congress of Bruges () / 

B. The Work of St. Pius X

III. The New Legislation of Pius X / 

. The Initial Thought of Pius X / 

. Preparation of the Motu Proprio of November ,  / 

. The New Solesmes Edition—A Request of Father de Santi / 

. Publication of the Motu Proprio / 

. Dom Pothier’s Project / 

. Initial Decisions / 

. An Invitation for Solesmes / 

. Letter from Msgr. Bressan to Dom Delatte / 

. The Project of the Abbot-Primate / 

. Initial Difficulties / 

. The Actions of Father de Santi / 

. Final Discussions / 

. The St. Gregory the Great Congress / 

. Publication of the Motu Proprio Dated April ,  / 

. Brief of , Ex Quo Tempore, to Dom Delatte / 

CONTENTS ix

IV. The Meetings of the Commission Held in  / 

. The Initial Meetings of the Commission / 

. The Publishers’ Concerns / 

. The Congress of Arras—Summer School at Appuldurcombe / 

. Meeting of the Vatican Commission at Appuldurcombe / 

. Paleographical Wanderings in England and Italy / 

V. The Meetings of the Commission Held in  / 

. Preparation of the Kyriale / 

Dom Pothier’s Memorandum / 

Dom Mocquereau’s Memorandum / 

. Resumption of the Meetings in Rome / 

. At the Heart of the Problem / 

First Circular from Solesmes / 

Second Circular from Solesmes / 

Dom Pothier’s Memorandum / 

Letters of Father de Santi and Father Holly / 

The President’s Memorandum / 

Third Circular from Solesmes / 

. The First Letter from the Cardinal Secretary

of State, April ,  / 

New Memorandum from Dom Pothier / 

Reply from Solesmes / 

Father de Santi acting as moderator—Memorandum addressed to the Pope / 

Fourth circular from Solesmes—Dom Pothier’s circular / 

The Declaration of April  / 

. Dom Mocquereau in Rome / 

Dom Mocquereau’s supporters and adversaries / 

Papal Audience / 

Dom Mocquereau at the Commission / 

Audience with the Cardinal Secretary of State / 

. The “De Santi Regulation” / 

The Pope’s favorable opinion / 

The Document / 

The opinion of Don Mercati and of Father Ehrle / 

. The “Mercati Regulation” / 

Overhauling the document / 

The situation grows worse / 

x CONTENTS

. The Second Letter from the Cardinal Secretary

of State, June ,  / 

The attitude of Solesmes / 

The interventions of Father de Santi / 

. The International Gregorian Chant Congress of Strasbourg () / 

. The Vatican Kyriale / 

. Paleographical Wanderings in Spain and Germany / 

VI. The Vatican Commission from  to  / 

. The Quarrel over Rhythm / 

The Decrees of August  / 

Decree of February ,  / 

Congresses of Padua (), Sables-d’Olonne, and Pisa () / 

Letter of Cardinal Martinelli () / 

Decrees of January  and April ,  / 

Regulation on Sacred Music—Vatican Antiphonal () / 

. The Commission’s Tribulations / 

Attempts at rapprochement / 

The Edition in —Research in Germany and Austria / 

The Gregorian books of the Vatican / 

After the Second Vatican Council / 

Conclusion / 

Appendix I: Resolutions of the Arezzo Congress / 

Appendix II: Briefs Addressed to Dom Pothier / 

Appendix III: The  Votum of Cardinal Sarto / 

Appendix IV: Translation of the Original Italian Text of the

Documents Relating to the Origins of the Vatican Commission / 

Appendix V: Bibliography / 

Plates – / 

Index / 

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Rev. Robert A. Skeris

The carefully documented narrative of Fr. Pierre Combe’s “History

of the Restoration of Gregorian Chant,” presented to the English-

speaking public for the first time in the pages which follow, concludes

with the year  when the Antiphonale Romanum was published. The chant books printed under the auspices of the Vatican Commission

headed by Dom Pothier thus comprised the Kyriale (), Cantus Missae (), Graduale Romanum (), Officium Defunctorum (), the Cantorinus (), and the Antiphonale Romanum.

The books of Gregorian chant published since  have been edited

by the monks of Solesmes, a tradition which continues to the present

day. The official chant books prepared at Solesmes during the past cen-

tury are briefly listed: Cantus Passionis (), Officium Hebdomadae Sanc-tae (), Officium Nativitatis D.N.J.C. (), Antiphonarium Monasticum (), as well as the monastic offices of Christmas (), Agendis Mortuorum (), and for feast days (). After the Second Vatican Council, the series continued with the Graduale Simplex (, d ed. ), the Ordo Cantus Missae (), and the private edition of the Graduale Romanum (), Jubilate Deo (, d ed. ), the Liber Cantualis (), the Psalterium Monasticum (), and the Liber Hymnarius = Antiphonale Romanum II (), the Missel Gregorien () = Gregorian Missal (), and the second edition of the Ordo Missae in Cantu (), as well as several reprints of earlier editions.

Such intense publishing activity testifies to the relevance of Gregori-

an chant for Catholic worship in the new millennium. Many of these

new chant books reflect the results of recent researches, which have ac-

cordingly influenced the actual chanting of Gregorian melodies today.

xi

xii INTRODUCTION

The Liber Hymnarius and its Preface is a case in point. The  of Gregorian chant is once more at the center of attention.

I

When a young cellist by the name of Mocquereau entered the Bene-

dictine monastery at Solesmes in , he found a style of singing which was already “traditional” there, a style which can be traced back to the founder himself, Dom Guéranger. This style was based upon the objective datum then at the disposal of the small choir of this small house:

upon the words and phrases of the text. Instead of continuing to ham-

mer out each individual syllable, Abbot Guéranger asked his monks to

use their intelligence and good sense: to sing the words, and with those words to form phrases. For Guéranger, the queen of all rules was that,

except in cases of pure melody, chant is an intelligent reading, well accented, well scanned, well phrased (Gontier ).

In , Dom Pothier wrote, “It must be said: in our era, especially

since the sixteenth century, the liturgical melodies are no longer what

they used to be. They are neither understood nor enjoyed in the way

our forefathers understood and enjoyed them, nor are they interpreted

in practice as our forefathers interpreted them. We have arrived at a

heavy and monotonous style of performance, one that deprives the

chant of all rhythm and color, that destroys the charm—how shall I say

it?—the very essence of the melody. For sounds that follow one another

uniformly, like the syllables of a child spelling his lesson, are no more a chant than the child’s syllables are a reading” ( Les Mélodies Grégoriennes

[Tournai ] ).

For Pothier, then, the ancient notes were the vox of the chant, its breath, so he advocated a “phonetic” approach to chant in order to “fix”

the “broken melodies” which lay fractured in the mouths of modern

singers. Later, Dom Mocquereau wished to enumerate the contents of

this restored performance: “Before appreciating a text, it is necessary to know how to spell it” (“Notation oratoire ou chironomique”: Paléographie Musicale  [Tournai ] ).

“There is in the Catholic liturgy of the Church (wrote Dom Pothier)

a music that .l.l. is at once a word and a song ( une parole et un chant), a rich and powerful music that is also simple and natural, a music that

INTRODUCTION xiii

does not seek to be music, does not listen to itself, but is released as the spontaneous cry of religious thought and feeling” ( Les Mélodies Grégoriennes ). In its most elementary form, this unique fusion of thought and feeling was for Pothier nothing more than what the ancients called

an “accent,” a term designating the natural rising and falling of the

voice. “An art like Gregorian chant borrows its best effects from the science of language .l.l. and nothing is as delicate as the phenomenon of

speech” (ibid.).

And so Gregorian chant was not merely an adornment, a musical

layer added to the words of the liturgy, but rather a sound which issued naturally from those sacred words. In the last analysis it was simply—

highly expressive speaking, elocution raised to a higher level, capturing in its syllables a music that is the accent of religious devotion. For Dom Pothier, then, rhythm always flowed from the accent of speech as from

its primary and natural source. The accented syllable was always

“strong without elongation,” the unaccented “long, but weak” ( Les

Mélodies Grégoriennes ). The accent so concentrated the energy of the word that it acted (according to Pothier) as an élément condensateur, a

“condenser element” forcing the tone of the strong syllable upward

without increasing its time value. When that tension was released, the

relaxation of both pitch and rhythm produced in the unaccented sylla-

ble a slight elongation. In other words, the same speech accent that

caused a natural rise and fall in the voice created an equally natural

push and pull of rhythm.

With the passage of time (, /) Pothier developed this in-

sight into a full-fledged notion of rhythmic tension and release ex-

pressed by the Greek terms arsis and thesis. Here, Dom Mocquereau found a starting point for his own reflections on Gregorian musical

rhythm.

In the course of time, in other places different interpretations of

Gregorian rhythm arose. Some thought the notes reflected long and

short quantities arranged according to different schemes in a sort of

measured rhythm, while others maintained that one should sing the

words with notes as one would speak them without notes. After years

of study and reflection upon this problem, Dom André Mocquereau

presented a monumental study of Gregorian musical rhythm in two

volumes entitled Le Nombre Musical Grégorien (/). Here, beginning with Plato’s conception of rhythm as ordered movement, he ana-

xiv INTRODUCTION

lyzed the arts of repose and of movement, the movement of sound, the

form and matter of rhythm, the rhythmic pulse, and applied these con-

cepts to the free musical rhythm of Gregorian chant. This is the free

rhythm proper to and characteristic of the Vatican Edition, in which the basic notes are not distinguished in terms of length as breves, semi-breves, long, double longs, etc., but are all theoretically equal to one basic indivisible pulse, save for the case of the mora vocis (Dom Ferretti).

Because Mocquereau’s approach was consistent and easily under-

stood, it could be explained clearly to others and thus it aided a great many Catholics in their efforts to realize the ideal put forward by the

Church: Gregorian chant and active participation of the faithful in song at worship. Indeed, if one marked on a map “the countries which have

adopted editions with Dom Mocquereau’s rhythmic principles, one

would have marked at the same time the countries which best pre-

served the practice of Gregorian chant” ( J. Claire ).

In recent years, however, the conclusions which Mocquereau’s analy-

sis had reached are regarded by some as superseded. Appeals are made

to “the most recent studies of the earliest musical notation” whose

rhythmic signs are to be interpreted in singing. The “now outmoded

rhythmic markings of Dom Mocquereau” and his “now largely discred-

ited rhythmic theories” are passed over in favor of “the more recent

rhythmic theories of Dom Eugène Cardine” and a “subtle reinterpreta-

tion” of the traditional Gregorian chant style cultivated in the early

years of the twentieth century. The basis of this new approach, much

favored by the partisans of “early music” and its “authentic” perform-

ance practices, is what is known as Gregorian “semiology” (Dom Sixde-

nier). Its pioneer was Dom Eugène Cardine (–).

Like Dom Mocquereau, Cardine was haunted by what he felt was

the need for authenticity, to “rediscover” and “respect” the intentions of the Gregorian composers by going back to the sources, the manuscripts. In  Cardine wrote, “We have no other task than to read what the first copyists wished to express in writing. Hence it is needful that we rediscover their state of mind, their habitual practices, the conven-tions they received from their cultural milieu.” And one could accom-

plish this only by having recourse to the most ancient manuscripts

(tenth and eleventh centuries), those closest to the sources since in reality people had “corrected” (!) the Gregorian chant in the name of erro-

neous principles during the centuries which followed. The Editio Vati-INTRODUCTION xv

cana, at the beginning of the labors of restoration carried out at Solesmes, began to remedy a declining situation which had lasted for

centuries and which was exemplified in the famous Medicean edition of

. However, Cardine specifies, any current notation is imperfect from both the melodic and the rhythmical points of view. Thus it is absolutely necessary to pore over the neumes with the most unremitting atten-

tion to the most ancient systems of notation used to transfer the Grego-

rian music into the visual domain. It is only scientifically conducted

research which will allow the establishment of an objective execution of this chant. Otherwise, the interpretation will be the performance of a

“romanticism” which will inevitably be guided by a rhythm and by nu-

ances borrowed from modern music.l.l.l.

Leaving to others the questions of Gregorian origins, paleography

properly so called, melodic restoration, and Gregorian aesthetics, Car-

dine concentrated his attention upon that extreme diversity of signs

found in the most ancient manuscripts. He gradually became convinced

that this diversity is intended to express the particularities and the delicate nuances of expression within the interplay of durations and inten-

sities. He will speak of “enthusiastic detection” when confronted with

the “inexhaustible richness” of the nuances which the Gregorian com-

posers had desired to convey: “If they used only a small number of ba-

sic signs, they labored mightily to combine them in such a multiplicity

of ways that this very variety was long considered the result of either

disorder or fantasy. But the more one studies these ancient scripts with the same patience and love which their inventors lavished upon them,

the more one is astonished at the number and the importance of the

discoveries which one can make in them.” Their hands followed their

voices, and in virtue of this “cheironomic notation” (as Dom Moc-

quereau called it), Fr. Cardine acknowledged them as theorists “in the

best sense of the word,” contrasting them with the medieval theorists

who held systematic views but only “a purely bookish knowledge” of

the music of Antiquity. It is by a path different from that of history that he renews relations with the unknown composers of the Gregorian

melodies: through their neumatic writing.

Cardine understood that the neume is a “written gesture,” or as we

would say, a “written recording” which is presented to us to read, since one cannot hear it again. Paying close attention to these discoveries, the late Dom Hourlier—a colleague of Cardine’s and historian of liturgical

xvi INTRODUCTION

MSS at Solesmes—said to their author in  that an “intermediate sci-

ence” was about to spring up, situated between paleography and aes-

thetics, a science that needed a precise name. For several years Dom

Cardine spoke in terms of “Gregorian diplomatics,” but the expression

did not seem very felicitous. One of the cantors at San Girolamo in

Rome, Dom Sixdenier, suggested substituting the name “Gregorian

semiology,” and the name was eventually approved and accepted. At

that time, the term “semiology” (from the Greek semeion, sign) was used chiefly in the medical field.

This new semiology, by which one investigated the meaning of neu-

matic scripts, is based upon two criteria. The first belongs to the material or graphic order, and considers the design or configuration of the

signs. The second belongs to the aesthetic order, and considers the mu-

sical context in which each sign is used. It is a matter of investigating the convergence of these two criteria, and of comparing the instances

identified in each of the different notations.

Cardine insisted upon two points above all. The first was his discov-

ery of what he called the neumatic break, namely the process of Grego-

rian writing most widely used in the Middle Ages to emphasize the im-

portant note, by an interruption of the normally continued line of the

notation. He presented this discovery in  to the III International

Church Music Congress at Paris. Afterwards, in a long article in Études Grégoriennes () embellished with detailed charts, he produced the paleographic proofs of this constant element of “breaks” among the

neumes. Following his path, he was led to what he felt was an even

more important discovery, which he set forth at the meeting of the As-

sociation for Gregorian Chant Studies in Venice in : the notion of

value, uniting duration and intensity, the foundation of Gregorian rhythm. He showed that the rhythmic value of the notes is linked to

that of the syllables, and that this basic syllabic value (which in general remains obviously the same from one syllable to the next, and hence

from one note to the next) can be modified by the Gregorian composer.

These are the variations in value which he sought to discern in the neu-

matic notation and to reproduce in the chant in order to recover the

primitive rhythmic inspiration by delighting in its savor and thus mak-

ing prayer more animated. Having arrived at these foundations of semi-

ology, at the very heart of Gregorian rhythm, he allowed to choirmas-

ters ample space for interpretation while respecting the indications

proceeding from the manuscripts.

INTRODUCTION xvii

Semiology, Cardine said repeatedly, has nothing to do with a system,

and is not a method but a means, “the” means of making genuine con-

tact with the authentic music. The indications which he furnishes are

“elastic” (a term which he returned to frequently); the proportionate

“dosage” of the note values in terms of more or less, cannot be deter-

mined precisely. As the years passed, Cardine stressed more and more

that the achievements of semiology “do not lead ipso facto to a good

performance: they must be given life by the interpretation, a very deli-

cate problem which it is proper and expedient to resolve if one desires to avoid a cold performance.” In reality, the problem was such that no interpretation of chant recorded up to the time of his death in  re-

ceived the full and complete approval of Dom Cardine! At any rate, he

recognized the merits of some of them, in first place the singing of his own monastery of Solesmes: “The great distinction of Solesmes’ chanting” (he said before his death) “is that the text is understood and prayed.”

In his musicological “testament” presented during the third interna-

tional Gregorian chant congress held at Luxemburg in , Cardine be-

seeched the Gregorianists to whom he had always preached “respect for

the sign,” to “go beyond” ( surpasser) or to “exceed” or “be greater than”

the sign ( dé passer le signe). “The danger which awaits us (he explained) is all too familiar: it is to lose oneself among all the details identified .l.l.

and to forget the general effect of the whole.l.l.l. By dint of urging

analysis, do we miss the synthesis?” Good judgment and common sense

must guide the singer, sustaining him “at an equal distance from inac-

cessible perfection and from a routine which all too easily contents itself with anything .l.l. whatever.” “Gregorian chant is not simple,” he says.

“Everyone wants a very easy and simple process. But it is necessary to

show that it is the hard work which allows us to approach beauty.” He

emphasizes without respite, not only that one cannot have any opposi-

tion between science and art—in other words, that one cannot set up

semiology against interpretation—but also that artistic sense must have

a scientific basis. Like the ancient composers whose strength and vigor

he left no stone unturned to recover, the semiologist Cardine was pro-

foundly conscious within himself of that Gregorian rhythm which he

refused to imprison within formulae: “I believe that one should not lay

down rules which do not agree with the genius of the composers.l.l.l.

Equal notes? But cannot Gregorian chant give something more? An élan or energy which carries higher and farther: the sublimity of the sacred

texts and the joy which overflows from them.”

xviii INTRODUCTION

In his indefatigable pursuit of Gregorian beauty, Cardine the monk

was convinced that such beauty was but the reflection of another Beau-

ty, toward which all praise ascends. One thinks of the words he spoke at Subiaco in : “More than simply vocal music, Gregorian chant is a sung word, a sacred word which comes to us from God in Holy Writ and which returns to God in praise.”

II

On this basic point, there is widespread unanimity within the pray-

ing Church today. But there seems to be less agreement on the priorities to be set when it comes to fulfilling the wishes of the Church regarding its practical application to song at Mass. It has been evident for a long time that archaeological researches are one thing, and quite another are the decisions of the Church in matters pertaining to actual practice of

liturgical usage.

Some would advance “philological” reasons for rejecting Moc-

quereau’s theory of free musical rhythm as being “mechanical and in

part arbitrary.” They would favor “free rhythm” understood as non-

measurable note values and flexible proportionality in mutual rhythmic

relationships of the notes, varying according to the demands of the

melodic and linguistic context. In order to realize, in the actual singing of Gregorian chant at daily or weekly liturgies, such results of detailed semiological research, there is required a very high degree of musical

literacy. And of course, considerable philological-semiological knowl-

edge would also be needed—requirements whose fulfillment may justly

be doubted in most cases. The belief that only in such chanting does

“the true beauty of Gregorian chant find expression,” seems to imply

two presuppositions which ethnomusicological research (among other

things) induces us to regard critically:

. that there exists a notation which is able to record the actual sonic event of monodic art song with all its nuances and details, so that a

complete reconstruction would be possible on the basis of the written

sketch; and

. that the aesthetic sonic ideal from which arose the delicate details

and nuances now discovered thanks to semiological research, would

sufficiently correspond to the musical perception (“beauty”) of contem-

porary Western musical culture.

INTRODUCTION xix

Admiring knowledge of the richness of an ancient monodic art song

is rather limited in its ability to promote the re-animation of lost

singing traditions, for otherwise the worship offered by men living at a given time—which is the goal of the efforts at restoration—will be exchanged for a different goal: a likewise quite justifiable but largely historical museum-type research. Such a goal seems less suited to realize

the grand musical and pastoral-liturgical ideal of St. Pius X: actuosa participatio populi in the liturgical singing of Gregorian chant.

The success of the Gregorian singing style made famous by Dom

Mocquereau and Dom Gajard plainly corresponds to the practical

needs of daily liturgical life as well as the contemporary musical perceptions and sensitivities of great numbers of people. These two qualities

remain of primary importance for any living practice of Gregorian

chant according to the mind of the popes of the twentieth century and

of the last Vatican Council, and for that reason they rank higher, in case of doubt, than the demand for historical authenticity.

A great modern Gregorian pedagogue put it this way: “.l.l. the peda-

gogical experience of my whole life, and that of many others, leads me

to believe that as much for teaching children as for unity in people’s

chants and as for the artists themselves, it is necessary to have marks, reference marks,—in this case, ictus and rhythmic signs—which affirm

rhythms, locate the phrases and bring indispensable assistance in realizing rhythmic unity and correct interpretation. In an analogous domain,

that of modern music, have editors and musicians ever regretted the

time bars (provided they are given an exact meaning) which facilitate

performance of the great polyphonic and orchestral works?”

III: Appendix

Fr. André Mocquereau of Solesmes was not only an outstanding mu-

sicologist but also a remarkable musician who devoted his life to show-

ing the singers of our own time how to breathe musical life into the

dead letters and signs of the ancient manuscripts. Unlike many musicol-

ogists who remain locked into a study of the written forms exclusively,

Dom Mocquereau studied the signs and then proceeded to transform

their meaning into living audible sounds—real music of prayer which

can be sung, heard, and appreciated.

Rhythm is the pulse of life, in Gregorian chant as everywhere else,

xx INTRODUCTION

and Dom Mocquereau made clear to us the reality of rhythm, provid-

ing us with terms and signs with which we can identify its elements and

its reality, and communicate these in workable paedagogy to others. All

who are called to labor at this noble task should ponder carefully the

implications of an important text like the Preface to the Vatican Grad-

ual (), which follows.

An Explanation of the Vatican Edition of the Roman Chant

Holy Mother Church has received from God the task of building up

the souls of the faithful in all holiness, and for this noble purpose she has always and most profitably used the sacred Liturgy. To avoid divisive differences, and to foster instead the unbroken unity which is a source

of both strength and beauty for the Mystical Body of Christ, the

Church tries very carefully to preserve the traditions of the ancients. If in the course of time these traditions have been forgotten, she continually attempts to rediscover them zealously and restore them effectively.

Among all the things which are closely connected with the Church’s

worship, and which penetrate it in such a way as to add splendor and

efficacy, the sacred chant takes the first place. Common experience has

shown that it not only adds a certain grandeur to divine worship, but

also attracts souls heavenwards in a most wonderful way. Hence the

Church, in every age, has recommended the use of this chant, and has

taken the greatest pains to see that it lose none of its age-old dignity.

To achieve its purpose, the chant to be used in worship must possess

qualities which make it uniquely sacred and beneficial to souls. First and most important, it must possess a religious seriousness. Second, it must be able to draw the understanding of the Christian soul gently toward

the truth. Third, it must be universal, in the sense that it fulfills the needs of every race, every country, and every age. Last, it must combine simplicity with the perfection of art.

These qualities are nowhere better exemplified than in the Gregorian

chant, “the proper chant of the Roman church, the only chant which

she has inherited from the ancient Fathers, which she has jealously kept for so many centuries in her liturgical books, which she offers to the

faithful as her own music, and which she insists on being used exclusive-ly in some parts of her liturgy” ( Motu Proprio, November , , no. ).

In the course of time the purity of Gregorian chant, as a matter of

fact, did suffer great harm. This happened principally because the cor-

INTRODUCTION xxi

rect rules of chant, received from the tradition of the ancients, were either carelessly overlooked or completely forgotten. Accordingly, we

have lost sight of what we call the “liturgical spirit,” or the “spirit of prayer,” and the style and spirit of sacred music, if not completely ex-tinct, is nearly so.

The Holy Father, Pope Pius X, imitating the efforts of his predeces-

sors in this matter, took measures, by laws and decrees, to prevent fur-

ther damage to the chant. Any reform must needs begin with princi-

ples, and the principles upon which the song of the Church is based,

and by which it is governed, were clearly and concisely indicated by the Holy Father in his Motu Proprio of November , . He also collected the Church’s chief decrees against the various abuses which through

the years had made inroads upon the chant. There followed on January

, , a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites which urged, even

more clearly, the restoration of Gregorian chant.

The Roman church and the others which follow her rite had to pre-

pare books containing the authentic melodies of Gregorian chant. Pope

Pius X very clearly foresaw this need, for in his Motu Proprio of April ,

 he declared: “The Gregorian melodies are to be restored in their

completeness and true nature, according to the testimony of the more

ancient manuscripts, taking into consideration not only the legitimate

tradition of intervening centuries, but also the common practices of

present-day liturgy.”

Observing these rules and laws, the men who undertook the work of

the restoration at the Pope’s bidding began their paleographic research

with a diligent and careful examination of the ancient manuscripts.

This was a very wise choice, for these documents are valuable not only

because of their age (which approaches that of the very beginnings of

Gregorian chant), but especially because they were written during the

years when chant itself was most vigorously flourishing. Although an

earlier date and widespread use among the ancients might make a par-

ticular melody worthy of inclusion in a new edition, the factor which

actually determines such inclusion must be the accuracy with which it

expresses religious art and the strength of liturgical prayer.

Therefore when dealing with the manuscripts one must always re-

member this: the fact that a manuscript might be older does not mean it

must be accepted by reason of its age alone. The restoration of the

Church’s song must not be based on paleography alone, but also must

xxii INTRODUCTION

take into account history, the art of music (and especially chant), and

experience in the laws of the sacred liturgy. Otherwise, even though it

might be archaeologically correct, it might lack consistency, or offend

against Catholic tradition by preventing certain periods from contribut-

ing to the heritage of the Church that which is good or even excellent.

No one can possibly limit what we call the Gregorian tradition to a fixed period of time, for it includes all the ages which have cultivated Gregorian chant with more or less zeal and success. As the Holy Father says in the above-mentioned Motu Proprio, “the Church has always recognized and encouraged all progress in the arts, and has always admitted to the

service of her functions whatever is good and beautiful in their development during different centuries, as long as they do not offend against

the laws of the liturgy.”

In conformity with these wise counsels of the Holy Father the pres-

ent work of editing has been completed.

However, the Church leaves qualified men at liberty to determine

the age and type of any particular Gregorian melody, and to judge its

workmanship. One right she reserves to herself, namely, to give and

prescribe to bishops and faithful alike the text of the sacred chant,

which, carefully restored according to the manuscript tradition, brings a fitting splendor to divine worship and edification to souls.

[Dom Eugène Cardine gave the following musicological testament at

the third international conference of the Associazione Internazionale

Studi di Canto Gregoriano, which took place in Luxembourg in June,

. It is printed here with permission of Solesmes abbey and Gregoriana, where it appeared in the issue of July  (No.). The translation from the French by Virginia A. Schubert originally appeared in Sacred Music / (Winter ) /.]

The Limits of Semiology in Gregorian Chant

This is my last will and testament.

If we consider as the subject of semiology all research which, begin-

ning with the oldest and most differentiated neumatic signs, allows us

to discover the truth about Gregorian chant, it is necessary to recognize as authentic semiologists certain Gregorian scholars who worked

courageously along these lines for more than a century.

In an interesting article, Professor Hans Lonnendonker had the hap-

INTRODUCTION xxiii

py idea of stressing the links between several German specialists, as a

result of the work of Michael Hermesdorff, organist at the Cathedral of

Trier.

In Italy the outstanding personality was without a doubt the canon

of Lucca, Raffaello Baralli. More or less quickly, everyone made contact with the monks of Solesmes, who began their research under the energetic leadership of the founder of the abbey, Dom Prosper Guéranger.

Along with the two successive heads of the paleographic workshop

of Solesmes, let us name those whose work is of special interest to us

here: working with Dom Joseph Pothier was Dom Raphael Andoyer,

and with Dom André Mocquereau, two monks whom I was fortunate

enough to know at the end of their long careers: Dom Gabriel Bessac

and Dom Armand Ménager. Our gratitude and faithful prayers go to

these pioneers in the restoration of Gregorian chant and to all the oth-

ers who preceded us and whose names I would not be able to mention.

Their work constitutes the point of departure for research which

was greatly developed later. In , my associate Dom Jacques Hourli-

er recognized the “intermediary science” which was introduced little by

little between Gregorian paleography, a discipline where he himself ex-

celled, and aesthetics, where Dom Gajard preferred being placed. In

, Dom Guy Sixdenier proposed to call this new science semiology, a

name that was immediately accepted.

Even before being called to Rome in January , and to a much

greater extent in the years that followed, by profession and by vocation, I dedicated myself to the study of neumes, by following the path laid

out by Dom Mocquereau, a path which always left me in awe. I believed

in it from my first reading of his work, and I still believe in it today!

In the scholarly introduction to his Paléographie musicale (p. ), Dom Mocquereau presented the first manuscripts with notation in Gregorian

chant in this way: “They are not the ancient masters whose teachings

we would like to hear, but the translation into writing of what those

masters taught and executed; and from there, for those who know how

to read and understand this writing, there is a most perfect expression

of ‘liturgical cantilena.’ Let us emphasize here the phrase “for those

who know how to read and understand this writing.” This is exactly

what semiology consists of: to learn to read in order to understand

what Gregorian chant is.

Happily, I was joined in this search by Dom Luigi Agustoni who edit-

xxiv INTRODUCTION

ed and published the results of the first research. A little later a courageous cohort of students presented themselves. They agreed to work

on subjects that were sometimes very dry, but their efforts usually re-

sulted in significant research papers and doctoral dissertations. That

precious collaboration enlarged the field of knowledge and assured its

solidity.

At the same time and in a parallel fashion, a collection of outlines

and notes was prepared for the classes at the Pontificio Istituto di Musi-ca Sacra. Along with answers to questions and critiques of readings,

these were carefully assembled in great detail by Dom Godehard Jop-

pich and Dom Rupert Fischer into an organized course. This work was

called Semiologia gregoriana, and was soon translated into French, Japan-ese, English, Spanish and German.

This was the second layer of semiological progress. It presented in

many languages the ensemble of work accomplished over some twenty

years. The written symbols of various schools of notation still gravitat-ed to signs associated with St. Gall, but they were at the point of de-

taching themselves and reclaiming their independence. This does not

mean that comparative semiology, which studies the differences and

similarities of various schools, will not always be of the greatest interest and will not be able to develop indefinitely. To all of those who helped me in this second period, I send my warmest and most cordial gratitude.

Even before the end of this second period, when it still bore the

promise of rich fruits, a third period had already begun. We had hardly

explained the meaning of each of the neumes in a quick fashion, when

a new group of questions was already raised by the scholars: for what

use were “particular” signs designated? I mean here signs whose design

reveals a choice made among forms which were more or less the same.

Thus one moved from the meaning of the sign to its conscious use.

Here is the progress made: a step was taken toward aesthetics and inter-

pretation. In the Festschrift previously referred to (pp. –), Dom Godehard Joppich gave good examples of the bivirga placed at the end

of a word. Similarly, Professor Heinrich Rumphorst ( Études Grégoriennes XIX, pp. –) gave examples of two forms of the pes subbipuncti. Instead of being exhausted, the world of research extended farther and

farther.

Moreover, everything seems to favor this growth. The Associazione

INTRODUCTION xxv

Internationale Studi di Canto Gregoriano, in its tenth year, has more

than justified the happy initiative of its two founders; and the third conference currently taking place gives evidence of the zeal and compe-

tence of its members. Our secretary, so well assisted by Signora Al-

barosa, works generously in various scientific and practical areas,

especially in the publication of the Bollettino and the organization of the courses in Cremona. In addition, the entrance into official teaching and the imminent growth in this area gives us hope of equal progress in

depth. Such a balance sheet leads one to profound gratitude to those

who are working so devotedly on preparing the future. I sincerely re-

joice that there are people to carry on the work; those who are growing

up today and those whose presence we can only guess at who will carry

on tomorrow.

Thus Gregorian semiology is alive and well. It finds its roots in the

“foundation which is the least lacking,” that of the first musical nota-

tions, and it develops its branches in the most promising milieu. The

knowledge which results must bear fruit. Music is only learned in order

to be performed and heard, to become pleasure and praise.

Interpretation is necessary in this last stage of bringing the chant to

life, just as semiology is necessary to furnish the raw materials. The two must be in harmony or they will fail to reach their goal. If semiology is not respected, the work is treated without dignity and it is deformed. It can even be betrayed. If interpretation is lacking, interest in it will be lacking also. Success rests in the union of these two necessities.

I have affirmed several times that semiology alone is not enough to

determine a performance of Gregorian chant. It seems to me correct to

say that semiology “is not a method” in the common use of the term,

but at the same time the use of this expression is sometimes interpreted too strictly. Some have used it with pleasure as if through it they were freed from a bothersome burden. “It is not a method? Then it has no

practical use; let us leave to others this scientific pastime!”

It is impossible to be more seriously mistaken! With Dom Moc-

quereau we have already seen that the study of the original neumes is

the only way to know Gregorian chant, and elsewhere we have proved

that this study is indeed worthy of the name of semiology. The conclu-

sion is evident!

Indeed, what do most of our critics want? They pretend that they are

faithful to an ideal which they have judged to be perfect once and for all xxvi INTRODUCTION

without ever having made the effort to question its value. Since for

them the musical world is a question of taste, they are fully satisfied

with the comfortable habits they have acquired and enriched with so

many memories of people, circumstances and places that they love. Or

on the other hand, they believe that if Gregorian chant is music, it has to be this way or that. Thus they think they are dispensed from all research into what sort of music it is. It is too easy! Therefore they cultivate, to their own liking, oppositions in tempo between phrases or

clauses in the same piece, using crescendos, accelerandos or their oppo-

sites, instead of respecting the variety of syllables and the diverse values of the notes, allowing the Gregorian chant to express its own true character.

All the proposed rhythmic systems which are more or less measured,

falter when compared with the first notations, whose obvious differ-

ences cannot be made to agree. The very notion of the neume is incon-

sistent if it is not attached to the syllables of the literary text, for the graphic signs were not conceived of as rhythmic entities. And what is

there to be said about the coupures (breaks in the neumes), which are evident everywhere in the manuscripts? Only that they are interpreted ei-

ther more rigidly or with more elasticity, depending on the various

schools of notation.

All of these, along with the additions and styles of notation which

vary depending on the region, constitute the “semiological givens” that

can neither be denied or objected to. These are the beacons of which I

have so often spoken!

If we are asked how these well documented “givens” should be ap-

plied, it is necessary to answer: “With subtlety!” And once again it is

semiology which teaches us. Here is an easy way to prove it. It comes

from a research paper presented in  to the Pontificio Istituto di Musica Sacra (No. , Sr. Maria Luigina Pelizzoni, Festschrift, p. ). Codex

 from St. Gall contains a versicularium (a book of verses for the introit and the communion), written around the year , which is entirely in

campo aperto notation. In it there are only eight examples of the virga with an episema 0 : four times on the word rex and four times on cor. It is very obvious that the intention was to emphasize these two monosyllables which have a particularly lyric meaning. This is all the more evident because these eight examples always take place in unisonic recita-

tion. However, these two monosyllables, which are sung recto tono,

INTRODUCTION xxvii

also are notated elsewhere with a simple virga /: three times on rex and five times on cor. All in all there are the following occurrences: virga with episema,  + , virga without episema  + 

There is therefore a numerical equality. But since the use of the

episema on the isolated virga is very rare in this document, it indicates the will of the author. This is in contrast with those cases when the absence of the episema can, without fearing an error, be attributed to a

lack of attention. In general, the scribe preferred the virga with episema

“when he thought about it!” Given these conditions, would it be indi-

cated to sing in a heavy fashion the words that were given the episema

and to allow those same words to pass unnoticed among the neighbor-

ing syllables when their notation is the simple virga? It would be rigorously exact and would conform to the notation, but would it conform

to an intelligent understanding of semiology?

It is possible to continue and elaborate on the conclusion. The possi-

bility that we have to analyze this rich collection of psalm verses allows us to note specifically in simple examples what we remark so often in

ornate compositions of the Gregorian repertoire. There are examples

to be found in the first pages of the recently issued volume (No. XX) of Études grégoriennes in the article “Les formules centons des Alléluias anciens.” In studying these superimposed notations, one sees here and there, next to very rare variants which are clearly opposed to one another, a certain number of imprecisions which cause us to question the at-

tention of the copyists. The ensemble is quite different from a modern

work, which is printed and checked several times to eliminate the small-

est differences. In this case however, things that are considered as small defects give a certain kind of interest rather than being a detraction. It is like a play of light and shadow which brings out the proportions of the

object admired.

Nevertheless, comparisons of this type are extremely profitable.

They help us become more intimately connected with those who wrote

the notation. If the Gregorian scholar is able to establish a serious contact with similar presentations, he will abandon little by little those aspects of his way of thinking that are too modern and will be able to ac-

quire a sensitivity and a judgment which is more adapted to the music

he wishes to bring to life again.

But then an important question is raised. Of what use are the charts

of the “values of neumatic signs” that we are daring enough to publish?

xxviii INTRODUCTION

Let us recognize first that after having created them patiently, we sometimes hesitate to use them. We do not always know where to place a

certain sign even though the value that was assigned to it originally in its context seems evident in most cases. It is the time to repeat once

again that neumes are not created to be put in a chart. If in spite of all this we do so, it is to facilitate explanations which are requested of us. A well-organized understanding of the most ordinary cases provides a

frame which can be helpful, but we must be careful not to be caught in

our own traps. Comparisons can be dangerous. The syllabic value

placed between the “diminished” and “augmented” is obvious. But one

must not add the two “values” on the left to make the equivalent of the

“value” on the right or any other similar calculation. That would cer-

tainly be false!

The hesitations I make reference to are an obvious proof of our

most perfect submission to the manuscript tradition. Indeed it would be

very simple to classify automatically in all the examples in our chart all the signs that we run across, but we do not want to give in to such facil-ity. That is why in more than one case, after having considered the relationship of values on the positive side and on the negative side, we do

not want to decide one way or the other. I remember having advised a

student to write her examples of a stropha with episema 2 across the

vertical line separating the syllabic value and the augmented value, be-

cause I could not decide, nor could she, in favor of one attribution or

the other.

All this is to say clearly that we are here treating the limits of semiology with regard to the precise determination of values. Let us under-

stand fully the meaning of this affirmation which does not negate the

basic progress in this area made in the last few years, but which forbids all automatic classification of the signs, especially of those which are rare. Progress will no doubt be made in the future, but the very nature

of a rhythm which is as free as that of Gregorian chant is associated with an elasticity and a suppleness which is opposed to rigorous precisions.

That is why we cannot accept the new Lagal edition which was in-

vented recently to help chanters, but which, I am convinced, offers more difficulties than advantages, in the theoretical as well as the practical areas. It solidifies values in a deadly way and it is especially unable to translate their variety, because their relationship one to the other is relative.

Indeed, thanks to our knowledge of the neumes, when it is under-

INTRODUCTION xxix

stood that a certain note is more important than neighboring notes, or

vice versa, it is easy to understand a certain difference, which it will be prudent to reduce rather than augment, unless there are perfectly clear

indications. But how to find a precise dimension for that note, such as

would be found in clockmaking, but not at all in Gregorian chant? A

greater problem still is how to find a printed form of the sign which can be easily measured by the eye of the chanter? It is bringing minutiae to impractical and inexact levels. I never thought of such a thing during

my half-century with neumes! The most explicit transcription of

neumes is not in any way rigid; it remains supple and human. In gener-

al, if the knowledge of plus or minus in the values of notes constitutes the essential part of semiology, the dose is determined by interpretation. On the other hand, instead of paying such scrupulous attention to

the signs of the manuscripts, some Gregorian scholars take too great a

liberty with the neumes. They clearly separate the syllabic from the

melismatic value, affirming that it is impossible to do otherwise. They

say that long series of notes cannot be sung syllable by syllable. These series must be clearly heard to be understood.

Let us recognize that examples performed by a virtuoso soloist may

be captivating because of the differences established between the slow-

ing down and the hurrying of the sounds. But the beauty of a voice is

not enough to be convincing, nor are certain similarities with Eastern

music. One cannot manage to bend the notes to these fantasies! The

most important thing is to accept this challenge: “If you think that the value of the syllable and the value of the neume can be made equal to

each other, prove it!” I willingly return the package to the sender! If a proof must be given, it is through those who attribute different values

to the same signs. When we consider a punctum equal to a punctum,

and an uncinus equal to a uncinus, proof seems unnecessary. Here we

still remain faithful to our total submission to the signs of the first manuscripts! Moreover, if there really was such opposition in the middle

ages, would it not be normal to find some trace of that opposition? We

are waiting for some evidence that would make us change our mind.

In these conditions, what advice should be given to the Gregorianist

who knows semiology at least in its broad outlines and who truly wants

to sing and have others sing? How can he make the best use of his

knowledge without running the risk of running into the reefs that we

just mentioned?

xxx INTRODUCTION

Since semiology is the entrance necessary for all knowledge of Gre-

gorian chant, semiology should be allowed to function freely without

encumbrances under the pretext that it could stifle or hinder interpretation! Indeed, if from the beginning, before even having studied the original neumes, one pronounces exclusions against a melodic reconstitu-

tion, a vocal technique, or any other musical phenomenon which would

be declared contrary to good taste, to accepted practices, to ease of execution or even to the dignity of the liturgy or of prayer, by that very

fact, one places an obstacle to the proper functioning of the semiologi-

cal science and one establishes oneself as a pretentious judge of an art which is much beyond us. It is the duty of the person interpreting to accept all the conclusions of semiology (that is certainly obvious), even

those which are surprising or seem abnormal. However, he will try to

harmonize them with his own artistic imagination, for it is impossible to imagine a performance which would be judged by the person doing it as

a contradiction or an obvious example of ugliness. It will always be possible to present objections which are historical, liturgical, or physiological, or still others which will allow for fruitful debate. The important thing is to arrive at a fundamental understanding which will permit one

to apply to concrete cases principles verified in the rest of the repertoire.

That is a true semiological type of reasoning which normally ought to

be developed and enriched, in relationship to conscientious work, re-

vised constantly and without end. This is a program which is too beauti-

ful for a single researcher, but one that an association like ours can establish and carry out.

If we have referred here exclusively to the values of notes in Gregori-

an chant, it is not to reduce the area of semiology to that rhythmical

given. It is because the variety of values constitutes a very thorny question, in which ignorance greatly harms our performances. It goes with-

out saying that nothing will be neglected with regard to the different

schools of notation. Everything must be taken into consideration as his-

torical witnesses; we would be guilty if we allowed them to be lost.

It is at this point that the interpreter comes in. He uses various semi-

ological givens in order to establish a living and harmonious whole. He

organizes and places in hierarchical order the various parts of the com-

position and in each one organizes the subdivisions and principal points, going from one to the other down to the smallest details. In this work

he will especially have to take note of breaks in the neumes (graphic

INTRODUCTION xxxi

separations), recognizing those which are cesuras and those which,

quite to the contrary, represent accents. The difference is one of size because for the most part, the accents join the preceding to the following notes, while the cesuras establish one kind of break or the other, from

the tiniest hesitation to a real pause (which nevertheless will not be

complete because the breaks are found within the neume and thus one

must not destroy its unity). This opposition in the meaning of the

breaks indicates rather well the necessity for a true interpretation. This is all the more so because between the two extremes, there are many

other breaks which are less clear and which should be treated as articu-

lations of the melody which are more or less important. The role of the

interpreter is to make a choice between the various possibilities and

how much they can be harmonized. In the last analysis it is his work to

judge and decide. Without a doubt he will be able to draw much infor-

mation from the study of contexts and from the signs used for the

neumes, but he will also and of necessity need to have taste which is

formed by his experience with Gregorian chant.

These varying talents will need to be used when it comes to the im-

mediate preparation of chanters and even more so the actual singing.

This will be the time to apply what we have analyzed previously, and

even to go beyond it, as must be the case, to create a new living synthesis. If all music begins “beyond the sign,” this is even more true of Gregorian chant. Its notation is as supple as its rhythm is free. After having pleaded for respect for the sign, we must beg Gregorianists to surpass it!

The danger that is lying in wait for us is too well known: it is to lose oneself in the details which are identified and learned with difficulty

and to forget the whole. In particular, the notes that we pay special attention to become too long. They muddy the movement and make it

heavy. Excessive attention paid to a thousand details stifles what is spontaneous and natural. One can hear a voice which is constrained by fear

and thus does not produce a good sound. In paying attention to the

analysis, will we miss the synthesis? To prevent this, we must so greatly assimilate the result of our work that we end up by forgetting technique so that the listener does not hear it either. This ideal will not be achieved from one day to the next and perhaps never completely, but

we will have to try for it as much as possible. May good sense guide us

and keep us halfway between inaccessible perfection and a routine

which is too easily satisfied with anything at all!

xxxii INTRODUCTION

Let us accept this obligation willingly because it will reward greatly

both those who look to Gregorian chant for pleasure for themselves,

their students or their listeners, and those who consider the sung liturgy as praise of God and a source of spiritual life. For all of you, I wish the abundant fruits whose taste I know, and I hope to meet you in a harmonious progression on the path to Paradise. This is my last will and testament.

Dom Eugene Cardine

,  , 

T R A N S L AT O R S ’ N O T E

The layout of this translation of Father Combe’s book differs from

that of the original French edition in several respects. Quotations of

more than two or three lines from letters, documents, and chronicle re-

ports are set as block quotations. Quotations from all foreign-language

documents are given in an English translation in the body of the text,

with the original language cited by Father Combe presented in the foot-

notes. Finally, an extensive Index of names and places is provided at the back of the volume.

Father Combe welcomed the preparation of this English translation,

and took advantage of the opportunity to make a few substantive

changes in the original text. These changes incorporate information

that was unavailable when the French edition went to press in .

This translation is intended for readers without knowledge of any of

the languages used in the original book. Those who may wish to read

the quoted correspondence in the original are urged to consult the

French original, available from L’Abbaye de Solesmes,  Sablé-sur-

Sarthe, France. For ease of reference, the numbering of footnotes used

in the original French edition has been retained in the translation.

Where possible, the English translations of letters and documents

are as published in Papal Legislation on Sacred Music by Robert F. Hay-burn, Liturgical Press, , Collegeville, MN.

We thank the Dom Mocquereau Fund and The Catholic University

of America Press for their generous support for the publication of this

book.

xxxiii

The Restoration of

Gregorian Chant

F O R E WO R D

This book is a compilation of numerous articles on the restoration of

Gregorian chant that appeared in the Études Grégoriennes (Solesmes) from  to . The matter contained in them has been divided into

two distinct parts:

Part I. The Gregorian Reform at Solesmes

The Reform of Gregorian Chant and the Chant Books at the Abbey of Solesmes, –, Dom Guéranger, Dom Jausions and Dom Pothier (original version in: Études Grégoriennes VI, , pp. –).

Part II. The Vatican Edition

The Beginnings of the Gregorian Reform of St. Pius X:

I. Dom André Mocquereau.

II. Father de Santi and Msgr. Carlo Respighi (original version in:

Études Grégoriennes VII, , pp. –);

The Gregorian Chant Restoration:

III. The Work of St. Pius X (original version in: Études Grégoriennes VIII, , pp. –), and

The Gregorian Chant Restoration (continuation): The Work of St.

Pius X (original version in Études Grégoriennes IX, , pp. –).

These articles are reprinted here essentially as they appeared in

Études Grégoriennes, resulting in some repetitions for which the author apologizes. However, some improvements have been made and additions have been inserted into the original version; in particular, certain significant documents have been quoted in their entirety. The division

of the work into two parts has been retained, although these parts are

obviously unequal in length. Chapters, paragraphs, and notes are se-

3

4 FOREWORD

quentially numbered in each part. Part II begins again at No. . Unless

otherwise indicated, the paragraph number or footnote to which the

reader is occasionally referred is located in the part where the reader

happens to be at the moment.

Three other articles, also published by the author in the Études Gré-

goriennes, are quoted on various pages throughout the book:

Bibliography of Dom André Mocquereau (original version in Études Gré-

goriennes II, , pp. –);

The Initial Publication of the “Revue Grégorienne” (original version in Études Grégoriennes V, , pp. –);

The Motu Proprio of November ,  of St. Pius X, Historical Studies (original version in Études Grégoriennes V, , pp. –); The Vatican Edition, Historical Studies (original version in Études Gré-

goriennes VIII, , pp. –).1

It is not our intention here to offer an exhaustive study. In this work, the restoration of Gregorian chant has been viewed solely from a historical perspective. The few paragraphs that have been added at the end

on the question of “rhythm” are not irrelevant—quite the contrary. The

facts they relate were critical to the final demise of the Vatican Commission.

The sources used in this report are principally to be found in the

Archives of the Abbey of Solesmes, especially rich in unpublished documents of primary importance that permit light to be shed on many

hitherto obscure or misunderstood matters. Very Reverend Father

Dom Ignace Dalle, Abbot of Saint-Wandrille, graciously placed the

archives of his monastery at our disposal, and we express our thanks to

him for this. Unfortunately, this permission was given to us as this book was going to press, so we were unable to take advantage of his gracious

offer as much as we would have liked. Whenever there is a question of

facts that are well known, we refer to studies that have already been

made about them, being content to mention briefly the testimony of

the Solesmes Archives.

To allow the reader to view the historical setting of the times clearly, we must (and here we anticipate a bit) give a concise list of the various liturgical chant books that were in use during the nineteenth century.

. Several recent studies have also mentioned the Gregorian restoration; see Appendix V.

FOREWORD 5

When Dom Guéranger restored Solesmes in , only inadequate

editions of liturgical chant were in use throughout Europe.

In France, the most widely used editions were derived from that of

Nivers. In his Graduale Romano-Monasticum, published in Paris in , Nivers, organist at Saint Sulpice, had treated the Gregorian melodies

with freedom and, more specifically, had abridged them considerably.

The Nivers Gradual was intended for monasteries. Many dioceses used this book as a basis for preparing and publishing their own chant books.

Among these diocesan editions, those of Digne and Rennes were the

best known. At the outset of the restoration of monastic life at

Solesmes, Dom Guéranger adopted the then-current edition from Di-

jon (derived from the “Nivers” book, corrected by Valfré), which, in his view, seemed the least offensive at the time. Dom Guéranger knew that

returning directly to the manuscript sources was the essential founda-

tion for a good edition, and he entrusted the task to Dom Jausions and,

most especially, to Dom Pothier.

Concurrently with the research undertaken at Solesmes, there ap-

peared various attempts at a Gregorian restoration in editions also

based on the ancient manuscripts, but their versions were arbitrarily

“corrected”: one from the Dioceses of Rheims and Cambrai of  (a

Gradual and an Antiphonal) which, though not perfect, marked an appreciable advance; one by Lambillotte of  (a Gradual and an Antiphonal), which was wildly inaccurate; and finally, one by Hermesdorff (Trier, –) which, while indicating the ancient neumes above the

staffs, did not use the traditional notation.

After , the “Medicean” edition, with origins dating back to the

seventeenth century, played an especially important role. In , Grego-ry XIII asked Palestrina and Annibale Zoilo to prepare an edition of

chant, but the project was halted due to the justified complaint of a

Spanish musician, Fernando de Las Infantas, who warned Philip II about

the situation. Fernando rightly asserted that Palestrina and Annibale

Zoilo had corrected the ancient melodies according to completely false

principles (Palestrina had been involved only with the Gradual, and even there, only with the Temporal cycle).

In , Raimondi of the Medicean Press in Rome undertook the

project once again, but the Holy See rejected it. In , however, Rai-

mondi achieved his goal and printed the famous Medicean Gradual

( Graduale .l.l. cum Cantu Pauli V, Pont. Max., jussu reformato). Neverthe-6 FOREWORD

less, it has never been demonstrated that Raimondi used Palestrina’s

work for this purpose.

The Medicean edition of  served as the basis for the Mechlin edi-

tion of  (Medicean Gradual and Antiphonal, after Venice, ), with a few attempts at correction. It was this same edition of the Gradual that Msgr. Haberl and the publisher Pustet of Ratisbon issued in ,

claiming it to be the work of Palestrina, a claim that made it an initial success. Also for the Antiphonal, they based their work on the Venetian edition of . They obtained a thirty-year privilege for the double

publication of the Gradual and the Antiphonal, as well as a virtual monopoly, given the various commendations of the work emanating from

the Holy See.

After the first decree of approbation, dated January , , the neo-

Medicean edition was in effect presented as containing the genuinum

cantum gregorianum. As time went on, other documents issued by the Holy See proclaimed the edition authentic, and recommended it to the bishops.

The Ratisbon edition was attacked on both musical and historical

grounds for the reasons noted above, and even on the grounds of jus-

tice, since the value of certain Roman decrees in its favor was hotly debated. The edition became an obstacle to the Gregorian reform that

Solesmes was striving to extend to the universal Church, and the mo-

nopoly of the Ratisbon edition seemed excessive.2 Still, it was natural

for Pustet to be tenacious in defending its position: its edition had required substantial investment and financial interests of considerable

proportions were at stake. Lastly, the issue of nationalism played a significant role in the quarrel. When the Ratisbon edition appeared in , the French had just suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Germany;

hence the French government was also to become involved in the oppo-

sition to the Pustet monopoly, which tended to favor German industry.

In , the Ratisbon privilege expired. It was not renewed. That

same year, the project of a Vatican Commission was formulated. At

first, the project failed to materialize, but it was taken up once again by

. Concerning these facts, see Dom Rafael Molitor, Die Nach-Tridentinische Choral-Reform zu Rom, Leipzig , , and , . Various documents from the Holy See regarding the Medicean edition are found in Franz X. Haberl, G. P. da Palestrina e il Graduale Romanum Officiale dell’editio medicaea, , Ratisbon, .—Amédée Gastoué, Le Graduel et l’Antiphonaire Romains, Lyon, January .

FOREWORD 7

Pius X in . However, the members of the Vatican Commission,

which was chaired by Dom Pothier—with Dom Mocquereau and the

monks of Solesmes in charge of editorial work—failed to reach an

agreement. After interminable discussions, the edition of liturgical

chant officially imposed on the entire Roman Catholic Church as the

“Vatican Edition” was the result of a compromise.

The events about to be narrated here are extremely complicated, and

the reader will not be surprised if it is sometimes difficult to follow the thread of our exposition.

We would like to express our deepest thanks to Mrs. J. B. Ward and

the Dom Mocquereau Foundation, who made publication of this book

possible.

L I S T O F P L AT E S

. Dom André Mocquereau / 

. St. Pius X / 

. The Meeting of the Vatican Commission at Appuldurcombe

(Solesmes’ first place of refuge in England), September –,  / 

Following page :

. Graduale Romanum, Ratisbon Edition (Pustet), . The Gradual

Universi; the melody is distorted. Compare to plates , , and .

. Directorium Chori (Solesmes), Rennes, Vatar, . The first book

of the Gregorian restoration. The traditional neumes were used.

. Liber Gradualis of Solesmes (Dom Pothier), Desclée, . The re-

stored Gradual Universi

. Memorandum from Dom Delatte to Leo XIII, Solesmes, , p. 

(Purpose of the Paléographie Musicale)

. Liber Gradualis, Vatican edition, Rome, . Gradual Universi:

melody and notation identical to those in plate .

. Graduale, Vatican edition with the rhythmic indications of Dom

Mocquereau, Desclée,  (the St. Gall neumes have been added by

hand above the staves). The Gradual Universi in a notation that better conveys the nuances of the manuscripts.

. Alleluia “Ostende Nobis”. An example of the melodic (and rhythmic) restoration.—This table gives only the first part of a fold-out table published by Dom Mocquereau in La tradition rythmique dans les manuscrits ( Monographies Grégoriennes IV; Desclée, ). Similarly, it gives only a small part of the manuscripts transcribed for each piece of the

repertoire.

. Antiphonale Monasticum (Solesmes), Desclée, . Response

Vidi speciosam. A Response with a considerable amount of text, from the first Vespers of the Assumption (the St. Gall neumes have been

added by hand above the staves).

8

O N E

■

The Gregorian Reform at Solesmes

I ■ D O M G U É R A N G E R ’ S R AT I O N A L E

. New Documents

More than a hundred years have passed since a young monk method-

ically began studying the elements of Gregorian chant and copying old

manuscripts, by order of Dom Guéranger. In his book entitled L’École Grégorienne de Solesmes, 1 Msgr. Rousseau established  as the year when the very first work on Gregorian chant research was undertaken

at the Abbey. This is indeed the date confirmed by the few, but valuable, authoritative testimonies that have hitherto been assembled. It will be

instructive to focus on these early stages of the Gregorian restoration at Solesmes in order to ascertain the main stages of its development and

to establish a few dates with certainty. The discovery of very important letters from Father Gontier, of Le Mans,1bis Dom Guéranger’s friend,

and other letters from Dom Jausions and Dom Pothier,2 allow us to add

some detailed information about this subject, and place the role of

Dom Guéranger, Abbot of Solesmes, in a clearer light.3

. Desclée, , p. 

bis. Rev. Augustin-Mathurin Gontier (–), Dean of Changé-lès-Le Mans, later canon of the Cathedral.

. All these letters are addressed to the same person, Rev. L. Baptiste, Choirmaster of the Minor Seminary of Saint Gaultier, Diocese of Bourges.

. On this subject, see also: Dom P. Cagin, L’œuvre de Solesmes dans la restauration du chant gré-

gorien, in Rassegna Gregoriana , col. –; Dom L. David, Dom Joseph Pothier, abbé de Saint-Wandrille et la restauration grégorienne, Saint-Wandrille ; M. Blanc, L’enseignement musical de Solesmes et la prière chrétienne, Procure générale de Musique, Paris ; E. Moneta-Caglio, Dom André Mocquereau e la restaurazione del Canto gregoriano, in Musica Sacra (Milan), , no. ff. This study gives a good overview of the whole Gregorian restoration movement in the nineteenth century.

11

12 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

. Dom Guéranger’s Principles

Comparing the manuscripts

It has become common practice to credit Dom Guéranger3bis with

the Gregorian restoration, and nothing could be more appropriate, as

we shall see. Did not, in fact, the restoration of the liturgy presume a parallel restoration of liturgical chant? In the first volume of his Institutions Liturgiques, Guéranger defined the liturgy as the “full array of symbols, of chants, and of actions through which the Church expresses her faith in God.” He considered that nothing would have been accomplished toward the restoration of the liturgy until the chant was “re-

stored to its ancient traditions.”4 In this first volume, i.e. as early as , as a first step, he posed the principle of a genuine return to the purity of the Gregorian melodies. He wrote: “Clearly we can be quite sure sometimes that—in a particular composition—we have discovered the pure

Gregorian phrase when manuscripts from several remotely separated Churches agree on the same reading.” In this regard, he also noted that the Fathers of Cîteaux, by their own admission, “had reconstructed the Antiphonal of Metz more according to theoretical assumptions than through an examination of manuscripts from various churches” (p. ). Apologies

would be due for quoting Dom Guéranger’s oft-cited remark were it

not so significant.5 Besides, insufficient attention has been given to that fact that Dom Guéranger wrote at a time when the study of Gregorian

chant was still in its early stages. Until then, only Fétis, a well-known musicologist, had called attention to the notation in campo aperto, or staffless neumes, in various articles published after , but he did not offer any explanation of their meaning, nor did he see any evidence of a tradition in them. Moreover, this passage from Dom Guéranger has

been the basis for all the research on Gregorian chant done at Solesmes

for a hundred years.

bis. Dom Prosper Guéranger, born April , , ordained October , , restored Solesmes in , made Abbot of Solesmes on November , , and died January , .

. Edition of , p. .—Vol. , , p. .—The present author is responsible for the italics in this quotation from Dom Guéranger and in those that follow.

. Lambillotte was the first to cite this in his work, as early as , Clef des Mélodies Grégoriennes, p. .

DOM GUÉ RANGER’S RATIONALE 13

The testimony of the staffless neume manuscripts

Soon thereafter, Dom Guéranger returned to the question, with re-

gard to Cistercian chant, in an article in L’Univers dated November ,

. His comments clarify his thinking on the need for a true restora-

tion of the Gregorian melody. In it we read:

.l.l. Among the various editions of notated books designated for Roman usage, from the twelfth-century manuscripts to those printed in the nineteenth century, which most clearly reflects the original reading of St. Gregory? This is one of the most important questions in liturgical archaeology, and to answer it satisfactorily, something more is needed than the discovery of the Gradual and the Antiphonal of Clairvaux in a sacristy at Bar-sur-Aube. This is true first because our encounter with these books is just a discovery—no more, no less. The chant readings at the Abbey of Clairvaux were no different from those at Cîteaux. Indeed many more books from Cîteaux, both manuscripts and published texts, are still extant. Secondly, these books themselves represent the phrasing of Gregorian chant only from the twelfth century on, thus shedding no light on the true content of Gregorian chant as we can study it in manuscripts using notation that predates the method of Guido d’Arezzo, a notation that has not yet been deciphered. I am well aware of what can be said in favor of the reading of Cîteaux.

Yet therein lies a wealth of unresolved questions, not one of which is even dreamt of by the Gregorian chant dilettanti who clutter the public press with panegyrics for a chant of which they may not have heard even a single phrase.6

These few sentences are obviously quite significant. Dom Guéranger

was well aware from the start of the problems raised by the Gregorian

restoration. Above all, he advocated a return to the earliest manuscripts, which were no longer readable and which some long continued to view

as useless.7 Following Fétis, scholars such as Danjou, Lambillotte, Nis-

ard, and Coussemaker8 tried their hand at deciphering these ancient

. (Letter) To the editor of L’Univers (quoted by M. Blanc, p. ).

. See, for example, T. Nisard, L’archéologie et le vrai chant grégorien, Lethielleux , p. .

. The main stages of this work were as follows: in Montpellier in , Danjou discovered an Antiphonal noted in neumes and in letters, and it was believed to be the type of Antiphonal sent by St. Gregory from Rome to the school at Metz. In his journal, Danjou himself gave an inaccurate description of the neumes, which he does not distinguish correctly. In , there followed the studies by Nisard on ancient musical notation in Europe, which shed no new light on neumes. That same year, Father Lambillotte believed that in Codex  of St. Gall he had found a manuscript hand-written by St. Gregory and sent to Charlemagne by Pope Adrian I. Lambillotte copied the manuscript and published it in facsimile in . At the same time, he provided a fairly accurate description of the neumes, but his interpretation of the additional signs was poor. He 14 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

manuscripts, with greater or lesser degrees of success, but their secrets were ultimately to be uncovered by two of Dom Guéranger’s students.

About , it occurred to Fétis to bring out a chant edition based

only on a single manuscript.9 When consulted about this project, the

Abbot of Solesmes reaffirmed the principle of the necessity of compar-

ing the manuscripts of various churches in order to rediscover the earliest reading. Moreover, Dom Guéranger’s response is interesting in oth-

er respects as well, and we will quote from it at some length. The Abbot of Solesmes shows that he was an informed critic and a good judge of

the value of the editions then available. He is harsh especially on the

Roman editions, but it is well known that they warranted that kind of

criticism.

Dom Guéranger wrote:

I regard the publication of Mr. Fétis’ Roman books as both an advantage

and a disadvantage.

They are a disadvantage, first, because this edition will do nothing to supersede the other divergent editions, and secondly because Mr. Fétis’ readings are always necessarily subjective and lack absolute authenticity, since his reading represents only one of the readings that he found in the manuscripts, which are not always in agreement with each other.

His books are an advantage, because Mr. Fétis has studied Gregorian chant sources more than anyone else in the world and because his work, whatever it may be, necessarily carries great authority. He works in the manner of an editor of classical texts, as one who chooses a reading from among variants. The more texts he has seen, provided that he is a man of discernment, the more weight can be given to his edition, yet the final reading fails to be completely reassuring.

Basically, I prefer his edition a thousand times over those of the Roman books. I did not mention this unfortunate situation in the Institutions, because at the time, I did not have the sources. At the end of the sixteenth century, the was mistaken about the plainchant rhythm he was looking for, and transformed the Gregorian melodies into a measured and heavily accented chant. In , Coussemaker, followed by Dom Schubiger, found the true origin of the neumes, which he derived from grammatical accents.

But, like Raillard, who provided another explanation of neumes in , Coussemaker erred with regard to the rhythmic value of the neumes, basing them on measure, and seeking variations in the duration of the notes in the neumes (see Boyer d’Agen, Introduction aux Mélodies Gré-

goriennes, , pp. ff.

. Fétis had thus opened the way for a “return to the sources”; after him, Danjou and Lambillotte unfortunately went off on the wrong track, looking for a hypothetical Antiphonal of St.

Gregory.

DOM GUÉ RANGER’S RATIONALE 15

Gregorian chants were corrupted at Rome in the process of shortening them.

Strangely enough, the Roman chant books used here in France, despite their many alterations and faults, reflect a thousand times better the readings of the ancient manuscripts than do the books used in Rome, in Italy, and throughout practically the whole world. These unreliable Roman editions of the sixteenth century are found everywhere except in France.10

There is no need for additional quotations. These suffice to show

Dom Guéranger’s rationale, from the very first years of his liturgical

work. In fact, each time the occasion warranted, the Abbot of Solesmes

touched upon the Gregorian question. Not only did he underscore the

contemplative and artistic value of the chant in a romantic way, in keeping with the style of his era, but he also traced its development and

transformation down through the centuries. Here, for example, is how

he assailed the melodies that were associated with the new liturgies of

the seventeenth century:

New texts called for a new chant.l.l.l. That task was addressed and a host of compositions was born, masterpieces of boredom, incompetence, and bad

taste.l.l.l. Father Lebœuf, a learned compiler, was asked to notate the Paris Antiphonal and Gradual. After spending ten years placing notes on lines and lines beneath the notes, he presented to the clergy of Paris a compositional mon-strosity, almost all of whose compositions are as tiring to perform as they are to hear. God wanted to make it understood in this way that there are some things that simply should not be imitated, because they should never be changed.11

Dom Guéranger reforms the chant at Solesmes.

Everyone knows that the poor editions were deplorable, as was the

widespread custom of beating time in order to give the chant some sort

of measure that would make it seem more like “music”. The Abbot of

Solesmes did not hesitate to see “the work of the devil” in this heavily accented, measured chant, which deprived liturgical prayer of all religious character.12 He judged the return to the authentic interpretation

of the Gregorian melodies as important as the return to the original

melody. He even said, and rightly so, that it will serve nothing to have good editions of the chant if this bad habit is not corrected, and that he

. Dom Guéranger to Mr. Guignard, August , .

. Mélanges de liturgie, d’histoire et de théologie I, p. .

. Gontier to Cloët, June , .

16 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

would rather make use of a faulty edition, but interpreted according to

the traditional rules.13 From the outset, moreover, in his monastery

where poor editions were nonetheless used, Dom Guéranger managed to

give the Gregorian melodies an accent, a rhythm of which the great majority seemed ignorant. 14 He thus transformed every aspect of the liturgical chant thanks to a relaxed and natural pace, which restored its artistic

beauty and value as prayer. This style of chant, basically the free rhythm of prose speech, elated Gontier. It was, in fact, a real revolution, for the true rhythm of the liturgical chant was universally misunderstood at

the time, and seemed irrevocably lost. Another witness said, “Dom

Guéranger brought to the liturgical functions a warmth and enthusiasm

that radiated forth in his sung prayer, with perfect diction and a very

supple voice.”15 It is well known that he saw to it that his sons brought the greatest care to the preparation of the chant for the Divine Offices.

From the outset, Dom Guéranger’s intent was to restore Gregorian

chant so that it might become once again the sung prayer of the

Church, and in order to do this, to return to the sources, the most an-

cient chant manuscripts, and by comparing them, to rediscover the au-

thentic melodies, and to rediscover likewise their traditional interpretation. Although this intent was not set forth in the works dealing with

Gregorian chant ex professo, it was nonetheless succinctly and accurately expressed, and showed the way for all future work. In addition, this intent was already being tested in the chant sung at the Abbey headed by

Dom Guéranger, who was to set in motion the movement to restore

the Gregorian melodies. In fact, the daily use of liturgical chant enabled Dom Guéranger to perceive its beauty, to understand its true interpretation and its authentic content.

With such clear concepts as a basis for the true restoration of Grego-

rian chant, why did Dom Guéranger not apply himself to the task of re-

forming the chant books? Doubtless, he was waiting to have available to

him men who were musically and scientifically competent, since it was

a matter of undertaking a work that required both talent and a wide

range of knowledge. Dom Fonteinne, Dom Guéranger’s precentor,

showed considerable musical talent, for he left some beautiful Gregori-

. Dom Guéranger, Approbation of Gontier’s Méthode raisonnée de plain-chant, Le Mans , p. IX.

. Dom J. Pothier, Les Mélodies Grégoriennes d’après la tradition, Desclée , p. .

. Dom David, Dom Joseph Pothier, p. .

DOM GUÉ RANGER’S RATIONALE 17

an compositions that continue to be sung. These have been included in

the monastic Antiphonal and even in the Vatican Gradual, such as his Sta-bat mater. However, doubtless his material concerns—he was cellarer (i.e. steward) of the monastery—did not permit him to apply himself to

a task that required a great deal of time. Possibly, too, he was not at-

tracted to this type of study.15bis

. The Chant Books of the Old Solesmes

It is quite relevant to ask what chant books were in use at Solesmes

at that time. Dom David pointed out that in the beginning there were

no common books, and that various editions were used.16 They had to

get along the best they could with what was available. But this situation lasted only a short while, because a note from Dom Guéranger indicates clearly that, as early as , he bargained for the purchase of choir books (four Graduals, four Antiphonals, eight Processionals) recently

published in Dijon and modeled after the Roman edition of Valfré.17

These books, published in  and , were far from presenting the

liturgical chant in all its purity, but Dom Guéranger regarded them, in

good conscience it seemed to him, as the “least offensive.”18 Because

Solesmes followed the Roman rite at that time, these books could

bis. Reference has just been made to the chant of Dom Fonteinne. Here is what Dom Savaton said of it (L’Église de Solesmes, unpublished notes, p. ): “What ascended beneath our vaults at that time, directed by Dom Fonteinne, who was quite proud of his voice, his office, and his ba-ton, wielded with gloved hand, went at times all too well, according to Dom Gardereau’s testimony in . This same person—then still a novice—wanted his Prior to bring back some good chant books from Rome, of the pure Roman style such as he had heard at Vitré, where the chant, especially for the hymns, was not disfigured by measures and cadences that made three-fourths of the melodies heavy and dull. ‘I am taking an increasing dislike to the system of notation used in our Antiphonal—as well as in our Passions and Jeremiads “correctae et concinnatae” by Nivers in Paris. You may say that my reasoning in this matter is like that of a blind man concerning colors; be that as it may, I am nonetheless certain that there is a truth that corresponds to what I feel in my inmost soul.l.l.l.’ (March ). In Rome, Dom Guéranger responded, ‘Gregorian chant is forgotten, mutilated, changed, altered, with no regard for taste and the religion of antiquity; no one is protesting, all are asleep’” (May ).

. Comment les mélodies grégoriennes ont été retrouvées, in Rassegna Gregoriana , col. –.

. “In , Dom Guéranger purchased ‘choir books’ from Berlin-Mandar: four Graduals (recent Dijon edition after the Roman edition by Valfré), four Antiphonaries as loose sheets bound together, eight Processionals, a bound Missal, all for  f ” (Dom Savaton, L’Église de Solesmes, p.

). . Dom Guéranger’s letter to Mr. Guignard, August , .

18 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

suffice, very likely with some manuscript supplements for the responso-

rial and for feasts of the Order which were celebrated according to the

monastic rite starting in .19

In , however, the problem of books became critical at Solesmes,

where at last the complete monastic rite could be adopted. “The scarci-

ty of old breviaries,” writes Dom Delatte, “had prevented the adoption

of the full monastic rite.” Since the Benedictine nuns at the Calvaire in Angers had collected a sufficient number of copies for the Abbey of

Solesmes, it was on the feast of Christmas  that the psalter and

office, which Paul V had established in  for the religious of St. Benedict, were used once again.20 Nevertheless, the Dijon books were still

kept, doubtless for financial reasons, but also because good editions of monastic chant did not exist, and it seems that Dom Guéranger was already dreaming of making his own edition. This explains why he did

not adopt the  Gradual of Rheims and Cambrai. Though this publication marked notable progress over previous editions, it did not entire-ly satisfy him. Corrected on the basis of a priori and false principles, this edition did not present the traditional grouping of the notes. Instead, it perpetuated the arrangement of the notes as an irregular succession of

longs and shorts, all of which rendered the edition even more deficient, from the rhythmic point of view.21

Since the Benedictine order followed the Roman missal for the Mass,

this Gradual did not pose any great practical problem. It was quite another matter with the Antiphonal, because the structure of the monastic Office differs from that of the Roman Office; the distribution of the

Psalter is yet another matter. Nevertheless, the monks were content to

correct the Roman Antiphonal of Dijon, and to supplement it with manuscript inserts, as can be seen from the copies in the Abbey’s library.

Starting in , the year in which the monastic rite was adopted,

Dom Guéranger set to work preparing the Proper for his monastery.

Dom Delatte wrote: “On March , , he addressed a request to Pope

Pius IX to obtain his approval. This was granted in , on the occasion of a voyage to Rome.”22 The Proper cycle, the chant for which was

. Dom Savaton, L’Église de Solesmes, p. .

. Dom Guéranger Abbé de Solesmes, Paris, Plon , vol. I, p. . Our first edition of the Bre-viary was printed by Château-Gontier in .

. Gontier also judged it harshly (letters of February , , and October , ). Cf. A.

Duclos, Sa Sainteté Pie X et la musique religieuse, Desclée , p. .

. Dom Delatte, Dom Guéranger. l.l.l.l, vol. , pp. –.

DOM GUÉ RANGER’S RATIONALE 19

composed by Dom Fonteinne, a few ancient and very beautiful compo-

sitions excepted, was first sung on June , , the feast of St. Pothin.23

Even for this Proper, the monks felt that they had to be satisfied with

improvised solutions. At first, manuscript booklets were used. Later,

duplicated notebooks were used in which all the supplements needed

for chanting the monastic Office were included: Invitatories, Hymns,

Responses, Graduals, and Processional Antiphons. It may be said that

this Supplementum ad Graduale et Antiphonarium was Solesmes’ first publication. The musical text was written in large whole notes (the manu-

script notebooks still used diamond-shaped notes) and included some

beautiful compositions by Dom Fonteinne.24

It should be noted that in , Solesmes published a monastic Cere-

monial. 25 This publication contained very few chants, and almost all of the Mandatum antiphons from the Dijon Gradual. From the point of view of melody, the only changes to be noted concerned the musical

notation, consisting particularly in the elimination of the bar lines. The effect of this was to render the chant more alive and better phrased.

One can also point to a greater number of stemmed virgas, together with some diamond-shaped notes. But there is no way of knowing how

these details were then interpreted, since chant at the Abbey already

had its own special style, as mentioned above.

. Dom Guéranger’s Hesitations

Given the paucity of choir books in use at Solesmes after , it

might be supposed that Dom Guéranger was already seriously planning

an edition of these books, one that would conform to the traditional

principles he had posited.

However, before making contact with the original framers of the

Gregorian restoration at Solesmes, it is necessary to go back in time and to mention a circumstance which, in , was not unrelated to the resolution which the Abbot of Solesmes was about to make. Turning back

will also allow us to follow the progression of his intent more clearly.

. Chronicle of Dom Bérengier, June , .

. Dom Gajard, L’Art Grégorien, in Maria (du Manoir), vol. .

. Cérémonial pour la vêture et la profession des Bénédictins de la Congrégation de France, Rennes, Vatar, .

20 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

The need for books was not felt at the Abbey alone. The dioceses

needed them as well. As noted above, the Dioceses of Dijon, Rheims,

and Cambrai had published new editions. A few other dioceses did the

same.26 The Diocese of Le Mans also had its own Commission editing

its own liturgical chant books, and Dom Guéranger was involved in it.

His advice, moreover, was considered crucial.

On August , , the Abbot of Solesmes noted for the first time in

his Journal that he was going to Le Mans “at the invitation of the bishop to take part in the Commission established to prepare the return to Gregorian chant.”27 The minutes of the Commission28 mention Dom

Guéranger twice. It was on Dom Guéranger’s advice, according to the

minutes, that the Commission rejected all the editions that reproduced

the reformed chant of Nivers:

All the true friends of religious chant, in particular Reverend Father Dom Guéranger, Abbot of Solesmes, have risen against this pretended restoration, which is nothing more than a total destruction of this beautiful chant so long honored in the Church.

Dom Guéranger’s well-justified severity toward the new liturgical chant

compositions is well known, and comes as no surprise. Somewhat more

surprising is the advice he gave to the Commission (advice he would re-

peat in his approval of Gontier’s Method), to curtail certain repetitions of an identical phrase in the chant. To be sure, the context indicates that there is no question that this meant suppressing what was essential to

the melodic line, for, as has been noted, Dom Guéranger was strongly

opposed to such alterations. He referred, rather, to what he felt were

repetitions added after the Golden Age of Gregorian chant.29 Even in

this form, however, this was a regrettable concession to the fixed prac-

tice of the time, and one that the additions of the thirteenth century did not merit.

It is not irrelevant to point out again, in this regard, that at about this

. The numerous chant methods that saw the light of day at this time gave witness to the growing interest in liturgical chant.

. He went there again for the same reason, twice in , twice in , and one last time in

.. T. Nisard, De la réforme du chant grégorien dans le diocèse du Mans, Rennes , p. . Cf. M.

Blanc, L’enseignement musical de Solesmes, p. .

. Letter to Mr. Guignard, quoted above, dated August , .— Programme de la commission .l.l. du Mans, see M. Blanc, L’enseignement musical de Solesmes, p. .

DOM GUÉ RANGER’S RATIONALE 21

time, Dom Guéranger also felt obliged to follow the available editions,

notably those of Rheims and Cambrai, with regard to another matter. A

note written by Dom Guéranger in about  (so dated because it men-

tions a book published that year) provided the following information

about Dom Guéranger’s intent at that time:

A comparison of all the manuscripts of the Middle Ages with the Gothic editions of plainchant leads us to the conclusion that in earlier times there was no concern at all for short syllables in ecclesiastical chant, and that there was no problem whatsoever about elaborating them with several notes, often a great number. A fortunate change, which has the force of law today, has modified this usage of the weak penultimates, and it would be a barbarous archaism to adopt this ancient custom in our time. However, when it is a question of short syllables that are not penultimate, there should be no difficulty in treating them in the same way as the syllables that are not short. We set great store here by Father Petit’s book.30 What he says with regard to the ancients is based on facts, and it follows that there is a reform to be made if we are to enter into the Gregorian tradition. The only possible concession to modern ears is that of the penultimate, in the sense that I expressed at the beginning, and this concession is not contrary to the practice of true antiquity.

With regard to these two comments on Dom Guéranger’s intent, let

us say right away that we must not be too surprised that the Abbot of

Solesmes did not immediately understand all that had to be done to

achieve the full restoration of the Gregorian melodies, and that these

hesitations quickly disappeared when, at his instruction, the ancient

chant manuscripts were studied directly at his monastery. In the end,

the clear and sure principles that he himself put forward were to prevail over this trial and error method. Soon, having studied and understood

the Gregorian chants better, he offered this excuse for once having

thought of shortening them: “I was unaware of all the musical riches

contained in our liturgy.”31 As we will see later, Dom Guéranger aban-

doned his views regarding weak penultimate syllables just as readily.32

. Dissertation sur la Psalmodie et les autres parties du chant dans leurs rapports avec l’accentuation latine, Paris .

. Letter from Gontier to Cloët, October , .

. Letter from Gontier dated October , , Cf. infra, No. .

22 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

. Dom Guéranger’s Authority

It remains to be noted here that matters pertaining to Gregorian

chant were beginning to be directed toward the Abbot of Solesmes. In

, as we saw above, Dom Guéranger was consulted on the matter of

the issuance of the chant books of Fétis. In , Tesson had also sought his advice regarding the publication of the Vesperal (letter of Tesson, August ). He consulted Dom Guéranger once more, in view of the

Commission of which he was a member, and which was to publish the

Rheims/Cambrai edition. That same year, Nisard came to consult with

Dom Guéranger, whose concern, he said, gave him courage. A while

later, Nisard sent Dom Guéranger an article on ancient notations, and

asked him to support a request with Mr. de Falloux for a grant for a scientific mission to Montpellier and St. Gall, in view of the publication of the manuscript discovered by Danjou in . Dom Guéranger’s response leads us to believe that Danjou had also been in touch with him.

In , as we have seen, Dom Guéranger was invited to take part in the

Commission of Le Mans. In , Lambillotte came to inform him of

the Roman Antiphonal and Gradual project. Finally, in Rome in , Dom Alfieri spoke to him, too, regarding his Gregorian chant publishing project.33

As we have seen, the most eminent names in religious music of that

era were among those who consulted with the Abbot of Solesmes. Un-

doubtedly, this was so because of his authority in matters of liturgy. We can also state that this was because of the renewal he had given to Gregorian chant in his own monastery, and because of the principles he had

already articulated in his publications.

. Everyone knew that Dom Guéranger criticized Lambillotte’s chant for being “heavily accented and measured.” He was no less critical of the Mechlin edition (cf. No. ), which Dom Alfieri wanted to reproduce, because it was merely a copy of the Medicean edition. Cf. E. Moneta-Caglio, Dom André Mocquereau, , p. .

II ■ P E R I O D O F P R E PA R AT I O N

. Dom Paul Jausions

We have arrived at the year , and find a young monk studying

Gregorian chant under Dom Guéranger’s direction at Solesmes. He was

a young cleric from the Diocese of Rennes named Paul Jausions,33bis

who had requested permission to enter the novitiate on October ,

. The Abbot of Solesmes observed the young monk’s love of the

liturgy and his great capacity for work. Some family correspondence of

the young novice reveals that even before his entrance into the novi-

tiate, he had been deeply interested in liturgical chant. He had a posi-

tion in his parish choir, and had made an in-depth study of the elements of plainchant. He had also written a brief method to improve its performance.34

It is no wonder that Dom Guéranger, far from opposing the favor-

able disposition of his novice, set about to cultivate it from the outset.

Herein lies the first sign, faint though it may be, but significant nonetheless, dating back to . From Rome, where he was attending Holy

Week ceremonies, Dom Guéranger shared his impressions of the chant

with Frère Jausions, and seemed to allude to the research that they had

done together.

bis. Dom Paul Jausions, born November , , professed September , , died in Vincennes (USA), September , .

. Here is what someone in his family wrote to him: “.l.l. I think of all the good advice you gave me .l.l. Parenthetically, I shall tell you that you will be missed this morning at the poor lectern of St. Jacut” (August , ).—“As to plainchant, the religious nuns at Miséricorde are making a special study of it, so your little method will be very useful to me” (November ,

).

23

24 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

I thought of you often these days, during the singing of the chant here in the papal chapel. They give the chant “affelonement” (an expression in the region around Le Mans, meaning “to do something with real enthusiasm”), let me tell you.l.l.l. There is nothing else like it in the world, except perhaps .l.l. at St.

Pierre de Solesmes, which filled my thoughts at all times throughout all this pomp and ceremony. Oh, when shall we resume our research in the old books?

It is not until early  that we find more specific evidence of Dom

Jausions’ activity in Gregorian chant (he was professed on September

, , and was ordained a priest on December , ). That evi-

dence is provided in a letter from Gontier to Dom Guéranger, dated

March , , in which Gontier asked the advice of the Abbot of

Solesmes on various chapters of a chant Method that he was preparing.

He wrote, “I give you leave, as a master, to trim and to cut as you wish, and it is for this reason that I have sent you these chapters before going to press.” Dom Guéranger had already brought the matter to the attention of Dom Jausions, who had prepared his comments. This leads us to

believe that Dom Guéranger had given him an obedience in this matter,

and that Dom Jausions was already at work on it. Gontier replied, “You

thought that I would not reply to Father Jausions, yet I am very grateful for his comments, and shall take note of them.” Then, after briefly recalling his basic position regarding the performance of plainchant, he

added,

If I were to adopt Father Jausions’ ideas on the fixed and proportional value of the notes, my booklet would have no reason for being. I have only one purpose, to combat the musical notation and the scandalous edition of Lambillotte. I shall always maintain that there is no middle ground between prose and poetry, between meter and recitation, between fixed and proportional values and the elastic character of the reciting note.

Surely, the process of trial and error adopted by Dom Jausions is not

surprising. In expressing his thought, he did not initially manage to

avoid using the prevailing terminology, although in the performance of

chant, he was in perfect accord with Gontier, as we shall see.

. The Labors of Dom Jausions—The Wilton Processional

It is likely that Dom Jausions began by studying the ancient writers,

as the nature of his work practically demanded. Moreover, Dom Moc-

PERIOD OF PREPARATION 25

quereau noted that Dom Jausions made constant reference to these an-

cient writers,35 and Dom Guépin, one of the older monks at Solesmes,

substantiated Dom Mocquereau’s position in an article on Dom Jau-

sions published just after his death: “Dom Jausions devoted himself

with rare perseverance to the study of the problems raised by the histo-

ry and performance of Gregorian chant.”36 Dom Jausions certainly

studied the ancient authors along with Gontier, who often quotes them

in his Method and who worked with the Abbey’s copies.37

It was at this time, as well, that Dom Jausions began to copy the old

manuscripts, at the request of Dom Guéranger, and thus founded the

Gregorian scriptorium at Solesmes, which Dom Mocquereau was later

to expand considerably. We have several of Dom Jausions’ copies in our

archives. The very first, in fact, seems to date from , if not earlier. It is a copy of the English processional of St. Edith of Wilton, th–th

century, which, in the early days of Solesmes, was called the Rollington Processional. From Dom Guéranger’s letters to Dom Jausions sometime later,38 we have proof that this was the first manuscript to be copied at Solesmes.

We know of another phase of Dom Jausions’ involvement in Grego-

rian matters. As it happens, an old chronicle of Solesmes tells us, quite fortuitously, that in , Dom Jausions gave ideas to a monk from Belmont that were “very precise on chant and psalmody,” and that another

monk from Belmont, known in the Gregorian chant circles of the era, a

certain J. Lambert, also responsible for the chant at Belmont,39 met with

. Paléographie Musicale, v. XI, p. .

. Obituary notice published in the Semaine religieuse du diocèse de Rennes, no. , September

, , pp. ff.

. In fact, Gontier borrowed the Abbey’s copies of Gerbert’s Scriptores (cf. the letter of August , , for example). These books were entered into the records of the Solesmes library in

, although they may well have arrived long before that.

. This letter, dated April , , is addressed from Solesmes to Dom Jausions, then in Angers, where he was beginning to copy a missal in pure neumes, manuscript  (), on location at the city library, as we shall see later. Dom Guéranger wrote, “I admire how you copy all of this. The Processional has shaped your writing hand.” It can be supposed that the Processional, if it came from England, was brought to Solesmes by Father Shepherd, monk of Belmont, a regular guest of the monastery, or two others from England who came to Solesmes during the summer of , and who shall be discussed later. It is unlikely that the book was brought from England by Dom Guéranger himself at the time of a trip he made there in , although he had seen there several manuscripts in the possession of J. Lambert, one of the two English visitors mentioned above.

. Dom B. Whelan, The History of Belmont Abbey, Bloomsbury , pp. –.

26 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

Dom Guéranger and Dom Jausions. Nor did Dom Jausions’ lessons fail

to yield some good. Dom Guéranger made good use of the experience

the following year from where he happened to be, i.e. at Belmont

Abbey. Here is what he wrote to Dom Jausions from across the English

Channel, where he had gone in :

Mr. Lambert remembers you with affection, as does Father Sweney who al-

ways thinks of himself as one of your disciples. I can tell you that he benefited greatly and that he is master of the place. The chant is well sung at Belmont, but they use that worthless Mechlin edition, against which I have often spoken and which I hope to have changed. (September , )

Another testimony comes to us from Dom Givelet, one of the singers

in the Abbey schola, who expressed himself as follows about Dom Jau-

sions in a letter to Dom Guéranger during the latter’s stay in England:

I continue to see Dom Jausions about the chant; from him I am also learning theory, which has always been a weakness of mine and has often been a source of embarrassment to me in actual performance. (September , )

These two accounts agree perfectly with that of another contemporary

who affirmed that “Dom Jausions’ value to Solesmes was in reforming

the liturgical readings by the strict application of the tonic accent.”40

Thus from  on, Dom Jausions was giving lectures on chant to his

brother monks at Solesmes and to guests at the monastery, especially

on the nature of the tonic accent and its role in the singing of Gregori-an chant. And, thanks to Dom Guéranger’s note quoted above, he was

aided in this, prior to the appearance of Gontier’s Méthode, by Father Petit’s Dissertation sur la psalmodie, published in , which was based on Latin accentuation. A copy of this work, annotated by Dom Jausions, is found in the library of the Abbey.

. Gontier’s Méthode Raisonnée ()

That very same year, , Gontier published his Méthode Raisonnée, 41

which gave the same basic axioms as those of Solesmes. Gontier had a

. Dom R. Biron, Bibliographie des Bénédictins de la Congrégation de France, par les Pères de la même Congrégation, Paris, Champion, , p. .

. Méthode raisonnée de plain-chant. Le plain-chant dans son rythme, sa tonalité et ses modes, Paris, Palme, ,  p.

PERIOD OF PREPARATION 27

close bond of friendship with Dom Guéranger for a long time, and of-

ten came to the Abbey of Solesmes; he was, then, among the first to

hear the initial Gregorian efforts of the monks. Struck by the ease, the innately religious character of the melody as he heard it at the

monastery, as we have already mentioned (No. ), he was then and

there convinced that this method was good, and that the truth was here

and not elsewhere. Dom Guéranger, moreover, encouraged him to per-

severe on this path, while he himself set about to comprehend the se-

cret of the Chant, and to deduce the principles from this performance

style which delighted him and which imbued the liturgical chant with

its inherent beauty, in spite of the melodic disfigurations to which it had been subjected over a long period of time.

Gontier defined the rhythm of plainchant as being essentially free. In

syllabic chant—and this assertion often emerges in his writing—the

rhythm of the chant resides entirely in the text, and it ought to be carried over into the melody of syllabic chant. The rhythm is then ob-

tained by observing the accent of the text and the accented note of the

melody (November ,  to L. Baptiste). All these expressions, bor-

rowed from Gontier himself, are drawn from his correspondence. Final-

ly, his personal accomplishment, as he said of himself later, was “to

have stated accurately the nature of plainchant and to have given a

philosophical reason for the inequality of the notes” (February , , to Baptiste). Gontier wrote to Dom Guéranger: “The naturalness, the

recitative, the diatonic style, assure the plainchant immutability, perpetuity; this is where its musical system lies, this is what makes it rise above fashions and revolutions” ( July , ). And again:

If we succeed in making plainchant well understood, it will be seen as the religious musical idiom of the people, a music that is not only natural and pious, but I would even say inspired. Its beauty is in its naturalness, a simplicity that excludes any art (here meaning: any artifice); it is prayer, fittingly uttered. (August

, )

So he considered his method, which derives from the most varied and

simple ideas, the method, the only reasonable one, the only one that preserves the prayerful character of the chant (February , , to

Baptiste). He justifiably passed on all credit for this resurrection of

plainchant’s traditional rhythm to Dom Guéranger, who knew that the

very essence of plainchant was in its return to its twofold natural

source, the word and the liturgy ( July , ).

28 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

There can be no doubt that Gontier’s method was the Solesmes

method. In fact, Gontier could not have been more emphatic on this

point. From August , his editing work being well advanced, he ex-

pressed the wish to confer with Dom Guéranger, “to discuss the theory

and the application of the method .l.l. I shall only be content when you have approved (it) because no one is more competent than you are”

(August , ). He pleaded with him again to give him “several hours

.l.l. to look over my work on the chant which is coming to its conclu-

sion .l.l. and makes application of a method which, moreover, is yours

and that of Solesmes” (September , ). It was stated above that he

sent his book to Dom Guéranger before it was printed so that the Abbot

might read it and correct it, and it was with special insistence that Gontier solicited from him a letter of approbation which he truly wished to have:

One must be able to perform the chant in order to understand all of this, and it is as one who performs, that you appreciate what I have done; the more you think about it, the more convinced you will be that all I did was to analyze your style at the same time I analyzed my own. ( July , , cf. July )

At that same time, Gontier appealed to Dom Guéranger again in or-

der to have his work examined and approved. Therefore, on September

, , he sent him “a rough sketch that needs your scissors and file”; and on the twenty-first of the same month, a short article, doubtless the same, “on the true notation of chant,” all the while telling him that his was to be “the final judgment.”

In place of these articles, which cannot be identified, it will suffice to point out only to give an idea of the ancient notation, that in his Méthode Raisonnée, Gontier presented a few chant compositions copied from a fifteenth-century manuscript and transcribed into modern notation,

then reproduced in photographic facsimiles, affirming that the ancient

notation clearly “surpasses the notation of our day in accuracy and ex-

pression.”42 Here are the compositions on trial before the court,” he

wrote to Dom Guéranger (August , ).

It is not surprising from this that Dom Guéranger gave his unre-

served approval of Gontier’s work. On August , , he wrote the

Preface so often requested and fervently awaited:

. Méthode, p. .

PERIOD OF PREPARATION 29

I hasten to send you my congratulations for the service you render to our churches by bringing to light the only true theory for the performance of Gregorian chant .l.l. The publication of your very insightful memorandum is a veritable boon.43

Gontier was very pleased because for approbation he knew no one

“more competent and more powerful in this matter” (August , ).

As for d’Ortigue, he was not sparing in his praises of the Méthode

Raisonnée, which then appeared under the double patronage of Solesmes and that of the famous musician.44

All that has been said up to now portraying Dom Guéranger as an in-

novator ought not diminish Gontier’s contribution. His book is, in fact, not lacking in originality, indeed far from it, for the conviction and the confidence that are found in it are surely his. He said one day to d’Ortigue: “I would gladly dedicate my life for the restoration of the true

Gregorian plainchant.”45 Gontier was a herald, and it was he who “gave

to research the precise direction toward the horizons and principles

which, in the future, were to be those of Solesmes” (Rousseau, p. ).

Nonetheless, it remains true that it was at Solesmes, near his illustri-

ous friend and in listening to the chanting of the monks, that he had the intuition of what was the true traditional Gregorian chant. That he considered himself utterly dependent on Dom Guéranger in this matter

cannot be overly emphasized. Here, for example, are the conditions on

which he submitted to him an article having to do with the true nota-

tion of plainchant mentioned above:

Have you weighed it in the balance and found it wanting? Do you propose to make it the basis of your own article? That will surely be the best thing to do; this was, I believe, your original intention. That is all I ask for. You know that I approve of all that you do, all that you decide. Please, then, take a stand and if you have not done it, accept the challenge of promulgating in France and everywhere the true notation of plainchant, which you understand so well.

(September , )

And again, with regard to another article, to be mentioned later:

. Ibid., p. VIII.

. Chapter I and the Preface of the Méthode raisonnée appeared in d’Ortigue’s review, La Maîtrise, Journal de Musique religieuse, July  (Ch. I, July , , Preface, August ), that is to say, before the publication of the book.

. La Maîtrise, July , , p. .

30 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

I have written a paper for the Paris Congress that is to take place next November .l.l. It is you who should be the final judge of it .l.l. I shall make a trip to Solesmes to have the pleasure of seeing you and of receiving from you in person counsels that will be of great value .l.l. My thesis is partly philosophical and partly practical and, from this double point of view, no one is more competent than you are to judge it. (August , )

In his letter of approval of Gontier’s book, Dom Guéranger estimat-

ed that it was of the greatest importance to have found the authentic interpretation of Gregorian chant; he even conjectured that it would be

preferable to possess only the faulty editions but to sing according to

the traditional principles, than to use St. Gregory’s own Antiphonal and then ignore the principles of the ancient chant.46 However, he also

hoped for “an edition where first of all the Gregorian melody could be

found which might have been altered but which was never lost.” Then

Gontier replied:

I implore you to make yourself responsible for a new edition. There is no one but you in France capable of causing a revolution and attracting the attention of the hierarchy. ( July , )

I am not letting you off easily, dear Father, the materials for a new edition must be prepared now. It is only at Solesmes that such a work can be accomplished.

(August , )

. The Paris Congress ()

From the following year, , onwards, there was considerable dis-

cussion about the Méthode Raisonnée at the Paris Congress for the restoration of plainchant. Gontier presented a paper on Le plain chant, son exécution 47 and proposed his own ideas about the nature of Gregorian chant, which is first of all a prayer, and about its rhythm. He was listened to with interest and favor. In a letter defending plainchant, the

Abbot of Solesmes, moreover, recommended the Méthode to the Chairman, d’Ortigue, who had the letter inserted into the Acts of the Con-

gress, and had it published in L’Univers, Le Monde and La Maîtrise. In his letter, Dom Guéranger underscored the “supreme importance” of

. Méthode raisonnée, approbation, p. IX.

. Le Mans, Monnoyer, ,  pp.

PERIOD OF PREPARATION 31

Gontier’s theories and asserted that “the truth is here and not else-

where.” The Bishop of Le Mans likewise praised Gontier’s work unre-

servedly in strong terms, pointing out that the Méthode was adopted at the Cathedral and at the Major Seminary of Le Mans with completely

satisfying results.48 Nevertheless, in spite of d’Ortigue’s warm recom-

mendation and the favorable reception given to Gontier’s theories by

the majority of the delegates, Gontier’s name was lost in the discussion for various reasons.49 There was a reluctance to include in the published Proceedings of the Congress some propositions (drafted with Gontier’s

collaboration, in fact) which rejected any method based upon perform-

ing equal notes or proportional note values. This was essential and

Gontier declared himself satisfied with it (August ,  to Baptiste).

In spite of everything, Gontier stated his position precisely in a letter to Dom Guéranger dated December , : “During the entire Congress,

the dominant theme remained that there was only one method, the

method of Father Gontier.”

. The First Directorium Chori

In  we find two unexpected pieces of evidence: Dom Jausions’

Gregorian activity, and the nature of the tasks undertaken at Solesmes

under Dom Guéranger’s direction. These came to light in a written

record of events (Dom Bérengier) dated April , , and in Dom Jau-

sions’ letter from Rennes to his Abbot, dated April , . The chronicle mentioned earlier informs us that Dom Jausions arrived at Rennes

for the printing of the Directorium chori because he was the one in charge of “the first printing of our monastic chant.” Dom Jausions

clearly states this in his letter:

I brought our illustrious manuscript to Mr. Vatar, and the first proof of the Preface would be ready now if he had not been forced to request from Paris

. Congrès pour la restauration du plain-chant et de la musique d’église, tenu à Paris les , , , 

novembre et er décembre . Procès-verbaux, documents, mémoires, Paris, de Mourgues, , 

pp., see pp. – (cf. M. Blanc, L’enseignement musical de Solesmes, p. ).

. See op. cit., p. , for what M. Blanc said of this. Much later in , Gontier was to write:

“At the Congress, in spite of the approval of Dom Guéranger and Msgr. Nanquette, in spite of the applause and the support of the Congress committee, I can say that I was scarcely understood, but the question was posed,” to Dom Pothier, February , , in a letter published in the Revue du Chant grégorien, , p. .

32 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

certain type-fonts that he did not have. On my return to Solesmes I shall bring it with me.

So from April , Dom Jausions could dream of having his Preface

printed along with the Toni Communes of the Mass and Office (such, in effect, was the content of the Directorium chori). This account presupposes several years of research and study, which takes us back to about

, indicated by Msgr. Rousseau as the beginning of the Gregorian

restoration at Solesmes and which is the date of Dom Jausions’ profes-

sion.

As it happened, though the printing of the Directorium chori was nearly finished, only a few years later was work on it to be resumed.

Dom Guéranger had wished that the rules of accentuation and per-

formance of the chant should precede this book. But we have seen that

at that time there were certain differences between Gontier and Dom

Jausions, differences, it must be repeated, that seemed certainly to have been expressed verbally and which an open discussion sufficed to eliminate completely, as we shall see.

But if, as we believe, the first proofs of the initial version of the Règles pour la prononciation correcte de la langue latine (the Preface mentioned in Dom Jausions’ letter), as well as those of the Directorium chori, have come down to us, they indicate that Dom Jausions still insisted on the

musical notation of the Rheims-Cambrai editions, with the proportion-

al notation and without the traditional grouping of the notes, the only

notation known in the editions then in use.

What Gontier thought of Dom Jausions’ first efforts comes to mind

here, and as was pointed out, he himself made use of photographic

plates, since typefaces were lacking, to reproduce the traditional nota-

tion in his Méthode. In spite of this, he wrote to Dom Guéranger on July

, :

If we wish to notate syllabic chant with the dactylic brève, how does that concern me, provided that you grant me that the values, the accents, the breaks, in a word that the rhythm is in the text? Whether the modern square, stemmed, or diamond-shaped notes are used doesn’t concern me; as for condensing the long vocalises, doing this would threaten the very life of Gregorian chant.50

. Eleven years later, the Méthode by L. Baptiste, which we shall discuss later, and which was to be patronized by Dom Pothier, still used this defective musical script.

PERIOD OF PREPARATION 33

In practice, Dom Jausions expressed certain reservations that showed

his embarrassment and allowed him to take quite a few liberties. It is

reasonable to surmise that Jausions already suspected that Gontier’s

principles contained certain inaccuracies.51

A meeting between Dom Jausions and Gontier became necessary.

Thus the chronicle mentioned above informs us that Dom Guéranger

sent Dom Jausions to Le Mans the first time on September , , after he returned from Rennes, and a second time, from October  to November , in order to have “Canon Gontier explain his method of plain-

chant and his treatise on accentuation to Dom Jausions.” But it is certain that the difference of ideas was only superficial and that there was no

need to insist on it excessively even if Gontier did advise Dom Jausions, as he told him twenty years later, to burn his manuscript.52 So, after the first meeting, on September , , Gontier wrote to Dom Guéranger:

Dom Jausions must have told you that we cleaned house and that we are in perfect agreement. Here is what we accomplished: we are completely in accord as to theory and practice, and on the nature of the rhythm, and that about sums up the question.

Furthermore, there is no reference to a substantial disagreement in a

letter of December , , nor in letters over the ensuing years. On the contrary, there was the most perfect understanding between them, especially in the matter of performance practice.

In Le Mans, Dom Jausions consulted ancient manuscripts that were

unavailable at Solesmes. He also took steps to bring “one of those im-

portant chant manuscripts” to the Abbey, and this was not easy: the

Bishop was away, and the librarian of the bishopric “created problems

in the name of the chapter.” Finally, the bishop allowed him to take the desired manuscript; however, added Dom Jausions, “we shall have it for

six months on the condition of giving them a receipt, which was re-

quested, for fear that we might keep it.”53 The manuscript—a Roman

. We have spoken above about the monastic Ceremonial printed in . It does not seem that we can attribute the musical composition to Dom Jausions, who, at that point, would have been preparing it during his novitiate. The fact that his family, very generous to the Solesmes monastery, paid for the printing of the Ceremonial at the time of Dom Jausions’ profession, does not prove that he, somehow, was involved in editing this publication.

. Gontier’s letter to Dom Pothier, February , , published in Revue du Chant grégorien,

, p. .

. Dom Jausions’ letter to Dom Guéranger, dated November , .

34 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

Gradual from Maine—explained Dom Guéranger (May ,  to the Bishop), was duly returned and, at the same time, the Abbot of

Solesmes requested the loan of another manuscript under the same

conditions.54

. Dom Jausions and Dom Joseph Pothier—

The Reform of the Chant Books Decided at Solesmes

In order to help Dom Jausions in his work,55 Dom Guéranger, in ,

assigned to him an assistant, a young priest from the Diocese of Saint-

Dié, who, like Dom Jausions himself, had been ordained to the priest-

hood on December , , and had donned the habit of St. Benedict on

February , , at Solesmes. This was Brother Joseph Pothier, who was

to bring to fruition the task undertaken by the Abbot of Solesmes and

was to prove himself the restorer of the Gregorian melodies.55bis

Dom Joseph Pothier came to Solesmes with a good grounding in

Gregorian chant. He learned to love the chant at the parish school of

the small village of Bouzemont, in the Lorraine region, a school run by

his father, who was also head cantor of the parish. Dom Pothier’s biog-

rapher wrote: “At the school, the study and practice of the sacred chant was considered to be on the same level—at least—as arithmetic and

spelling.”56 Every morning, the children sang a Mass in Gregorian

chant. Later, at the major seminary, a musician named Father Hingre

encouraged Dom Pothier’s special interest in Gregorian chant.

Thus it was not long before Dom Guéranger discerned the talent of

his young novice. One day, Dom Guéranger came upon Brother Pothier

in the library, deeply engrossed in a recent new book by Father Jules

Bonhomme, and

congratulated him on being so “affelonné” (a favorite colloquial expression of his, meaning ‘enthusiastic’) for sacred chant, a subject of such importance, and encouraged him to study well.57

. Chronicle, October , , and November , .

. Dom Pothier’s letter of September , , cited by A. Dabin, Le chant bénédictin, p. , note .

bis. Dom Joseph Pothier, born December , , professed at Solesmes November , , Prior of Ligugé, April , , Abbot of St. Wandrille, July , , died December , .

. Dom David, Dom Joseph Pothier, p. .

. Dom David, p. .

PERIOD OF PREPARATION 35

As a matter of fact, whilst still a novice Brother Pothier taught chant

to the novices,58 and possibly even to the community. Indeed, the novi-

tiate chronicle reports that on July , , Brother Pothier gave a lecture to the entire community on chant according to Gontier’s method.

The details remain unclear, but it seems in any case that from  on-

ward, Brother Pothier gave practical courses in chant at the Abbey itself, and not only in the novitiate. It is also known that around this time, in reply to a question, he made a comment about the first version of the

Directorium chori: To Dom Jausions, who raised objections to Gontier, he replied without hesitation, “But it is Gontier who is right.”59

Be that as it may, if it is quite certain, on the testimony of both Dom

Jausions60 and Dom Pothier himself, that it was in  that he became

assistant to his senior in Gregorian chant research, it is likely that it was only at the time of his monastic profession, November , , that he

received this obedience.

At the end of , it will be recalled, Dom Jausions was in full ac-

cord with Gontier with regard to the chant. Nevertheless, he was again

at home in Le Mans during February and March 61 and Dom

Guéranger himself took part in the conversations the exact nature of

which is unknown. In August, Dom Jausions was in Brittany, and the

letters that Dom Guéranger wrote him at that time provide informa-

tion on the subject that is of interest to us. Thus, Dom Guéranger

points out that “Dom Pothier explained the podatus successfully” (August ). And another time, he mentioned that the printing of a chant

book, doubtless the Directorium chori, was eagerly awaited, and that its delay annoyed Dom Guéranger. He wrote:

I am sending you a letter from Mr. Vatar with a sample chant, which unfortunately I let grow old on my desk; luckily, you are at the source; could you, on your return, press forward with this important matter, which has been dragging on for six months? Dom Pothier is still very “affelonné,” and Father Gontier is giving him an earful. (September , )

On September , , Dom Jausions was again in Rennes where he

mentioned having many things to do at the Vatar printing plant, espe-

. Dom Guéranger named him Zealot of the novices on November , . The “Zealot” is assistant to the Master of Novices.

. Dom David, Comment les mélodies grégoriennes ont été retrouvées, col. .

. Dom Jausions’ letter of October , . Cf. infra, No. .

. Dom Guéranger’s Journal and Dom Bérengier’s Chronicle, February  and March .

36 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

cially in view of printing the Directorium chori according to the new find-ings. It cannot be doubted but that the manuscript of this book had al-

ready been sent to the printer. Quite simply, it was recognizable by its return to the traditional notation, especially in the matter of the grouping and shape of the notes. This book, then, marked a new stage of de-

velopment, a true resurrection. It was the first book of the Gregorian

restoration at Solesmes, and even, it can be said, of the Gregorian

restoration anywhere. We shall see further on the reasons for the delay

that surrounded its printing and publication.

During the summer, Father Baptiste62 came to Solesmes. He evinced

a keen interest in the Gregorian chant. In a letter addressed to Dom

Guéranger, he thanked him for the two half-hours accorded him to

speak of chant and the liturgy, and he was happy about the news that

Gontier sent him, to know that “you are determined, Reverend Father,

to have printed for your monastery the chant from manuscripts of the

fifteenth century, with their notation” (October , ). Moreover,

there are two letters from Gontier to Father Baptiste, which will give us more precise details.

The first, on October , , lacking more complete data, pointed

out the tasks undertaken at Solesmes over a period of years.

Let us speak of Solesmes, since you believe to see in it, if not a solution to all the problems, at least much progress in that direction. I think, as you do, that the name of Dom Guéranger carries great weight, that the adoption of a version and a notation is an event of immense significance; but, between us, my friend, Dom Guéranger is not the most learned person in the community on this matter, but rather Dom Jausions and Dom Pothier. I tell you for sure that the reform of the chant is well along, and that it will be completed as soon as the books are printed. As you know, this reform consists of: () not giving a time-value to the notation; and () marking the grammatical and melodic accents. I add that, in spite of the natural span of time for any change to take place, there is no one at Solesmes who regrets the change or who holds to the old system.

Gontier’s second letter, of November , reveals the initial difficulties caused within the Abbey itself by the new way of chanting. Though

Gontier considered Dom Jausions and Dom Pothier scholars of this sci-

ence, a few of the other religious were less skilled. Furthermore, what

. Cf. above, No.  and note .

PERIOD OF PREPARATION 37

the letter says of Dom Guéranger is rather surprising, and these last

affirmations by Gontier are to be added to others already mentioned, in

which the Canon made Dom Guéranger’s competence absolutely clear,

and all that he, Gontier, owed him. He wrote to Baptiste:

You know Solesmes, you know what is lacking, rather what is lacking in a good performance of the chant, you know the disputes, the confrontations with some religious. Here are the facts of the matter. I have learned everything from these gentlemen, and you know it is not ignorance or deference on the part of the good Fathers. Father Abbot, who has a deep feeling for the chant, who understands well the text and melodic accentuation, told me that up to now he had not understood the chant, that thanks to me he does understand it today, that he used to be unaware of the musical riches locked up in our liturgy, that he wanted to preserve these riches in all their purity and integrity.

As a result, he is determined to reproduce the fifteenth-century version of the chants with the notation of the beautiful manuscripts that you have seen here in my home. There is a priest at Solesmes, whom perhaps you have seen, Dom Pothier, fully knowledgeable, intelligent, humble, who understands the chant admirably. He is the one whom the Abbot has placed at the head of the chant class and the old teachers are placed under his direction. You would not recognize the chant at Solesmes. What is his style? He has his students sing the chant following the old notation; sometimes he makes copies, according to the old notation, of pieces which should be chanted by a soloist, and I know the pleasure that this chant has given to religious and outsiders. That is not all: in spite of these bad times which place them under the threat of dissolution, since they must absolutely have choir books, Father Abbot is determined to have the books printed. He is adopting all the formulae of the old plainchant.

Thus Dom Pothier gave chant courses to the Solesmes community

from the first year of his profession and perhaps even earlier, if we read the quote from Gontier above in this way. In this situation must be seen a special sign indicating the high level of appreciation which Dom

Guéranger had for Dom Pothier’s musical talents, and that fact is the

more unusual in that the Abbot of Solesmes was obliged to tread cau-

tiously in this matter because of some “old timers” with whom he had

to deal. Moreover, Dom Pothier made them sing according to the old

manuscripts. Neither Dom Guéranger nor Dom Jausions had dared to

do this, and thus Dom Pothier was experimenting with this new tech-

nique from the very start. But must we link with this resolve of Dom

Pothier the determination taken by Dom Guéranger, in view of the Di-

rectorium chori, to adopt the traditional version of the plainchant in its 38 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

purity and integrity for the books that he intended to have printed for

use in his monastery?63

We must concur, if we accept what Dom Pothier wrote later, in :

In the beginning, we thought seriously of joining up with Rheims, but by no means of recasting the chant and reproducing the manuscripts. It was only when, with another priest who died shortly thereafter while on a journey to America (a reference to Dom Jausions), I began working and taking stock of the situation that we realized that we had to return to the sources.64

Still, Dom Jausions seems to have set the date for this decision prior to his collaboration with Dom Pothier when he wrote, in his turn, in :

“Very little study was made of ecclesiastical chant in those days .l.l. I was forced to have recourse to the manuscripts.”

Only later did he add:

In , one of my confreres, Reverend Father Dom Pothier, joined me, and although from that moment I had been given charge of practically all the research and transcriptions made in the libraries (Dom Jausions is referring here only to the very first efforts), Dom Pothier devoted himself in a manner more exclusively than I was able to do, to the studies we had so long pursued together.65

In fact, it was from October  onwards, after Dom Jausions had

meetings with Gontier, that the revision of the Directorium chori according to the ancient notation was decided on. It is known that Dom Poth-

ier expressed his thought exactly on that occasion, and it is doubtless to this that he was referring in the letter cited above.

. The First Transcripts of Manuscripts in Staffless Neumes

In any case, it was in  that Dom Jausions and Dom Pothier began

the study of the manuscripts notated in staffless neumes, thus going

back to the most ancient examples known of Gregorian chants. In fact,

at that time, Dom Jausions began to copy a Gradual, the manuscript 

. For that was still all that was at issue at the time, as the Abbot of Solesmes explained to L.

Baptiste, who wanted to have the books adopted for use in the Diocese of Bourges: “We are preparing, in fact, an edition of Gregorian chant at Solesmes, but only for our own use” (December , ).

. A. Dabin, Le chant bénédictin, p. , no.  (Letter of September , ).

. Dom Jausions’ letter to Abbot Perriot, October , . Cited infra, No. .

PERIOD OF PREPARATION 39

() of Angers, in the city library, a task he would pursue until , as circumstances permitted, with the copy of two other Graduals on staff lines, as we shall see in due course. In the year , he made three visits to Angers, April –, June –July , and October –.66

The library at Angers still has the descriptions and the notes (recognizable from the beautiful script) that Dom Jausions made, contributing to the liturgical sources in that significant collection.67

Dom Jausions had a very skilled hand, and his transcriptions are master-

pieces of neatness and precision.

Dom Pothier, for his part, was even more successful; he undertook to

transcribe to staff-lines the St. Gall Codex , published by Lambillotte in 68 and notated in staffless neumes. A happy circumstance brought

to light this transcription, in which the Graduals and Tracts (the only

pieces with the Alleluias given in their entirety in the Cantatorium) are grouped according to modes. The first six pages give the neumatic notation above the staff (but the romanian letters and signs were not tran-

scribed by Dom Pothier) and the square notation follows faithfully, indicating even the nuances of the oriscus, the liquescent, the neumatic divisions—the importance of which he did not fully perceive—and the

quilisma with two or three elements. The incomplete notebook does not include the Alleluias, and is dated  on the front page, in Dom Pothier’s own hand.69 Even though he was helped in this task by good manu-

scripts on staff-lines that Dom Jausions sent him from Le Mans, and

those that he was able to find there himself, it can be said, nevertheless, that Dom Pothier gave proof from the very beginning of extraordinary

accuracy in transcribing the old manuscripts, which for years many had

considered untranscribable and, as a result, of no use whatever.

. Dom Guéranger wrote to him on April , : “What a precious thing is this Missal with neumes. Can you not fetch it here? Father Zealot ( Dom Pothier had been Zealot of the novices since November , ) will write to you about it. I admire how you copy this. The Processional has shaped your script” ( the Wilton Processional of St. Edith, already mentioned).

. Rousseau, L’École Grégorienne de Solesmes, p. .

. Antiphonaire de Saint-Grégoire, fac-simile du manuscrit de Saint-Gall, authentic copy of the autograph written around the year , Brussels, .

. The notebook of the analytical table of the St. Gall manuscript that he did first bears the date November ,  ( nonas novembris) at the top. Originally it read , but the  was changed to a  by Dom Pothier himself, no doubt when the table was finished. However, in support of the precedence of this analytical table, it must be noted that this table was necessary prior to undertaking the copying of the various pieces in the manuscript by types and modes.

40 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

. Problems in Restoring the Melodies ()

At the end of , a serious problem arose in the Gregorian restora-

tion at Solesmes having to do with the treatment of the penultimate

syllables. We have already seen what Dom Guéranger thought about

this: he was of the opinion that several notes ought not be given to

these weak syllables and in this matter the manuscript tradition ought

not to be followed. On the occasion of a trip to Le Mans, Dom Jausions

mentioned the problem to Gontier and confided to him the Abbot’s

hesitation, hesitations that he and Gontier wanted to eradicate. Gontier considered the matter important and even wrote a long letter to the Abbot on this matter on October . The letter reads as follows:

I received a visit from Dom Jausions and, as you might well imagine, our long conversation had to do with matters of mutual concern. I realized with pleasure that we are in complete accord as to basics and details. He spoke to me of a problem that I consider very serious, namely that neumatic groups must be used on penultimate syllables.

I have thought about this for a long time; now I can say that my opinion is fixed. Surely, there are many who are opposed to this restoration; the changes introduced in recent centuries seem to respect the prosody and the correct pronunciation of Latin. It is said that what exists must be respected, that our ears are not accustomed to these glaring errors, and without doubt the composers wrote at a time when the rules of prosody had been forgotten. I think, dear Reverend Father, that these reasons will not impress you very much; you know enough about St. Ambrose, St. Gregory, Hucbald, Guido, St. Odo, etc. etc.l.l.l.

to affirm that these were not ignoramuses, that they knew more than we about quantity and accentuation.

My opinion is one having little weight; but such as it is, I give it to you as well as that of several competent people with whom I have discussed the matter. At Solesmes it is a matter of archaeological restoration: this must be thorough. It cannot be a half-restoration, a provisional effort. It must not be said that it could have been done better. For me, corrections and mutilations are corruption.

We must have plainchant just as it was when plainchant was understood.

What can be said in opposition if all you are doing is reproducing antiquity, that is, the work of those who surely knew more about it than all of our contemporary plainchantists?

I consider plainchant to be a liturgical fact that cannot be tampered with lightly. But in the reading of liturgical Latin, must not the values of the sylla-PERIOD OF PREPARATION 41

bles be respected in order to render them intelligible? When the chant is syllabic, the text is king, la letra est la reyna, there is the value of the strong syllable, weak, final; but as soon as the neumatic phrase begins, there is no longer a strong syllable, nor a weak syllable, there is a melodic motet: littera est ibi loco subjecti, et cantui servit.l.l.l.

Do not be afraid of making a mistake, since you are reproducing a text that is not yours, one that belongs to history and liturgy. Father Lambillotte had neither predecessors nor tradition; he could indulge in fantasy. You have on your side all the Benedictines of all ages, back to the seventeenth century.

There is no doubt but that this authoritative letter from Gontier cap-

tured the attention of Dom Guéranger, because after this there was no

longer a problem. It is supposed that the way was clear: in fact it is

known that from this time on, Dom Guéranger was resolutely commit-

ted to the path toward a complete return to the manuscript tradition.

Thus it was that he had already denounced any kind of reductions of

certain long melismas. A note from Dom Pothier dated from this period

gives us formal assurance of this. As we have seen, there was a question of certain repetitions that Dom Guéranger believed to be posterior to

the golden age of Gregorian chant (No. ). Regarding this, Dom Pothier

wrote that “Reverend Father’s current opinion is in opposition to any

kind of melodic reduction.”70 Against this, Gontier, in order that the reduction of certain long melismas not be excessively shocking,71 later

changed his position on the issue of weak penultimates, a rather sur-

prising assertion testified to in a letter written some years later:

There is one thing that bothers me with regard to the projected editions, that it is the intention of the Father to leave the long succession of notes on the short penultimates. I can see how this will prevent dioceses from adopting their books and I would like the Solesmes editions to be widely known. (Letter to L.

Baptiste, June , )

. Rhythmic Problems ()

In June and July of , Dom Jausions was in Rennes supervising the

printing of the Directorium chori, which was progressing slowly. The

. Observations sur la Méthode raisonnée de plain-chant publiée par Mr. A. Gontier, cf. infra, No. .

. See his comments on this matter in No. .

42 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

choice of the traditional notation signs, designed at Solesmes itself,72

was a settled issue, but the difficulty they were having in casting the

new signs explains, though only in part, the slowdown of the printing.

In fact, there were other much more serious difficulties causing this delay, as will be seen later.

Nevertheless, by September the printing of the Directorium chori, though not completed, was at least well advanced. It appears from a letter of Dom Guéranger that at that time Vatar was also printing for the

Solesmes account a small pocket booklet, Benedictiones mensae (Letter of September th).

Moreover, two letters from Gontier to Baptiste clearly indicate to us

where work stood at Solesmes. We do not hesitate to quote them very

extensively, in spite of their length, because they are most interesting. In them Gontier comments on the various theoretical and practical aspects of the Gregorian question: the principles, research, the chant it-

self, everything is examined in them, and there can be no question but

that the author of these lines was well informed.

The first of these letters is dated September , . Gontier wrote:

At the moment, I am finishing a short treatise on accentuation including rules for reading Latin. I intend to send it to you.l.l.l. This little treatise will be useful certainly for plainchant; because the value of the note in syllabic chant is in the syllable, it is of utmost importance to know the value of the prose syllables. As I have already written to you, Solesmes is going in the right direction, the chant there is generally good. Traces of the old style persist, but there is improvement day by day. The teachers understand and teach the most basic principles, but the guidelines will not be promulgated until the new books are actually in use. At present, these books have not been printed. The Directorium chori is in print, as are the invitatories, but the Gradual is not yet begun, the reason being that they would like the rules of accentuation to take precedence, which I have here in a manuscript prepared by one of the monks, and about which, at least about some of them, there are misgivings. These rules of Solesmes are the very same as those which I included in my short treatise, with the difference

. De Coussemaker obtained permission to use them in his book Scriptorium de Musica Medii Aevi .l.l. Paris,  (cf. p. XXIII), translated into French under the title Traités inédits sur la musique du Moyen Age, . On page  of the French edition, the author wrote: “Before closing, we wish to mention that the musical notation typeface used for the printing of our book was graciously placed at our disposal by the Very Reverend Benedictines of Solesmes, who designed it and had it engraved for a new edition of Roman chant, which was printed by Mr. Vatar of Rennes .l.l.”

(cf. Dom Jausions’ letter of June th).

PERIOD OF PREPARATION 43

that my short treatise is appropriate for educational institutions, that of Solesmes for the sung pronunciation of liturgical Latin. Do not expect the Solesmes edition soon, but be assured that it will be a good one. The manuscripts of the tenth and eleventh centuries are being copied, and the melodies of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries will be used.

The information given in this letter certainly elicited the vital inter-

est of Gontier’s correspondent (Father Baptiste), for a second letter followed, containing more detail than the first:

Now let us turn to other matters. I am not surprised that Father Abbot

should have been so cautious about his publication. I am going to ask you, with good reason, to remain silent about the confidential details which I know very well, and which I am going to pass on to you.

The Directorium chori has been printed, but this is not known in the community, or at least is only surmised. This Directorium includes the manner of chanting the various parts of the office, prayers, chapters, epistles, Gospels, short responsories, psalms, etc., and it includes the invitatories for the eight modes, the Te Deum, etc. All the remainder is ready for the printer. Then why is it not being printed? The reason is this. There has been some disagreement among the project leaders over some minor details relating to the method.

Father Abbot awaited my work on the accent, in order to compare it with

an identical treatise prepared at the community. Now that this is done, there is no opposition.

The working agenda is as follows. After the Directorium chori, the rules for the accent will likely be printed, their application to syllabic chant and finally, the rules for melodic chant. These will be promulgated at Solesmes, then the Gradual will be printed. Hymnody will not be issued until later. Father Abbot told me that in this matter there are great problems; I told him that to me it did not seem so, that it would suffice to divide the hymns into measured and non-measured, to apply the rules of poetic rhythm and of prose rhythm. Father Abbot also wanted me to have a long discussion with Dom Pothier in order to consider the question of method in depth. Our meeting lasted an hour and a half. I will give you a few comments about this that will not be without interest for you: meanwhile, I will tell you that I have given a written account of this to Father Abbot.

I must first tell you that as for performance, Dom Jausions, Dom Pothier, and I are in complete agreement. Here is the crux of the matter. As for the rules of the accent, these gentlemen have read my treatise, no opposition. As to the syllabic chant, it should be printed in square notes, all the rhythm; the full value of the notes is in the text: all in complete agreement. As to melodic chant, the ancient notation with virga, podatus, clivis, etc., should be used, agreed.

44 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

The neumatic phrase ought to be divided into musical syllables, which form suspensions, apparent pauses, the mora ultimae vocis; here too we are all in agreement.

In melodic chant, the text must never be lost sight of; by voice inflections, the meaning of the text must be understood, linking together the syllables of a word, the words to a phrase; I strongly approve this idea so that in another sense, it can be said that littera cantui servit. In pure melody, in the neumatic phrase, there are stronger notes in quasdam voces majori impulsu efferimus, what I call melodic accent. We are in complete agreement. No accent, no rhythm: in the text there is grammatical accent, in the neumes, melodic accent. There now, you will say: you agree on every point, the matter is settled, all has been said. Well yes, but not quite: it is here where our discussion begins, as you will see. If there are stressed notes in the melody, should this be reflected in the writing of the notes? If the accent, the stressed beat, is essential, should this be acknowledged in notation? I say Yes, Dom Pothier says No. Dom Pothier says: this stressed beat, this accent, comes about naturally, the voice gives an impulse sometimes on one note, sometimes on another; but not archeologically, nor theoretically, nor practically is this stressed beat given to the virga, or the clivis, no more than it is given to the podatus. To this, I say that the virga: \ is an acute accent followed by grave accents and that, if later, when a fixed value was given to notes, it was said that productio innuitur per caudas, it was because the accented sign was readily accepted as a long note. As for the clivis, it is not unreasonable that it is called “circumflex” because it is made up of a higher note and a lower note; when it is said that the clivis componitur ex nota et seminota, it is when the first note has a fullness of sound which the second does not have. On the same page, the same author says: the last note of the clivis has a faint sound; however, it enjoys the honor of being a perfect note. If the last has a faint sound, the first then is more prominent. Is this prominence nothing more than an accent? I add that, if the accent were written over the virga and over the first note of the clivis, nothing points to its being indicated for the first note of the podatus. We are agreed that the last note of the podatus dissolves (“fondante”) when it is not at the end. Then I say that the torculus is a podatus flexus deprived of an accent, while the inverted torculus is a clivis resupinus with an accent on the first note. Father Abbot seems to agree with me; in any case, I think that the matter will be settled soon and the promulgation of the new Method will take place before Lent. For the rest, do not count on having the Directorium chori. I do not think it will be sold before the edition is finished. Father Cloët has asked for it: he has had no response. My part in the discussion interested Father Abbot very much and he seemed to share my opinion completely.

Another letter of January , , must be added, which follows on

the heel of the others:

PERIOD OF PREPARATION 45

Father Abbot of Solesmes did not understand that the last syllable of accented words is never short; he did not want to accept this principle from Dom Jausions, which he rightly held, but which Father Abbot rejected. I believe I made him understand this and he included it in the Solesmes Method. I am certain that the meeting that I had with Dom Pothier should interest you, even though taken out of context and reduced to a skeleton. You have the essentials, even though abridged. This report should have no interest for the seculars, for those who are not as initiated as you are into the principles and expressions of the matter at hand. We were at the heart of the question, and though in agreement as to the performance, it was necessary to be exact, for it occupies a central place in the method. Suppressing the accent sign in the neume style is, in my opinion, the same as suppressing the accent itself, that is, the rhythm. This would ultimately lead to a return to the equality of the notes, or to a haphazard rhythm, as in the Rheims method, or in Father Lambillotte’s.l.l.l.

. State of the Work in 

A few details of these letters of Gontier ought to be reviewed here.

Two points must first be examined:

. The printing of the Directorium chori must not have been completed until , because the book carries this date, and not that of ;

. What Gontier was alluding to cannot be understood clearly when

he says “all the remainder is ready for the printer,” because the preliminary work of copying the manuscripts for the Gradual was certainly not

very advanced at this time. Only two copies of ancient manuscripts of

staffless neumes were begun: manuscript  from Angers by Dom Jau-

sions, and the St. Gall , which Dom Pothier was not only copying but

reconstructing with the help of good staff manuscripts provided from

Le Mans.

But the importance of this letter, despite a few inaccuracies and con-

tradictions, is that it reveals to us the procedure adopted by Dom

Guéranger for the restoration of the chant books. Although the purest

principles were taught and observed by Solesmes, the Method would be

promulgated only when the new books were being used. As for the Di-

rectorium chori which was being printed, it would not be distributed to the community until after the issuance of the “rules of accent, application to the syllables of chant, and rules for melodic chant.”

46 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

The Petit traité de la bonne prononciation de la langue latine, 73 which Gontier published at this time and which contained the rules for reading Latin, was in his mind a “true method of plainchant.”74 The author

stated that he was in total agreement with an identical work prepared

by the Abbey. This work done at Solesmes, it seems, is surely the work

of Dom Jausions. In a letter written not long after this period, Dom Jausions mentioned, in fact, “the rules of accentuation, nearly all of which were written out by me” (April , ), and, at the same time, Gontier, alluding for his part to a work of broader dimensions, speaks of “a few

pages from a manuscript Method” or “a substantive written work” from

the pen of Dom Jausions (to Baptiste, April ,  and April ).

Moreover, Dom Jausions was credited with having reformed the liturgi-

cal readings and psalmody at Solesmes, through the rigorous applica-

tion of the tonic accent (No. ).

As for the disagreement that existed between Gontier and Dom

Pothier with regard to the method, it all comes down to this: although

Gontier, Dom Pothier, and Dom Jausions all agreed on matters of per-

formance, based on

—the traditional script to be adopted for the published books,

—the rhythm of the syllabic chant in which “all the note values are

in the text,”

—the rhythm of the melodic chant, the neume phrase being divided

into musical syllables, into incises and phrases and guided only by the

text itself,

—the presence of the tonic accent without which there can be no

rhythm,

there was nonetheless a difference of opinion when it came to a ques-

tion of knowing whether this melodic accent, indispensable to the

rhythm, is recognizable when written.

While Dom Pothier voted no, Gontier, whom Dom Guéranger

seems to follow, gives the note the value of intensity, and voted yes. On July ,  Gontier wrote to Dom Guéranger: “The difference between the notes comes from the accent ( ¶), which is performed by hav-

ing the voice press on the note without prolonging it.” This, he insisted, differs essentially from its being a note of length.

. Paris, Palmé ,  pp.

. Letter to L. Baptiste dated March , .

PERIOD OF PREPARATION 47

The important role played by Dom Pothier in this discussion has

been mentioned. He was the one assigned by Dom Guéranger to treat

the question of method in depth with Gontier. This should not come as

a surprise, for Dom Pothier had already given evidence of having a pro-

found knowledge of matters pertaining to Gregorian chant. It is also

doubtless necessary to date at this period his Observations sur la méthode raisonnée de plain-chant de M. Gontier, which requires a comment here.

This work consists of just four small pages on which Dom Pothier,

after reading Gontier’s book, wrote a few remarks. In spite of their

brevity, these remarks give evidence of a knowledge of the manuscripts

that Dom Pothier could have acquired only in recent years, by being in

contact with the same Gregorian chant sources. They also reveal the

firm position that Dom Pothier had already taken, bearing on the ques-

tion of Gregorian rhythm and the point of view which was his. Al-

though he was firm in pointing out the weak points of Gontier’s book

(he disagreed that rhythm is “constituted” by the alternation between

accented and non-accented syllables; likewise, he disagreed with the at-

tribution of accents of intensity to the stemmed notes), he fully ap-

proved the principles set forth in it. Yet he stated that,

although the chief reason for oratorical rhythm does not reside in the accent, which is not even the principal means, [he is] not disposed to recognize for the formulas an absolute value independent of the position which they occupy on the syllables of the text or in the musical phrase.

Abstracting from this position, he saw “formulae only as notes united in performance as in the written word.” At the same time, he showed that

he was obstinately opposed to overemphasizing the development of

rhythm. He wrote: “Groupings and counting in plainchant only exist in

the natural instinct of the ear; there are scarcely any rules to establish the laws of rhythm.” But for him, “indeterminate” is not the same as arbitrary: “The notation of plainchant, although undetermined is, nevertheless, not uncertain.”

For Gontier, not specifying the rhythm is the same as leaving it to be

determined arbitrarily. This position was later to form the basis of Dom Mocquereau’s research, with this essential difference: while Gontier assimilated the rhythmic ictus with the strong beat, Dom Mocquereau de-

veloped Dom Pothier’s intuition mentioned above, proclaiming it inde-

pendent of intensity.

Whatever differences there may have been, Gontier remained opti-

48 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

mistic and predicted unhesitatingly that the matter would be settled

soon, and that the Method would see the light of day in the months

ahead.

. Benedictiones Mensae and Directorium Chori

On March , , copies of the Benedictiones mensae were distributed to the members of the community. Thus this little booklet would then

be the first book of chant restored by Solesmes, if we did not already

know that the printing of the Directorium chori was finished, or almost so. On October , Gontier wrote that (the Fathers of Solesmes) “have

printed the refectory prayers which are only a simple recitation, so only the square note is used; no stemmed or diamond-shaped notes; accent

is indicated in the text” (October ). In other words, all the rhythm is in the text and the proportional written forms were abandoned. Thus in

and of itself, this booklet, which offered only syllabic chant, marked a forward step at the time.75

As for the Directorium chori, Gontier had this to say in the same letter, when the printing of the book was at last finished:

Their Directorium chori is printed, and I have seen it; but the whole run is still at the printer’s.l.l.l. I shall have a copy of it as soon as it is distributed to the religious. All the principles that I mentioned to you were followed in the printing.

Every isolated note is a square one; signs for the podatus have been made, the two notes of the inverted torculus (porrectus) are written with one stroke. A very moderate use of bars was made, but there is more of this than I care for. Not a single note is marked strong, not a diamond note for the torculus. To give you an idea of the characters, I shall tell you that Mr. de Coussemaker had a few ancient pieces printed, which you may have seen with the Solesmes characters.

Unfortunately, Dom Guéranger delayed in distributing the Directorium chori, and the entire edition, except for a few rare copies (only four), was destroyed in a fire at the Vatar Printing Company around .76 This

was really too bad, for it would be necessary to await the Liber Gradualis

. For this booklet, a musical design different from that of the Directorium chori was used, one better adapted to a manual edition.

. Dom Biron, Bibliographie, p. .—The author attributed the composition of the Directorium chori to “Dom Jausions, with the collaboration of Dom Pothier” (pages  and ).—Dom Guéranger’s hesitations explain this phrase of Dom Pothier, written in , which could have DOM GUERANGER’S RATIONALE 49

of  to find an important publication giving the traditional nota-

tion.76bis (See Plate , a page from the Directorium chori. )

. The “Corrected Gradual”

Evidently research was on going. In Angers, arriving there on June ,

, Dom Jausions continued copying the neumed Gradual at the library. From there, his travels took him to Paris, where he was known to

be on July rd, and from where he did not return until the th, “so that he could continue work, for which there was no lack of material,” even

though he had already “studied some very curious manuscripts.”

On July rd, he wrote:

I have been very well received here at the Imperial Library, the only one I have gone to so far, and at the Ministry of Public Instruction where I went to find a curious work by Mr. Nisard, which is supposed to be kept there. This manuscript has not been found yet, which, according to its title, ought to be a collection of variants from a large number of manuscripts, a collection that is all done, it seems, and done doubtless with all the care that Nisard brought to works of this kind (at the Imperial Library, I saw from a distance a magnificent copy of the Montpellier Antiphonal, as good as the original). They are still looking for this manuscript for me. In the meanwhile, they have given me two printed works on chant matters, which is nothing to be sneezed at. I shall try to make my trip as profitable as possible .l.l. and to stop at Le Mans to see Gontier in passing, and to speak with him a little about whatever I find here.

As we see, Gontier continued to have an active interest in this re-

search, but work was not progressing fast enough to suit him, and he

only a dilatory meaning: “You ask me about the Directorium; it is a matter which, for the moment, is completely dead” (March , , to Dom Bastide).

 bis. Dom Guéranger participated in the making of the Directorium chori. Here are some of the minute details we have as evidence: Dom Cabrol affirms that Dom Guéranger took our chant for the Pater in the Office from an Antiphonal of St. Maur ( Antiphonale diurnum .l.l. monasticum, Paris , LXIV—Solesmes WL-), and from a monastic Psalter, both of . See the Revue Grégorienne, XVI, , p. . In fact, it is this chant that appears in the Directorium chori of . As for the litany of the Kyrie that precedes the Pater, it was first taken from the above-mentioned Antiphonal. But in , Dom Guéranger substituted another melody, the one that still appears in the monastic Antiphonal of . Here is its history. The chronicles states on August , , that Dom Guéranger brought from Monte Cassino (he was in Rome that spring) a new chant for the Pater litany and he thinks that this melody was taken from Greek monks, because he heard it sung a hundred times at St. Athanasius. It was used for the first time at Solesmes on the feast of the Assumption in , and the one from the St. Maur Antiphonal was reserved for Benediction.

50 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

complained about this to his erstwhile correspondent, Baptiste: “I am

despairing because of Father Abbot’s delay in printing his Gradual. I never see him without discussing it with him” (August , ).

These words of Gontier could only translate his impatience to see

this traditional publication in print, which he dreamed about; in anoth-

er letter, he wrote:

.l.l. as for the Gradual, the copy is partly prepared; but Father Abbot, through whose hands all matters must pass, has not yet given the go-ahead to print, whether he did not have time to think about it, or whether it was because of some minor difference in the wording of the Method. On a recent trip I took to Solesmes, I made some effort to investigate the matter; I do not know when work will be done on it. (October , )

But, as noted above, the work was not yet sufficiently advanced at

Solesmes for them to dream of printing yet: the copying work being

done by Dom Jausions and by Dom Pothier was far from finished.

Moreover, it was not just the corrected Gradual that was involved. A German monk, Dom Benedict Sauter, who had just finished his novitiate at Solesmes from  to , at the time of the beginning of the Beuron foundations, mentions that Gradual and avers categorically: A secret: we have in our possession a corrected Gradual based on the most reliable manuscripts. Without wishing to assert that this version is authentic in every detail, it is at least certain that this book alone allows for a performance of plainchant in a way that is reasonable, sensitive, and harmonious. We owe this treasure to a member of our Order, who, not being able to publish yet the new edition of the Gradual which he is preparing in collaboration with several other competent persons, wanted very much, anticipating the results of his research, to supply a new foundation of the Order with the principles of a good performance of liturgical chant.77

Dom Mocquereau, to note in passing, asserts that this draft of the

corrected Gradual imported to Beuron by Dom Sauter was the work of Dom Jausions. But it was still only a correction of an edition then available, most likely that of Rheims-Cambrai, for the purpose of facilitating the performance of the chant. Dom Pothier was to prepare a very similar work for Baptiste.77bis

. Le plain-chant et la Liturgie,  (Paris), p. .

bis. Gontier presents Dom Sauter to his correspondent in an earlier letter in the following terms: “I believe you have already mentioned a budding community of Benedictines in Prussia, PERIOD OF PREPARATION 51

. Agreements and Disagreements

It must be noted that the minor differences mentioned above persist-

ed, and that Dom Guéranger did not always resolve them. Gontier

wrote to Baptiste again, and gave more detail: “The Directorium chori is printed, but the whole run is still at the bookseller’s. The Psalter is ready to be printed, as is a section of the Gradual. But Father Abbot wishes the Method to be started, and you are well aware of the minor disagreements over the strong note of the melody” (October , ). So, as we

see, Gontier had not managed to convince Dom Pothier, who persisted

in his refusal to grant any determined value to the virga and, in general, any precision to Gregorian rhythm. As for the Psalter of which Gontier

speaks, it has not been possible to identify it.78

However matters may have stood with regard to these differences,

Gontier continued to admire the chanting of the monks. He wrote to

Cloët, an ardent Gregorianist (October , ), “I do not believe plainchant is better interpreted anywhere.” Evidently he spoke about it to

Baptiste and lured him to Solesmes a second time in . On May ,

, Baptiste wrote to Dom Guéranger:

Father Gontier of Le Mans has written to say that the singing at Solesmes was even better than when I was there. I cherish the gentle hope of once again hearing the Gregorian melodies perfectly sung, and of studying your method more thoroughly; it is unquestionably the best, because it is the traditional method.

Duchy of Baden. It was at Solesmes that they first acquired their taste for, and then the principles of, the plainchant. For the past six months, they have started to use those principles, and people come from everywhere to hear them. Dom Sauter, a young religious of great piety and rare intelligence, an excellent musician, wrote to me (I quote from his text) that the Reverend Father Prior, his superior, believes that the time has come to begin the struggle in Germany, and to publish my little work Le plain-chant: son exécution as a program for what ought to be done, and what ought to be repealed. He adds that this little work, translated, will enter the scientific world and to this first work, he would add my brochure entitled Méthode raisonnée, the translation of which is well advanced, and that the religious and novices study it in their lectures” (to L. Baptiste, January , ).

In , Dom Sauter published, in the form of a memorandum to the German hierarchy, a book entitled Choral und Liturgie .l.l. (Schaffhausen), which was translated into French in  ( Le plain-chant et la Liturgie, Paris).

. Without doubt, this was the Tons des Psaumes, which was to appear later, in , in the form of lithographed pages for the exclusive use of the monastery (Dom Biron, Bibliographie, p.

).

52 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

Thus the interpretation of the chant, as adopted at Solesmes, continued

to give satisfaction to Gontier. It is clear that the Solesmes style was well established, and this, it must be added, in spite of certain theoretical differences.

A letter from Gontier in June  informs us of other causes for the

delay that he regretted so much, in addition to differences regarding the method and some difficulties encountered in the very heart of the community. The Abbot of Solesmes’s health left much to be desired. Thus

Dom Guéranger could not give as much time as was necessary to the

chant questions so dear to him, and which he followed to the last detail.

In fact, on June , Gontier wrote:

The Abbot of Solesmes has been very ill, even gravely so. Today he is better, but requires intensive care. This indisposition has slowed down the preparation of the edition. I suspect that this is not the only reason for the delay. Father Abbot knows that the work does not please several members of the community, and he is hesitant to alienate them. They are already applying the method more or less well, but they shy away from what they do not understand.l.l.l. Father Abbot reserves to himself the control of all the details of the printing, as well as of the method.

When I am with Father Abbot, he agrees with me, but on some small de-

tails that are important in themselves, there are some nuances that separate me from Father Jausions and Dom Pothier, particularly from Dom Pothier.l.l.l. I could tell you what the small differences that separate me from the Fathers regarding the presentation of the method are; I would hasten to say that there are no differences in our manner of performing. I saw Father Abbot two weeks ago; he promised he would resume his discussions with Fathers Jausions and Pothier. ( June , )

. Researching the Manuscripts ()

Over the course of , Dom Jausions made several trips to Angers,

on March , June , and October . It is entirely possible that he continued to be involved in the chant there. That year, however, Dom Jau-

sions was occupied with the publication of a book on the Little Office

of the Blessed Virgin.79 His letters mention it continually. The printing

. Le petit Office de la B. V. Marie pour les différents temps de l’année, avec une traduction nouvelle et un commentaire en forme de méditations, XII- pp., Angers, Barassé, .

PERIOD OF PREPARATION 53

at Angers was completed in late July. The visits Dom Jausions made to

Angers after that were certainly related to the chant, because until , he was occupied at the city library with copying in their entirety not

only manuscript , but also—as we have already mentioned—two oth-

er Gregorian manuscripts. It must also be remembered that Dom Jau-

sions’ literary activity (he published a historical work every year from

 to )80 could leave him only limited time for the Gregorian

cause.

On July , Dom Pothier went to Alsace for health reasons, “then to

St. Gall to consult Gregorian chant manuscripts” (Dom Guéranger’s

Journal). It seems that on the way, he paid a visit to the Imperial Library.

He surely visited Laon, with its rich holdings in manuscripts. He wrote

from Soultzmatt on August  or , :

What I found most interesting on my trip, without exception, was the city of Laon, its cathedral and library. It contains a great number of manuscripts (about ) including practically all of Prémontré. The Antiphonal I wished to see is from the eleventh century, judging from the neumes that resemble those of the Albi and Arles Antiphonaries in the Imperial Library. It is a different system of notation from that of St. Gall. In spite of that, in the Laon manuscripts are found the romanian letters explained by Notker. These letters at Laon, even more so than at St. Gall, confirm, as I have assured myself, Guido d’Arezzo’s theory about the long final of the musical symbols, mora ultima vocis. I shall go to Colmar on Monday to obtain, if I can, those of Murbach.

Indeed, after a stop at the library in Épinal in July, Dom Pothier ar-

rived at Colmar. The librarian there promised to send him some Mur-

bach manuscripts at Soultzmatt right away (three manuscripts specifi-

cally indicated in a note from his brother, Dom Alphonse Pothier). It is also from this last locality that a letter informs us of this visit (August ).

Dom Pothier found there the “manuscripts of the Abbey that the May-

or of Colmar, with extreme kindness, allowed him to take along.” And

Dom Paquelin added a postscript that the Mayor of Colmar would

gladly have given Dom Pothier the entire library had he wanted it. As

Dom David has pointed out, from these manuscripts, Dom Pothier

“copied the neumes with great animation, on twenty large pages in fo-

lio.”81

. Biron, Bibliographie, p. .

. Dom David, Dom Joseph Pothier, p. ; Dom Guéranger’s Journal, October .

54 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

From Soultzmatt, Dom Pothier went to Beuron, where he arrived on

August  or , to give chant classes. He stayed there almost a month,

then proceeded to St. Gall, where he rejoined Dom Paquelin who was

occupied with collating the old manuscripts of St. Gertrude and St.

Mechtilde with a view to publishing their works. Dom Pothier helped

him—and did so again later82—in this work of collating. But at the same

time, Dom Pothier was also involved in making a partial copy of the

Antiphonal of Blessed Hartker. Completed on September , this copy comprised no fewer than  pages. Moreover, here is what Dom Pothier himself said about his trip to St. Gall:

I could spend only ten days here, during which I profited as much as I could; I saw all the chant manuscripts, and they are numerous. I copied one of them, the one that seemed to me to be the most useful for our projects. These projects are progressing slowly—too slowly. Let us hope, however, that we shall arrive at something worthwhile one day (letter to Dom Bastide, dated January , ).83

. The “Manuscript” of Dom Jausions ()

We have already noted that Dom Jausions was occupied with the

printing of a book on the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin. In , it was the publication of a life of Father Carron84 that interested him. The book had two editions, the first in one volume, the other in two volumes, published in Paris by Dauriol. However, this did not keep Dom

Jausions from continuing his work on copying the Graduals in Angers,

where he stayed from March  to .

During this time Gontier, as always, appeared impatient. On March , he wrote: I am unaware of where the work stands at Solesmes. They are dependent on Father Abbot’s approbation, and that approbation depends on his

health. I still do not have a copy of the Directorium chori that he promised to send me as soon as it was promulgated.

. Cf. Dom David, Dom Joseph Pothier, p. .

. There is one detail worth mentioning here. Dom Guéranger’s Journal informs us that in July , the Abbot of Solesmes decided that the novices, before profession, should be given a test of their talent for intoning ( Journal, July  and August ). In the event of a failure, he would let Father Prior be responsible for the reception of their vows. This measure seems at first very severe, but it underscores Dom Guéranger’s great concern for the dignity of the Divine Office and the esteem for the official prayer of the Church which he desired to find in his sons.

. With the collaboration of Dom Bouleau, XI- pp.; LXVI pages, Paris, .

PERIOD OF PREPARATION 55

A few extracts of a Method that was being studied were, however, being

circulated. Gontier, in fact, informed his correspondent that “Dom Jau-

sions has left quite a substantial memorandum at Angers and at Séez

which you could ask him for and which he will send you.” Gontier be-

came more specific: “He told me what I already knew, that what he had

left at Angers, at Séez, and at other places were some pages of a Method in manuscript” (April , ).

As for Dom Jausions, he speaks of a “chart” or “a page of instruc-

tions for the performance of the chant” (April , ). We shall see later, in an important letter by Dom Jausions dated April , , that the few pages mentioned by Gontier are the “rules of accentuation” composed by Dom Jausions, and that the “chart,” also composed by Dom

Jausions, restated the principal rules for performing plainchant, and was only a summary of a much more extended Method. Moreover, the part

played by Dom Jausions in the method that was being worked out was

greater still. In fact, in the letter dated April  mentioned above, with regard to his page of instructions Dom Jausions says that he was in need of them at the moment to “complete the publication of our Method,”

and, in the letter dated April , he mentions “several trials” on rhythm which he had made in collaboration with Dom Pothier.

. Dom Pothier’s “Memorandum” ()

Nevertheless, in his letter of April , Gontier informed Baptiste that

he had news from Solesmes. Dom Jausions came to Le Mans and Gon-

tier learned from him that Dom Guéranger, wishing to finish it, had

taken the chant problem in hand, and charged Dom Pothier with com-

posing an essay intended to appear as a preface to the Directorium chori.

Gontier wrote:

I had Dom Jausions with me for breakfast at home this morning, and he told me that Father Abbot, feeling better, had taken up again the plainchant question. He gave Dom Pothier orders to prepare a preliminary piece to be printed as a preface to the Directorium chori, which would appear as soon as Dom Pothier’s work was finished. This preface is a kind of philosophical essay that will be scarcely understood, but will have value among competent persons. (April ,

)

56 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

It must be admitted that these lines gave rise to certain difficulties. In fact, the reference is to a text that was to serve as an introduction to the Directorium chori and was to be inserted at the front of the book (this is certainly the meaning of Gontier’s expression “as a preface to the Directorium chori”), even though the Directorium was already printed. Moreover, this conforms to the original plan set up by Dom Guéranger,

which we already know about (No. ). But this essay was something

other than the Method, because Dom Jausions was soon to say, on April

, that he was finishing up with writing it. Moreover, the task entrusted to Dom Pothier was to be an essay, not a statement of performance

practice as such. The memorandum spoken of by Dom David in his

memoirs of Dom Pothier comes readily to mind: “About twenty large

pages in which the principles of returning to the manuscripts for the

melodic line, the notation, as well as a useful statement about perform-

ance are set forth.” What strongly supports this hypothesis is that such a memorandum would be appropriate as a preface to the Directorium

chori, as it was the first book dedicated to the return to traditional notation. Thus it comes as no surprise that Dom Guéranger requested this

assignment from Dom Pothier, given the part that he had played up to

that point in the orientation of the project.

In any case, this memorandum cannot possibly have been intended,

as it might appear at first glance, for the sole use of the Abbot of

Solesmes, for the purpose of clarifying the point of discussion that re-

mained between Gontier and Dom Pothier with regard to the “strong

note of the melody,”85 for the essay, Gontier clearly affirms, was intend-ed for publication. But why did Dom Guéranger request the memoran-

dum when the publication of the method was already well advanced? It

is difficult to conjecture. Thus, faced with this lack of complete certainty, it is better not to suggest anything.

. Gontier always insisted on this point, maintaining “that the stemmed-note at the top of an ascent produces a melodic accent” (October , ). “The culminating stemmed-note is a strong beat” (August , ), cf. infra, No. . The paper given by Dom Pothier at Arezzo in

 is an echo of the discussion that took place during this period on “the virga in the neumes”

(cf. No. ).

PERIOD OF PREPARATION 57

. The Work Drafted by Dom Pothier ()

Meanwhile, Baptiste asked Dom Jausions to send him his notes on

the performance of the chant. Dom Jausions thus had to acknowledge

that the Method on which he was working was well along and ready to

appear.

On April , , Dom Jausions wrote:

First, the page of instructions for the performance of the chant that I have already sent to various places, notably to Séez and Angers, has not been printed yet. Although it has been copied at various establishments, I have in my possession only the one copy that I made for my own use. Nevertheless, I shall gladly send it to you, but I need it right now to finish editing our basic Method that Reverend Father Abbot speaks of publishing three or four months from now.

Doubtless you would prefer to wait for the publication, anyway, so as to have something more complete?

Finally, on April , another letter from Dom Jausions takes us, one

might say, to Solesmes in the midst of the work itself. Dom Jausions

sent off his “page on the chant” so eagerly requested by his correspon-

dent and, happily for us, he added to it lengthy explanations on the na-

ture and plan of the method that was talked about for so many years.

Although not everything was yet settled, the plan had been agreed

upon, at least in its overall design. There is a valuable letter explaining where matters stood in late April :

I enclose my manuscript chart of instructions for the chant, which obliges me to send you everything as official documents. On this point, to respond to what you told me at the beginning of your letter, I can assure you, dear Father, that I have no difficulty whatever about communicating it to you. It is only that, since it is not yet finished in every detail (as you will see by a paragraph which I have marked in parentheses, and which I have annotated), I would wish in no way to contradict the very much more extended Method we are preparing at this time, and which Reverend Father Abbot continually talks of approving.

I hope the Method we are preparing will merit your attention, and I thank you for the early indication of your interest in your request for a number of copies. Nevertheless, perhaps this will require further attention on your part.

This method will be basic, and then again not so basic. It will be basic in that we will never produce anything quite so succinct again. It will not be as utterly basic, however, because it will have to run at least some hundred pages to in-58 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

clude very important and minute details, and because it will not include everything usually expected in a basic method, namely the theory of the scale, of intervals, and of modes. Rather, assuming that those matters are familiar, it will present only the rules for accentuation, good reading, and good rendition of the chant from the point of view of rhythm. I have drawn up almost complete rules for accentuation, and I present them as self-evident. After our several previous trials, Dom Pothier is now writing up the results of our research on the rhythm of the chant. It is a continuation of the ideas contained in the chart I sent you, which I drew up in Angers for the seminarians. He has already written altogether about seventy-five pages, and has not yet finished. Although we have worked on it every day together, I do not have an available copy of this work in progress. I fear that it might be rather advanced for children. On the other hand, things must be clear.

So you will see, dear Father, that we have a decision to make, for, on the one hand, if it is to be printed soon, I can scarcely see how I can send it to you before printing; on the other hand, if you wish a considerable number of copies of it, we would have take this request into account when we go to press as, aside from your order, we were planning on printing a rather small number of copies. In fact, this method we are discussing is merely a practical introduction to get our new books into usage among our religious. We are in no way seeking to pub-licize it, as we may later for an extended Treatise on Plainchant, on the scale of the works by Dom Jumilhac and others.

What emerges from this long letter of Dom Jausions? First, the work

at issue was not a Method as we understand the term today, but rather

something like a treatise on rhythm (emphasis by Dom Jausions), that was to run “at least some hundred pages to include very important and

minute details.”

Dom Jausions says that he himself wrote the rules for accentuation,

at least to a very large extent, rules that were to include the rules for the accentuation of the syllabic chant and the melodic chant, as we have

seen above (No. ). But it was Dom Pothier who worked on the main

part, the section on rhythm. Yet Dom Jausions did point out that this

work on rhythm was merely a continuation of the ideas contained in

his own “page of instructions for performing the chant.” He also noted

that he had already done several trials on this subject with Dom Pothier, and that they continued to work on it every day. But we must point out

again that it was Dom Pothier who was doing the writing: he had al-

ready written seventy-five pages and was not yet finished. Although this was still just a practical introduction, it does seem that the introduction DOM GUERANGER’S RATIONALE 59

was quite lengthy. So this is something quite different from the twenty

pages mentioned by Dom David, who wished to see in them the whole

of the early Method.86

This letter may also hint at the material in Dom Pothier’s book enti-

tled Les Mélodies Grégoriennes, published in . Doubtless the most important part of that book, the section on rhythm that occupies several

chapters (chapters VIII to XVI) and runs some  pages, was drafted in

. Otherwise, any trace of Dom Pothier’s major work under discus-

sion here would have disappeared thereafter. Since Dom Guéranger ap-

proved the Mélodies Grégoriennes in , long before he died and while Dom Jausions was still living, as we will see below, we have no record of any other work on rhythm by Dom Pothier that would have paved the

way for his book.

As for Dom Jausions’ collaboration (the Solesmes tradition has al-

ways been consistent on this point), there is no doubt about it, at least with regard to writing the chapters on rhythm, if the letter presented

here is read objectively. Although Dom Jausions’ very first efforts had involved neither a restitution of the ancient melodies nor a return to the traditional notation, it turned out that early on he had come around easily to the way of thinking of Dom Guéranger, Gontier, and Dom Poth-

ier, and that he was then working in full agreement with Dom Pothier.

In a letter dated July , Dom Pothier was not yet envisioning an

immediate printing of the Method. (Although he speaks of a Preface, it clearly has to do with the method, as proven by the timetable, which

corresponds to the dates mentioned by Dom Jausions.) As for the Directorium chori, also mentioned in this letter, it had been printed, as we know. What is said of it in the letter can only refer to its promulgation, which was in fact to be done at the same time as the promulgation of

the Method.

In July , Dom Pothier wrote to Dom Bastide:

The famous Preface is progressing, but slowly. I thought that surely by bringing it back up and reworking it last Lent, it would be finished by August, but we

. Un document intéressant, in Revue du chant grégorien, July–August , p. .—There may be a reference to these “trials” mentioned by Dom Pothier in a letter he wrote to Dom Bastide on March , . After discussing the Directorium chori (cf. Note ), Dom Pothier added, “As for the Preface, I am waiting.” This sentence can be understood in various ways, including: “I am waiting to get to work on it.” In any event, this cannot possibly be a reference to the essay requested by Dom Guéranger in  (No. ).

60 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

shall have neither it nor the Directorium until next Advent at the earliest. Father Gontier calls it a work of science and of patience: this last expression, it must be allowed, is apt. If the delay were to result in a more accurate and practical science, nothing will have been lost by waiting a bit. What seems more urgent to me are the chant books; not a note of either the Antiphonal or the Gradual has been printed yet. A work of patience! (To Dom Bastide, July )

. Gregorian Travels ()

Baptiste had spoken of possibly going to Solesmes during the sum-

mer of . Dom Jausions informed Baptiste that he was planning to

visit the Petit Séminaire de Saint-Gaultier on his visit to the monastery of Ligugé “to put a little order in the chant of that abbey” (letter of

April , ), since he could foresee that he would be away from

Solesmes for the summer. Dom Pothier, “the only other person besides

me who is abreast of the chant question,” would also be away. In an-

nouncing his trip to Ligugé, Dom Jausions stated clearly that the jour-

ney would be brief, and the reason he gives for this is that the Method

was not finished:

I am going to Ligugé because it was a trip scheduled for other reasons; but the brief time I must spend there gives you all the more indication that nothing is finished with regard to our Method. Nonetheless, we could discuss many

things, and the immediacy of our meeting permits me to set aside at this time many things which can be discussed in person more easily than in writing.

Dom Jausions left Solesmes in late June for the “lengthy musical

peregrinations” from which he was to return “full of neumes,” as re-

ported in the chronicle. On July , he was at Ligugé, where he discussed the Directorium chori, according to Gontier.

We next find him in Paris, working hard in libraries—too hard in

Dom Guéranger’s view, fearing for his young disciple’s health. A long

letter from Dom Jausions tells us that he had “perused a number of

manuscripts intently” at the Imperial Library, noting with deep interest a host of things for his own information, and that he had received word

of three Antiphonaries he wanted to copy (two at the Imperial Library

and one at Sainte-Geneviève). However, it all involved a great deal of

trouble, and he triumphed only after countless efforts, “letters to the

ministry, visits to offices, visits to all the librarians, the pleasant and the PERIOD OF PREPARATION 61

impossible alike.” Finally, he added, “I hope that this trip to Paris has perhaps given me an opening with people who might be useful to us

when needed for our projects.” ( July  and September , )

These last observations show, if it were necessary, that although

Dom Jausions was a “good copyist,” he also knew how to take advan-

tage of his contacts with the manuscripts, in order to instruct himself

on the many problems raised by the Gregorian question.

In acknowledging receipt of the manuscripts from Paris, Dom

Guéranger informs us that Dom Pothier, for his part, was resting at

Soultzmatt. He was there from August  to September , and his biog-

rapher assures us that he had resumed work “on the Colmar manu-

scripts.” In fact, at Soultzmatt Dom Pothier was copying a Murbach

missal from the Colmar library. He finished work on the copy on Sep-

tember . He also went to Laon, Muenster, Basel, and finally Troyes.87

In these various cities, he doubtless researched new manuscripts, as he

did at Basel, from which he later obtained manuscripts by correspon-

dence. At Laon, most especially, the old Antiphonal of the Mass,88 which he had already studied on his previous trip, seemed to draw his attention, and perhaps it was at this time that he took steps for it to be lent to him so that he could copy it, which he deemed indispensable for his

work. We will return to this matter later.

. Various Difficulties ()

During these days, the novices at Solesmes, or at least their Father

Master, Dom Couturier, who would one day succeed Dom Guéranger,

were inclining toward Dom Pothier’s restorations. This new chant, with

its pure lines, was a foretaste of the Gradual being prepared, and aroused their wish to have it emerge from its swaddling clothes:

When will your Gradual ever see the light of day? Meanwhile, I want to tell you, as my teacher, and to console you for all the attention you have given me, that during your absence I took on the task of solfeging all the copies of the Graduals your brother (Dom Alphonse Pothier) gave me. (Dom David, p. )

. Dom David, Dom Joseph Pothier, p. . Cf. Also a note from Dom Alphonse Pothier.

. This was Codex  (th–th century) at the Library of Laon, which Dom Mocquereau was later to publish in the Paléographie Musicale, vol. X ().

62 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

Nevertheless, Gontier’s letter from Cloët, dated August , ,

makes mention again of Dom Guéranger’s hesitations; Dom Guéran-

ger did not dare face the opposition raised by some of the religious on

this matter:

I believe I told you that nothing has yet been made public; for several years now the Directorium chori has been printed; but it has not yet been distributed to the community; and I do not know whether it ever will be. Father Abbot, not at all well, has become timid, not wanting to cope with the deaf ear of an opposition that is fearful of change. Two religious have prepared the Gradual and the Antiphonal; and if Father Abbot wished, everything could be printed in less than two years.

Whatever were the problems faced by Dom Guéranger in his own

monastery regarding the publication of the Method, the persistence of

a considerable variance of opinion between Dom Pothier and Gontier

on the nature of the stemmed virga can be considered one of the principal reasons for his hesitations. Well, this dispute, as we shall soon learn, obstinately remained utterly unresolved.

Another reason for the slowdown of the work was the fact that Dom

Jausions and Dom Pothier were still absorbed in other projects. This

was noticeable especially in Dom Pothier’s case, because he was the one

whom Dom Guéranger could count on particularly to bring the

restoration of our chant books to a satisfactory conclusion. Then Dom

Pothier was placed in charge of the theology course, which evidently

occupied most of his attention. So Dom Guéranger decided to relieve

him in November , so that Pothier might devote himself entirely to

the work of the Gregorian restoration, which had already dragged on

for several years. At least for a time, Dom Jausions was going to have to discontinue his historical and liturgical studies; and we have already

seen him completely occupied in preparing, with Dom Pothier, the pre-

liminary Method requested by Dom Guéranger.

. The First Version of the Mélodies Grégoriennes ()

In spite of Dom Guéranger’s decisions, especially that to relieve

Dom Pothier, matters continued to drag on. The Abbot of Solesmes be-

came ill in early  and was absorbed with various concerns that pre-

vented him from devoting himself to the examination of the Method,

PERIOD OF PREPARATION 63

whose composition he followed closely. Dom Jausions and Dom Poth-

ier advised Baptiste of this in a joint letter dated January , .

Yet Dom Pothier hoped just the same that “the practical rules of

Gregorian chant” could soon be sent to the printer ( January , ).

And happily, on April , he noted:

You will wait a good while for the Method, on which I am not the only one working. I hope, however, we can send it to the printer very soon after

Easter.l.l.l. Independently of the Method, we shall finally start printing the Gradual and Antiphonal, and I hope that once matters are underway, they will move along quite smoothly.

One can thus conclude that the editing of the Method was complet-

ed in . Proof of this will be found further on, besides. In the sum-

mer of , Baptiste could consult a “manuscript” by Dom Pothier, in

view of the editing of a practical Method that he alone was working on.

Although the term used seems unclear, it is evident that it could only refer to the Method developed at Solesmes, which alone, in view of his

work, could be useful to Baptiste. But let us return to . Cloët, having come to Solesmes in the summer89 when Dom Jausions was away,

had long conversations with Dom Pothier over a period of eight days,

but as Gontier said, he (Dom Pothier), “showed him neither the Directorium chori nor the Preface of the Solesmes edition” (August , ).

The word Preface could refer simply to the Method—and we have seen

that Dom Pothier referred to it thus—or to the essay requested by Dom

Guéranger in April , or perhaps to both at once. The task being fin-

ished in the summer of , the matter worked itself out, so that Dom

Jausions and Dom Pothier were less preoccupied and had more free

time. At the end of July, Dom Jausions, this time at his leisure, could

give a series of Chant courses at Ligugé, Fontgombault, and Saint-

Gaultier, where he “allowed Father Baptiste’s students to sing as much

as they wished” (August , ; cf. Dom Jausions to Baptiste, letter of

. Dom Jausions went to see Cloët at his home in February, very likely at the time of a trip to northern France.—In , Cloët published at Lecoffre a Recueil de Mélodies Liturgiques, preceded by a method. From the point of view of notation, there is nothing new in this book. A believ-er in speech rhythm, the author nevertheless gave in to the prejudice of the long accent, and his discussions with Gontier on this point and a few other points, as well, had not shaken his convic-tions (Rousseau, p. ). According to Gontier, Dom Pothier fared better, in that summer of , and Cloët admitted that “there is no one in France who is stronger in the chant than Dom Pothier” (August , ).

64 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

July ). Dom Pothier had time to annotate and correct a Gradual from Rheims, also at Baptiste’s request.

Thus it seems that the two writings of Dom Pothier which plainly

constitute the basis for the Mélodies Grégoriennes published in , were ready. The first of these was Dom Pothier’s essay, still quite short (here one naturally thinks of Chapter I of the Mélodies Grégoriennes, which from the historical point of view clearly settles well the problem of returning to tradition). The second writing was the Méthode in a much more developed form (already amounting, in , to more than a hundred pages). This text, written by Dom Pothier in close collaboration

with Dom Jausions—in this instance, Dom Pothier himself confirms his

authorship of the Method, in the letter of April  cited above—was still quite general in character, in the form of a treatise on rhythm, as Dom

Jausions explained in detail (cf. above, No. ). Thus it is this second document that seems to correspond best, through its content and

scope, to what was to become the Mélodies Grégoriennes, a treatise on the rhythm of liturgical chant, of which the Méthode would be the first version. It is important to note that without this, all trace of this work would have disappeared, and it is difficult to imagine what other writing of Dom Pothier could be viewed as a preparation for the Mélodies Gré-

goriennes approved by Dom Guéranger in .

But if this was the case, why was the Méthode not sent to the printer at the time? The reason is that the differences between Gontier and

Dom Pothier, mentioned at the outset, continued to exist even as, oth-

erwise, they were in complete agreement regarding performance prac-

tice. A letter from Gontier proves well, in fact, that he held fast to his position:

.l.l. the more a subject is probed, the more differences become known. I am in full agreement with Dom Jausions and Dom Pothier as to performance; and

we sang in unison for a whole day; but I am with Dom Jausions and somewhat against Dom Pothier in saying that customarily, the stemmed note at the top of a melodic rise is an accented note. I say customarily, for I do not think that in the oldest editions, like the beautiful manuscripts that I have here with me, a strong accent should always be made on the first note of the clivis, etc. (August

, )

PERIOD OF PREPARATION 65

. Dom Pothier’s Style

Dom Pothier, too, was consistent with his own style, which was

based on taking great liberties, the enemy of excessive attention to de-

tail. To Father Baptiste, who asked him to write a method applicable

specifically to the Rheims-Cambrai edition, he replied:

What you request can readily be done, but only when the one in preparation is finished. I understand your impatience over this problem, and we would like to be able to comply immediately with your request: meanwhile, continue to

work at it, you have the general idea, and for the most part the special technique, and many things you think you cannot resolve will fall into place by themselves; the problems of minute details should not cause you to stop; basically, what is important is to know how to give the chant a movement of natural recitation; this is for the division of the tonal groups or of the syllables necessary to sung language, a language simply accented; to choose, among the various ways of establishing groups, what makes the text more intelligible and, at the same time, makes the melody more agreeable. Doubtless, tradition must be respected as well as the manuscripts, but when the double purpose has really been achieved, which is apparent in the singing, almost always the tradition and the manuscripts are found to be in accord (April , ).

In replying to a specific question, he added:

One cannot and one should not seek complete and perfect uniformity in terms of supervenient phenomena; in this sense, any absolute system in this regard can only be false, at the very least in the sense that exceptions are always necessary; in the final analysis, it is indeed the ear that can sometimes be the judge and even sometimes the only judge in the matter of chant, as the eye when it judges painting (April , ).

To this text, we are adding three more, written later, in , but

which are relevant here:

As far as syllables, neumes, and distinctions are concerned, I should tell you, if I am not mistaken, that it is very important to teach the singers to follow the sense of the phrase, that is, first of all, to take note of the words, possible even when a knowledge of Latin is lacking; as for the special case where such a division involves a neume and another a simple musical syllable, it is just about impossible. If you try to systematize and analyze the elements of discourse, you will not succeed; the pauses offer too many nuances for you to classify them methodically. One must not try to impose a precise solution on what is, by its nature, imprecise.

66 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

However, for the division of the neume, the solution is often clear: it is when the melody ends in an incomplete pause, but one that is still sufficient to provide a satisfactory melodic sense. How can this be expressed? Sing, and you will see that some pauses are impossible to suppress, while others you could skip over quite handily. The first mark the end of the neume, the second, those of simple syllables. (March , )

.l.l. I am far from being settled as to the formation of the principles: I do not find any that are sufficiently broad; the more I proceed, the more I see the need to be freed from any system. I do not say this to discourage you; on the contrary, I only want to say that the simplest things closest to what nature teaches are often the most difficult to explain; however, try we must. (April , ) For me, the subdivisions into binary groups within ascending as well as de-scending phrases—it is all the same. If you wish, speak only of the rising groups, well and good; but it must be clearly understood that these subdivisions in no way lengthen the musical syllables; these subdivisions are intended only to avoid detaching the notes.l.l.l. But there is no longer any need to speak of these subdivisions; this is useful only in the longer series. (August , )90

. Preparation of the Antiphonal

The task of transcribing the manuscripts progressed slowly. The

work required patience, but the “copyists” appreciated the fruits of

their labors: a more perfect knowledge of the manuscripts, which their

attentive reading of the neumes and their faithful transcription revealed to them. On March , , Dom Jausions wrote from Angers, where

he was working in the library:

As for our work’s progress, it clearly will not be rapid, because of the many impediments that slow us down. I shall mention only one. Our task, being the

. Several Gregorianists already felt the need for more precise instruction. One of L. Baptiste’s correspondents noted (regarding unexpected issues): “Dom Pothier says that it is necessary to follow nature: this leaves the field wide open for capriciousness, and nobody wants that”

(Abbé Léonard, January , .l.). Another, Planque, gave an account to Cloët of a letter of Dom Pothier, also asking for greater precision on the very matter of the rhythmic subdivisions and this for the purpose of unifying the chant: “There is a place here to adopt supplementary signs to indicate better the principal incises and the melodic phrase; for the written word we have the period, the colon, the semi-colon, and the comma; in the chant, we have only two kinds of bars, few indeed. For some singers, it is never going too far to dot the i’s for them, as they saying goes; moreover, in a large choir, a good system of punctuation can only improve the unity of the ensemble’s performance (February , ).

PERIOD OF PREPARATION 67

restoration of the text according to the manuscripts, would be considerable enough if we had at our disposal the manuscripts we need in our cells at Solesmes. Do not forget that, far from having these indispensable documents right at hand, we are obliged to procure them first by the interminable route of a complete transcription. Thus because of this, we shall have lost years; I am wrong to say lost, since these transcriptions are for us a study to familiarize us with the chant that we intend to restore; but quite lost, nonetheless, from the point of view of the advancement of the work.

Hence I am here at the public library, copying two Graduals, one from the tenth century, the other from the twelfth. In both of them I am at the Sundays after Pentecost (including the sanctoral cycle, which, in these manuscripts, is in-tercalated within the Proper of the Time). Now I am approaching the end, and by giant steps, but in order to reach this point, I had to make many trips, spending only a few days each time.—So also, and after much trouble, last year in Paris I obtained three texts of the Antiphonal. They have been sent to us for the year; but since we can have them only for that period, we are hurrying to transcribe them; so this year, spent still trying to obtain documents in this way, will yield scanty results, at least directly, in terms of our ultimate work. When we do have all our materials, these three or four Graduals, and as many Antiphonaries, our work will move along notably faster. But in all, time and patience are needed, and especially in this endeavor. You know, too, that Dom Pothier and I have several other assignments and obstacles. In the midst of all this, we shall do our best; but we cannot do the impossible.

It was in July , before the trip to Ligugé, Fontgombault, and

Saint-Gaultier mentioned above, that Dom Jausions completed the tran-

scription of manuscript  at the library in Angers. He presented a

handsomely bound copy of it to Dom Guéranger on the Feast of the

Assumption. At the same time, still in Angers, he copied combined

manuscripts –, twelfth-century Graduals of which we also have a copy (the verses of the Offertory, at the end of the transcription, are in Dom Pothier’s hand). At Solesmes, he also collated the three Antiphonals that he had brought from Paris the year before. He returned

them in September, only to obtain a new loan of the Sainte-Geneviève

manuscript.

The collation of the Antiphonal filled up about thirty notebooks. The three versions are laid out there one beneath the other (we have identified those of the Compiègne Antiphonal: B. N. ., and the Beauvais Antiphonal: Sainte-Geneviève), but the melodic variants alone are indicated on lines, which are often almost entirely blank. To these copies by 68 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

Dom Jausions, we must add various partial copies done at Angers, al-

ways in view of the Antiphonal.

. The First Version of the Liber Gradualis ()

It seems clear to us that the Method prepared at Solesmes was com-

pleted in . In , the Gradual was also finished. We can follow the final stages of the work in Dom Pothier’s correspondence. On April ,

for example, he wrote:

We could print the Introits, the Graduals, and the Tracts right away. All of this has been concluded. But we shall begin to print only when the book of Mass chants is ready; the Antiphonal will follow.

And on October :

This summer, thanks to the active steps taken by Dom Jausions, we were able to consult and transcribe new documents, which will be valuable to us. Our work for the rest, it seems, has gone well; the Introits, Graduals, Tracts and Alleluias could be printed at once; the Offertories are coming along, the Communions will then follow. All of this requires care and time; be patient.

For his part, Dom Jausions stated specifically that it was Dom Pothier’s responsibility to establish the definitive reading. In a letter dated December , , he wrote: “.l.l. he is the one who is preparing the text that we felt should be adopted.” To do this, Dom Pothier laid out the

various pieces of the Gradual by types and mode (an arrangement he

had used previously in transcribing Codex  of St. Gall), without first making use of comparative tables as Dom Jausions had done for the Antiphonal (see above), somewhat in the manner generally used by Dom Mocquereau later.

One can therefore conclude that by the end of  practically every-

thing was finished. Professor Amédée Gastoué confirmed as much: “To-

ward , preparation for this work (the Gradual) had been completed, and I can say, since I held it in my hands, dated and signed, that it differs very little from the final edition.”91 Incidentally, the words which Dom Pothier uttered later shew clearly that it was in fact a definitive edition.

. Dom Joseph Pothier, in Questions liturgiques et paroissiales, , p. .—Cf., by the same author: L’Édition vaticane, in Société Internationale de Musique, , p. ; Dom Joseph Pothier, in Dic-tionnaire de Connaissances Religieuses. Cf. Dom David, Dom Joseph Pothier, p. .

PERIOD OF PREPARATION 69

It was for this reason that during the summer of , Dom Jausions

had continued his research. At the end of July, he was back in Paris,

whence he returned “with various chant manuscripts,” as noted in the

chronicle. More exactly, these manuscripts, unless still other manu-

scripts were at issue, were sent to him the following month. On August

, Dom Jausions wrote: “The manuscripts that I asked for in Paris have

arrived.l.l.l. I wrote to speed up the delivery of three others, which I had likewise requested.” Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine what

were the manuscripts to which Dom Jausions was referring. Perhaps

they were Antiphonaries as well, for under the title Mélanges Dom Jausions we happen to have several copies of antiphons of the Psalter taken from various Paris and Angers manuscripts. (Seven are from Paris.)

In any event, it does seem that the bilingual Montpellier manu-

script92 was sent to Solesmes at this time or soon after, because the Liber Gradualis is in large measure indebted to it and owes it all of its merit. In his letter dated January , , Dom Pothier had already mentioned

this manuscript in passing, but perhaps it still had to do with Nisard’s traced copy, housed in the Imperial Library, and which Dom Jausions

knew about from  (letter dated July ). In any case, mention must be made of the copy of the Missal of Saint-Martial of Limoges (B.N. lat.

) made by Dom Pothier in .

At any rate, when Cloët and Planque came to Solesmes in Septem-

ber , they were able to see where things stood, and they had long

conversations with Dom Jausions and Dom Pothier. Cloët had brought

along an edition about which the Solesmes master entertained serious

reservations. On October , , Gontier wrote:

These gentlemen stayed from Monday to Saturday, the work of Abbé Cloët

was examined in detail.l.l.l. As to the outcome, I think either that Abbé Cloët decided not to go to press, or that Abbé Planque decided not to support the edition.

Thus Cloët was particularly interested in the Solesmes edition, and after his stay at the Abbey, he left an account of his conversations with Dom

Jausions and Dom Pothier among his papers, which may be summa-

rized as follows: the Solesmes edition project used the traditional Gre-

gorian script (neumatic grouping of the notes, indication of certain spe-

. This refers to the eleventh-century Antiphonale tonale Missarum, Codex H.  of the Bibliothèque de Médecine de Montpellier, which Dom Mocquereau published later in the Paléographie Musicale, vol. VII and VIII (–).

70 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

cial neumes, such as the oriscus and the strophicus) and, from the perspective of rhythm, they indicate the punctuation of the melodic phrase

to the extent possible at the time. These were the very areas for which

the Rheims-Cambrai edition had been criticized.

. Baptiste’s Méthode

In the fall of , Baptiste was preparing his own Méthode. This Méthode was the subject of an exchange of letters between Baptiste and Gontier, on the one hand, and between Baptiste and Dom Pothier, on

the other. We have already made several references to Dom Pothier’s

characteristic manner of treating questions of detail as revealed in this correspondence. During one of his trips to Solesmes, Baptiste, as we

have already seen, was allowed to examine the Méthode that Dom Pothier had put together with help from Dom Jausions. He was also allowed

to take notes, and he asked permission to use these notes later. To this request, Dom Jausions replied in Dom Pothier’s name:

As to the main issue, namely using the notes that you took from Dom Pothier’s manuscript, here is what he himself said to me: these notes may be inserted into a Méthode to be published, provided that the proofs be sent to us and we have control over what has been borrowed.93

Certainly, Baptiste was influenced by Dom Pothier’s manuscript in the

chapter where he speaks of rhythmic subdivisions. Nevertheless, in any

case, whatever use he made of it, Baptiste sent his manuscript to Dom

Pothier for review and corrections.

In acknowledging receipt of the package, Dom Pothier replied on

October :

I shall read your manuscript carefully and also with pleasure. Send it along as agreed. I shall try not to make you wait too long for the comments you want to receive, which I shall make freely and in confidence, if there is a need for this.

Then, after stating where Solesmes stood at that moment in the work

of preparing the Gradual (this is where the passage cited above, No. , fits), he added, without transition, “All this requires care and time.

Please then be patient. In its time, your work will be useful to us. But it

. Letter of August , .

PERIOD OF PREPARATION 71

is too soon for us to be concerned with methodology for the moment.”

This last, rather puzzling sentence could be simply a polite way of

deferring a decision. Or, it could mean “Since we, too, at Solesmes are

thinking about printing a Method, your work will be useful when it is time for us to be concerned about this printing,” or yet again “Some differences of principle continue to exist (and we are thinking of those still unresolved between Gontier and Dom Pothier), so let us wait awhile before becoming involved with printing a Method; besides, your work will

doubtless shed light on the subject.” Now, if Dom Pothier’s reluctance

to form precise rules on rhythm are taken into account, this would ex-

plain why this long-awaited publication was delayed.

Yet the delay that Dom Pothier predicted was not to be too long. On

January , , Dom Pothier returned the manuscript to Baptiste, hav-

ing freely used the permission given him: “I finished the revision of

your Méthode today, and I am returning it to you more heavily annotated than when it arrived. At my leisure, I allowed myself the freedom to

shape and cut it, doubtless a bit too much.”

Finally, at the last minute, Dom Pothier was again requested to pass

by Saint-Gaultier on returning from a trip to Germany in the summer

of , a trip we shall examine later. Baptiste’s intention in composing an elementary method was thus to translate into practical terms the

principles learned at Solesmes. Dom Pothier, far from disowning this

Méthode, said once that it was as much “ours” as Baptiste’s (letter to Dom Guéranger, August , ). In , Baptiste’s work was to appear under the title Méthode élémentaire et classique de Plain-chant Romain, prepared especially for the Rheims-Cambrai edition.94 For this reason, it retained the notation systems employed in that edition; at the same

time it attempted to regulate rhythmic subdivisions, in order to correct the principal fault found in the Rheims edition.

. A Letter from Dom Jausions

Lastly, let us point out a request for advice that Dom Jausions re-

ceived in October . Dom Jausions responded at great length,95 a

. Lecoffre,  pp.

. Letter of October , , graciously provided to Solesmes by the Abbey of St. Wandrille.

72 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

stroke of good fortune for us, as this is the only document we have that expresses his thinking on Gregorian matters after the experimental

efforts early in his musical career. Here are some salient points.

Dom Jausions explains, first of all, how it came to pass that Solesmes

undertook an edition of chant conforming to the true Gregorian tradi-

tion. This passage has already been quoted, at least in part (No. ), but must be situated here in its full context. Obviously, Dom Jausions alludes to his frequent trips to libraries, but without intention to diminish at all the equally important role of Dom Pothier in transcribing the

manuscripts. He also mentions the decision made by Dom Guéranger

in  to allow Dom Pothier to devote all of his time to Gregorian

studies. As for himself, he was no longer involved with the transcrip-

tions, at least for a period of time (in  and , once again he

worked together with Dom Pothier in editing the Méthode), leaving Dom Pothier to pursue his research and to prepare the text of the Gradual. The literary activity of Dom Jausions has already been pointed out.

Without dissociating himself from Gregorian questions, as this letters

shows, his orientation was more and more toward historical research,

toward which he felt himself more inclined.

When the house of Solesmes was re-established in , there were but few dioceses where the Roman Liturgy was in use. Ecclesiastical chant was rarely studied at the time. The “Dijon” edition was the best known among our Fathers.

They used it, and for the time being we still have it. As for replacing it, we believe, in spite of the remarkable efforts made since then, that not one of the new editions is suitable. It is this that has prompted us to push our research further and to go back to the sources. Because of this, I was obliged to return to the manuscripts. In , one of our brethren, the Reverend Father Dom Pothier, asked me to join him; and though since that moment I have been put in charge of almost all research and transcription done in the libraries, Dom Pothier has devoted himself in a more exclusive manner than I could have done to the studies that we had pursued for a long time together and, right now, it is he who is preparing the text that we think is likely to be adopted.

After explaining how monastic chant is not different from Roman

chant, Dom Jausions continues:

It follows that we do not copy this or that manuscript for exclusive use in our Order at a given time; even less do we copy those editions, often very beautiful in terms of typography, but deplorable from the point of view of the chanting traditions to which the Benedictines of Saint-Maur have devoted themselves PERIOD OF PREPARATION 73

over the last two centuries; but we study and compare the most ancient Gregorian manuscripts that have been the focus of the learned scholars of our day; lastly, to interpret them, we follow the chain of tradition back to the time when knowledge of plainchant began to show signs of change.

It happens, he continues, that the traditional neumatic script was

preserved rather late and it translates the authentic rhythmic design of the Gregorian melody:

It can be said, then, that from the seventh century to the Council of Trent, or thereabouts, the musical work of St. Gregory continued to be reproduced with the signs that he himself used in writing; the notation, from the time of Guido, was not a translation of the ancient neumes, but merely a graphic improvement by means of which the former sign, now made clearer without becoming unrecognizable, could be transferred to a staff with a clef. In this way, the location of the pitch on the tonal scale could be defined.

This notation, you may say, imposes very precise indications on the rhythm of the plainchant. In our opinion, this notation also so well expresses even the most delicate contours of the Gregorian melody that it is nearly impossible, unless one is extraordinarily well-versed in Gregorian formulae, to perform the chant well without having this notation before you as a guide, and that no other notation can replace it. From this, it follows that to attempt a translation of it is an illusion that gave rise to the miscalculations of previous editors.

Dom Jausions went on to state specifically that, although the graphic

symbols of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries duplicate exactly the

most ancient neumatic signs, a serious restoration requires comparison

of these fifteenth-century manuscripts with the most ancient manu-

scripts, for there could have been—and often there have been—changes

in the original melody over the course of the ages.

The only way to prepare an edition that is at once authentic and suitable for everyday use is to collate the greatest possible number of these manuscripts, from the St. Gall manuscript and ones of similar date, to render them into the script of the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries. This is not at all a translation, but a simple rearrangement of some neumes on a staff which in earlier times were in campo aperto.

Interpretation and especially rhythm, he continues, are quite another

matter:

Indeed, although the graphic symbols of plainchant have been preserved, as I said before, as recognizable since the time of St. Gregory to the sixteenth cen-74 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

tury, the interpretation of these symbols has not remained at all consistent. Indeed, far from it. Gerbert’s collections contain the theories of several centuries on this subject. One has only to read the writings of the authors included, one after another, to realize that the later ones are a completely different mind-set from those of an earlier period. Similarly, the scholarly research of de Coussemaker bears witness to the birth of modern music. For, just as the new art pro-gressively changed the tonality of plainchant, so too, little by little, did it also change its rhythm.

Dom Jausions developed his thought by showing how the authors

cited by Gerbert or Coussemaker defined everything, not from the per-

spective of plainchant, but from the perspective of measured music:

Even when their quotations are not taken from notes, but from the Gregorian repertory; even when their citations use the names and traditional figures of the ancient formulae podatus, clivis, and others, nevertheless they remain in the field of figured music, they attribute conventional values to these ancient signs, different, first of all, from those invented by the ones who, a bit earlier, preceded them in this way of conventional use and arbitrariness, different above all from the ancient and original interpretation of the Gregorian neumes.

So Dom Jausions concludes by condemning the proportional nota-

tion still used in the Rheims-Cambrai edition—the same Dom Jausions

who at the outset had said of this mistaken view:

We would be at fault if we believed ourselves authorized by the theories of certain authors in the Gerbert and Coussemaker collections to preserve their procedures of notation and performance. Because certain authors in these collections distort Gregorian formulae by isolating notes whose value they determine by a system of mathematical proportionality, they are in the domain of mensuralist music, and no longer give the true notion of plainchant rhythm.

. The Years –

The year  was notable because of Dom Pothier’s trip to Ger-

many and the departure of Dom Jausions for America (May ), where

he died the following year.

Dom Jausions, who was very partial to historical studies, went to

study on the spot the origins of the church of Vincennes (Indiana),

founded by one of his uncles, and the establishment of the faith in the

New World. For a second time, Dom Pothier accompanied Dom

PERIOD OF PREPARATION 75

Paquelin with a view to publishing the works of St. Gertrude and St.

Mechtilde. It is clear from the letters we have relating to this trip that this was its sole purpose. It was only secondarily and occasionally that Dom Pothier became involved with the chant. He himself attested to

this: “I have had little spare time to copy the chant, but I was able to study a great number of manuscripts” (Beuron, July , ).96

This is the time to call attention to a copy of manuscript  of the

Laon Library (Dom Pothier dates his explicit March , the Feast of St.

Gregory the Great). In Volume X of the Paléographie Musicale, which reproduces this manuscript in phototype, Dom Mocquereau wrote:

Since , there has existed a nearly complete copy of this manuscript, done by Dom Pothier. It is preceded by a short Latin preface. The copy is excellent, in spite of some inaccuracies.l.l.l. It is in one volume,  pages, to which an index of some thirty pages has been added recently.97

The manuscript may have been loaned to Dom Pothier when he vis-

ited Laon in , although no mention of this is made in the Solesmes

correspondence. This is all the more likely a scenario as the almost

complete transcription of the manuscript must have taken a great deal

of time, and seemingly could not have been done on site at Laon.

. The Mélodies Grégoriennes and the Liber Gradualis in 

The care with which Dom Pothier corrected Baptiste’s work in ,

and the two prolonged absences of Dom Jausions and Dom Pothier in

, are grounds enough for us to believe that the planned publications by Solesmes were already well advanced.

. Dom David spoke of this trip, without otherwise giving exact details as to what was its real purpose, in the following terms: “On May , , he (Dom Pothier) left for a long, two-and-a-half month trip to Germany. What a Gregorian harvest! In his correspondence with Dom Alphonse [Pothier], what delightful personal notes! But I must be brief and content myself with a mere listing of the stops along the way: first Rouen, then Cologne, Wolfenbüttel (where he met Dom Paquelin, still rapt in conversation with his dear St. Gertrude and St. Mechtilde), Magdeburg, Leipzig, Halle, Eisleben, Fulda, Gotha, and Mainz. From Mainz he went on to Beuron, Constance, and St. Gall where, he said, ‘I work at the library from seven o’clock to noon and from noon to seven o’clock without stopping.’ Finally, he reached Einsiedeln, where there are so many beautiful manuscripts” ( Dom Joseph Pothier, p. ).

. It was from this copy that the Caecilia of Trier reproduced a few pieces in its lithographed Supplements for the Mitglieder des Choralvereins, , pp. –.

76 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

But Dom Pothier informs us that before Dom Jausions left for Amer-

ica, Dom Guéranger had had time to approve his work. Here is Dom

Pothier’s important text, placed at the beginning of his Mélodies Grégoriennes:

A memorandum had been drafted along these lines (of an authentic traditional restoration of Gregorian chant) and presented by the humble sons of Dom Guéranger to their revered father and master (earlier, Dom Pothier had said that Dom Guéranger had assigned to “two of his religious, long ago, the responsibility of undertaking the necessary research”), which he completely approved of, as well as the noted result of the research conducted under his supervision and direction.l.l.l. The pages that follow, and which we offer in all simplicity and confidence to the friends of the holy liturgy and sacred chant, reproduce the memorandum approved by Dom Guéranger with the corrections and additions that he himself had in large measure indicated. (Preface to the Mélodies Grégoriennes, p. )

What emerges from this text is that the book published in  repro-

duced the memorandum presented to Dom Guéranger, well before his

death and while Dom Jausions was still alive, which brings us to ,

the year of Dom Jausions’ departure for America. Moreover, Dom

Guéranger approved the memorandum, as mentioned, after having

carefully reviewed and corrected it.

This text also tells us that from that point on, in a single work the

memorandum provided both the essay that Dom Guéranger requested

of Dom Pothier, to be used as a Preface to the chant books for practical use, and a general method, in the form of a treatise on rhythm. Dom

Pothier had thus managed to combine these two works in the preceding

months, and had expanded the Preface, fleshing it out with all the basics on notation (an expansion of the table that he was to put at the beginning of the Liber Gradualis), specifically chapters III and VIII of the Mélodies Grégoriennes.

As mentioned above, Dom Pothier paid tribute to Dom Jausions’ col-

laboration, to which he had already alluded, as you will recall, in a letter cited above (No. ). There is no doubt that its author was Dom Pothier, and his influence was decisive from every point of view. Yet it is clear from any objective reading of the texts that concern this matter that

Dom Jausions was not a mere copyist. Rather, he assisted Dom Pothier

with his reflection and insight, working in true collaboration.98

. See Note on page .

PERIOD OF PREPARATION 77

Yet at the time of Dom Jausions’ death in America on October ,

, while he was preparing to return to France, there had been no talk of any sort of publication for the previous two years. Nor was there to

be any such talk in the years that followed, to the point that a corre-

spondent of Baptiste once complained: “Dom Pothier tells me nothing

more, neither of their books, nor of the work related to them” (Abbé

Léonard, February , ). It took the intervention in  of Cardinal Pitra, professed at Solesmes, to convince Dom Pothier to publish something on the chant.

After Dom Jausions’ death, Dom Pothier continued his research.

Whatever significance may otherwise be attached to the book approved

by Dom Guéranger in , it did constitute the charter for the restora-

tion of the liturgical chant and, when it was published in  under the title Les Mélodies Grégoriennes, its  pages did not add anything essential to that charter.

The Gradual seems to have been presented to Dom Guéranger at the same time as the memorandum mentioned by Dom Pothier, the one included in the Mélodies Grégoriennes. (Dom Pothier had spoken of the

“noted result” approved by Dom Guéranger.) Clearly other ancient

manuscripts could have been consulted for more extensive documenta-

tion. Moreover, the book benefited from ten years of choral experience

together with a much better understanding of Gregorian composition

and traditional rhythm. Gastoué asserts that the first version of the

Gradual “differs only slightly from the final edition” (quoted above). It must be recognized that the years preceding its publication were devoted more to the performance of the chant than to the search for manu-

scripts.

Thus, at the time of Dom Guéranger’s death, the Gregorian restora-

tion already had its charter, whose basic principles had been laid down

by the Abbot of Solesmes himself, both from the perspective of per-

formance practice and from that of the restoration of the melodies.

The first practical chant books, especially the Gradual, were in preparation. The printing of the Gradual was already within sight.

Note:—The Solesmes tradition has always been in favor of the col-

laboration of Dom Jausions with respect to Dom Pothier’s book on the

Mélodies Grégoriennes. Among our “elders,” we cite:

78 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

Dom Paul Cagin, L’œuvre de Solesmes dans la Restauration du chant gré-

gorien ( Rassegna Gregoriana, , col. );

Dom B. Heurtebise, Solesmes et le chant grégorien (Le Mans, , p. ); Dom Auguste Gatard, La Musique Grégorienne (Paris, Laurens, , p.

); and

Dom André Mocquereau, Le Révérendissime Dom Joseph Pothier ( Revue Grégorienne, , p. ).

Furthermore, all saw fit to quote the above passage by Dom Pothier,

taken from the Preface of his book, almost without commentary. That

is to say that, although our “elders” at Solesmes knew of Dom Jausions’

collaboration, they were unaware of the details of how it functioned. In addition, they were unaware of the recently discovered documents used

in the writing of this book.

Abbé Rousseau’s book is also quite restrained, as is that of Abbé

Blanc, who used the letter of April , , which was discovered at the time that book was published.

Based on the letter quoted by Abbé Blanc, Moneta-Caglio ( Dom An-

dré Mocquereau e la restaurazione del Canto Gregoriano, in Musica Sacra, Milan, March-April , p. ) attempts to assign authorship of the vari-

ous chapters of the Mélodies Grégoriennes to Dom Guéranger, Dom Pothier, and Dom Jausions. Regardless of any value this endeavor may

possess, the fact remains that this book, at least in its final form, was written in its entirety by Dom Pothier.

As for the dispute that arose on this topic, it is worth mentioning that it took shape in the troubled atmosphere of the beginnings of the Vatican Edition, at a time when certain laymen were denying to Dom Moc-

quereau the initiation of the Paléographie Musicale, for which he had fought so hard (an initial whiff of this is found in an article distributed at the Roman Congress of , Une réforme de Pie X, under the pseudonym A. Louis in Le Gaulois, March , ). Moreover, one article published in these circumstances seemed to some to have spoken too

briefly of Dom Jausions ( Rassegna Gregoriana, , col. ).

The facts given in these pages provide corrections that need to be

made on both sides (once again, cf. Revue du Chant Grégorien, , p. , and , p. ).

III ■ T H E F I R S T P U B L I C AT I O N S

. Gregorian Chant and the Council ()

The sequence of events pertaining to the Gregorian restoration at

Solesmes is better known, at least after . It is customary to follow the development of these events to their successful conclusion, even

though this may mean summarizing briefly those events that have al-

ready been reviewed.

It should be noted, for example, that in , Dom Guéranger was re-

quested on at least two occasions to intervene at the Council with a

view to involving Rome itself in the movement of the Gregorian

restoration. The time was not ripe, and Dom Guéranger knew it. In

fact, there is no proof at all that he followed up on these requests, although he did appear uneasy because of the intrigues being woven in

this regard (August ,  to Baptiste). But is it not significant that a certain Mr. Tesson, of the Rheims-Cambrai Commission should have

had recourse to the Abbot of Solesmes to plead with him to intervene

in favor of the Gregorian cause, whereas he might have considered him-

self qualified to do this on his own, pleading with insistence that Dom

Guéranger “render this new and important service to the Church”?

For his part, Msgr. Lootens, Bishop of Castaballa, wrote to Dom

Guéranger on June , :

I find it extraordinary that among the reform projects whose plans we have received, there is no mention at all of the reform of religious chant. I have spoken of this to several Bishops. Many are of the same opinion. But I fear that, with some of them wanting to go too far, we shall obtain little or nothing. I believe it would be sufficient to restate emphatically the existing laws.

Msgr. Lootens then discussed various details because, as he put it, “I

wish to plead with you for the love of the sacred liturgy to make use of 79

80 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

your pen one more time, to help in bringing about the necessary re-

form.”

. The Lithographed Processional ()

On the first Sunday of Advent, , the monastic processional, com-

posed by Dom Pothier and lithographed by his brother, Dom Alphonse

Pothier, was inaugurated at Solesmes. This first edition of the Proces-

sional still contained only  pages in traditional notation. Moreover, it relied on the copy made by Dom Jausions of the English processional of

Wilton and Dom Pothier’s copy of the manuscript of Compiègne. Dom

Guépin wrote:

The maestro did everything himself, and made up for the imperfection of the tools available with his patience and ingenious methods of his own devising.

He even acted as a draftsman, and decorated his work with illustrations, historiated letters, tail-pieces, and even full-page drawings representing the mysteries of the Annunciation and Christmas. All of this was taken from the Heures of Simon Vostre and other printers of the earliest period. How delighted we were when these modest notebooks were given out to us. Little did we imagine that one day the melodies we were singing, with such great difficulty in the beginning, little by little would make their way throughout all Christianity.99

Two years later, on January , , the restorer of the Abbey and

the first pioneer of the liturgical reform movement rendered his soul to God, before witnessing the full flowering in the domain of music of the

liturgical work he had done. On July , , the young Dom Moc-

quereau entered the Solesmes novitiate; he was to become Dom Poth-

ier’s collaborator, and was to pursue his work in the Gregorian restora-

tion. Cardinal Pitra was at the Abbey100 at that time, once again among

his professed brothers. He was deeply interested in the efforts being

made relative to Gregorian chant, and in a letter urgently requested

Dom Couturier, successor to Dom Guéranger, to require Dom Pothier

to publish something on this subject.

. Dom David, Dom Joseph Pothier, p. .

. A. Battandier, Le cardinal Jean-Baptiste Pitra, Paris, Sauvaitre, , p. .

THE FIRST PUBLICATIONS 81

. The Gregorian Apostolate

It was only two years later, in , that Dom Pothier went to Bel-

gium to negotiate the printing of his book, entitled Mélodies Grégoriennes. But as early as February , he announced to one of his colleagues that Desclée of Tournai, the founder of Maredsous, was

building a printing establishment “to help the Benedictines in their

work of restoring the liturgy, including music.” He concluded, “And so

we shall set to work, and we shall provide the purest St. Gregory possi-

ble.”101

Of Dom Pothier’s trip to Germany in October–November , the

only thing of interest to us mentioned by his biographer is

a stay in Wiesbaden where, at the request of his fellow Benedictines, Cardinal Pitra, and for his own personal satisfaction, he collated the manuscripts of St.

Gertrude, the great th-century visionary, poet, and missionary. He copied all of her musical works, which are very interesting with regard to music and text alike, composed in a flamboyant and highly expressive style (p. ).102

In early , Dom Pothier’s first Gregorian publication appeared, re-

vealing his knowledge of the manuscripts and the neumes. In an article

entitled Quelques mots sur la notation du chant grégorien, 103 Dom Pothier was replying to a study on a missal of Saint-Vougay published in the Revue de l’Art Chrétien, 104 and which reproduced an antiphon of manuscript  of Angers, copied by Dom Jausions. He explained on this occa-

sion the two systems of Gregorian notation, that of accents and that of

dots, and showed how semiology could serve to interpret the delicate

nuances of the sacred chant.

In , Dom Alphonse Pothier noted down his brother’s travels to

. Dom David, Dom Joseph Pothier, p. . From Brussels and Tourcoing, Dom Pothier went on to Ghent, Trier, and Termonde in April and May (according to a note by Dom Alphonse Pothier).

. In , Dom Pothier printed a brief -page work on the lithographic presses of the Abbey (doubtless for the sole use of the monastery), entitled Des signes de la notation neumatique, which we no longer have, but the title of which is sufficiently evocative. It was surely a short course in paleography, which corresponded to what was to become chapter IV in the Mélodies Grégoriennes, and which was republished in  under the title Des signes neumatiques (also lithographed).

. First published in the Revue de l’Art Chrétien, vol. , , p.  and reprinted in Musica Sacra, Toulouse, February , pp. –.

. Article by Dom Plaine, vol. , , p. .

82 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

Paris, Chartres, Autun, Dijon, Mechlin, Brussels, and Bruges. The un-

dated quotation by Dom David (p. ) seems to be from this time (for

Dom Pothier’s biographer recounts at this point, pp. –, Gregorian

chant-related activities stretching over several years):

I am here at the rue d’Ulm, at the home of the Réparatrices. After my Mass, I give a chant class to the community .l.l. Then I go off to the libraries, from which I do not budge from  o’clock in the morning until  o’clock in the afternoon. I started at Sainte-Geneviève, then the Mazarine; in the third place I went back to the Bibliothèque Nationale to which I shall return tomorrow and thereafter .l.l. I am planning to go by the Arsenal on Wednesday and to return to Solesmes on Thursday, bearing my harvest. (P. )

In any event, these were not just study tours, but a Gregorian aposto-

late, as well.

. The First Gregorian Congress of Aiguebelle ()

Therefore, at year’s end, from November  to December , Dom

Pothier was at the Abbey of Aiguebelle, where the first Gregorian chant

Congress was held. The Trappists were the first to join the movement

for Gregorian reform, and they did so wholeheartedly. So there were

several Cistercian Abbots there, along with their cantors, as well as musical personalities from Lyons, Marseilles, Grenoble, Langres, and Saint-Claude. Dom Pothier, the guiding spirit of the Congress, was also

there, accompanied by Dom Bourigaud from the Abbey of Marseilles.

Dom Bourigaud had already been to Aiguebelle from May –, and

had given “.l.l. lectures on Gregorian chant according to Dom Pothier’s

method, in the presence of the Right Rev. Dom Marie-Gabriel, the Ab-

bots and cantors of Bellefontaine and of Notre-Dame du Désert, and

the Prior of Igny” (Dom Bérengier’s Chronicle).105

It was at the Trappist monastery in Bellefontaine that Dom Pothier

gave a series of lectures, sharing the benefit of his knowledge and experience with the sons of St. Bernard.

. Musica Sacra, Toulouse, December , p. : La Trappe d’Aiguebelle et le chant grégorien: Dom David, p. . Cf. T. Nisard, Que faut-il penser des Nouveaux livres de chant liturgique de Ratis-bonne, Rennes , p. , Epilogue.

THE FIRST PUBLICATIONS 83

There were two lectures each day. The morning lecture was for the religious only, and focused on the particular needs of their choirs. The Reverend Father Abbot of Melleray, himself well versed in the techniques of ecclesiastical chant, the Reverend Father Abbot of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce (Diocese of Coutance)

and professed cantors of several monasteries were present for this first meeting. In the evening, the lecture was held in the large hall of the Guest House.

The religious, who did not want to miss any of the master’s teaching, were mixed in among numerous ecclesiastics, happy to be able to respond to the invitation that the Reverend Father had extended them. A few lay people also came and participated.106

. The Mélodies Grégoriennes ()

The Mélodies Grégoriennes d’après la tradition, by the Reverend Dom Joseph Pothier, had first appeared in early . The book was sent to

the printer by order of Dom Couturier, as Dom Pothier continued to

manifest reluctance to face criticism.107 It contained the confirmation of the principles set forth twenty years earlier by Gontier, but fleshed out and more solidly stated. The book gave the key to the neumes, which

the author described and explained clearly and accurately. (In fact, once the book was published, Dom Pothier earned the nickname “the Cham-pollion of neumes,” after the decipherer of the hieroglyphics on the

Rosetta Stone.) The rules of oratorical rhythm were better defined in it, and the nature and role played by the Latin accent were highlighted in

particular. In addition, Dom Pothier drew as much as possible on the

treatises of medieval authors and gave various practical and judicious

suggestions, the results of his own experience.

Abbé Blanc wrote:

The Mélodies Grégoriennes contains the summation of the principles that will govern the reconstruction of the Gregorian phrase and the re-establishment of its rhythm. The norms for deciphering the manuscripts in neumatic notation are presented here as an introduction to the practical principles of performance and to the aesthetic rules of interpretation ( op. cit. , p. ).

For his part, Dom Mocquereau wrote:

. Musica Sacra, Toulouse, April , p. : Le chant grégorien à la Trappe de Bellefontaine.

. Dom Cagin, L’Œuvre de Solesmes, col. . There is no need to review the origins of this book, which were discussed in detail above (Chapter II).

84 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

Two facts result from this study: () the traditional melodies of the Roman Church were preserved in the manuscripts, and can be read; () the practical rules governing their performance have been rediscovered.

Dom Mocquereau continues: “The book met with absolutely unexpect-

ed success. It was translated into German and Italian (by Dom Serafini) and caused a veritable revolution in the performance of plainchant.”108

The Trappists continued to demonstrate their complete dedication

to the Gregorian cause. A second Congress was held at Aiguebelle on

August –, . In attendance was Dom Pothier’s close friend, Fa-

ther Velluz, whom he had known in the Solesmes novitiate. Author of a

brochure entitled Étude bibliographique sur les Mélodies Grégoriennes de Dom Pothier, 109 Father Velluz was a self-appointed promoter of Dom Pothier’s book, whose teachings he presented in his lectures (cf. Dom

Bérengier’s Chronicle, August , ). After the Aiguebelle Congress, he also published a short Introduction aux Mélodies Grégoriennes. 110

The same year, Dom Pothier issued a short -page study published

in the Revue de l’Art chrétien, a Gregorian piece taken from the Lyons Gradual of  and a fragment notated in staffless neumes.111 This was to show that an integrated and authentic restoration of Gregorian chant

(melody and rhythm) was possible and relatively easy to realize, and also to show that the traditional chant is found as late as the first printed volumes, and at times even much later than that, as the Lyons books show.

With mastery, Dom Pothier pursued his demonstration through a de-

tailed study of each neume of the piece he used as an example and re-

produced in an exact copy. Once again, he demonstrated his talent as a

paleographer and his profound knowledge of Gregorian chant.

This is likewise the moment to mention the establishment of the St.-

Pierre de Solesmes Press, which in the future would play a significant

role in spreading the Benedictine chant editions. The first trials date

from , but it was during the exile of the monks from their mon-

astery that the Abbey’s Press became organized and began to flourish.112

. La pensée pontificale et la restauration grégorienne in Revue Grégorienne , p. .

. Grenoble,  p.

. Souvenir du Congrès d’Aiguebelle,  et  août , Grenoble,  p., ten of which are chant.

. Le chant de l’Église de Lyon, du VIIIe au XVIIIe siècle, in the Revue de l’Art Chrétien, July–September .—As an off-print, Imprimerie de la Société du Pas-de-Calais, Arras ,  p.

. Dom L. Guilloreau, La stamperia di S. Pietro a Solesmes, in Rassegna Gregoriana , c.

ff.

THE FIRST PUBLICATIONS 85

. The Arezzo Congress ()—

The Papal Brief of April , 

The European Congress of Arezzo for the study and improvement

of liturgical chant took place in . It will suffice113 to recall the circumstances in which this congress took place. The Medicean Edition

had been recommended repeatedly in decrees from the Holy See and,

without being imposed, it had become the official edition. Thus, the

delegates to the Arezzo Congress, where the Steering Committee had

already been forced to impose limits on the agenda, had the feeling that they were heading for a battle. They came from just about everywhere.

Solesmes was represented by Dom Pothier and Dom Antonin Schmitt,

as well as Dom Étienne Bourigaud, a monk of the French Congrega-

tion.

Dom Pothier presented three reports to the Congress printed by the

Abbey Press:

Concerning the Virga in the Neumes ( pp.);

A Small Question of Grammar with regard to Plainchant ( pp.); and Tradition in the Notation of Plainchant ( pp.)

which, on the one hand, justified the nature of Gregorian rhythm and,

on the other, the melodic restorations of Solesmes. Dom Schmitt, un-

doubtedly one of those who helped Dom Pothier in preparing the

printing of the Gradual, for his part presented a brochure in which the basic propositions of the Gregorian restoration were formulated with

precision: Proposals on Gregorian Chant in accordance with Findings Universally Accepted by Archaeologists ( pp.). These four brochures established the state of the question that was at once firm, lucid, and direct, and

neatly positioned the School of Solesmes for the Gregorianists present

at Arezzo.

Given the importance of Dom Schmitt’s brochure, we shall give its

basic propositions, in the author’s own terms:

. Regarding the Arezzo Congress, it will be helpful to consult: Dom Cagin: Le chant gré-

gorien au Congrès d’Arezzo, Oudin ,  p.—M. Blanc, L’enseignement musical de Solesmes, p.

ff.—E. Moneta-Caglio, Dom André Mocquereau e la restaurazione del canto gregoriano, in Musica Sacra, Milan, March–April , p. ff.

86 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

I. We possess the true version of Gregorian chant in the manuscripts;

the few slight and inevitable variants found in them cannot lead us into error regarding the true meaning of the early version.

II. The manuscripts give us the relative pitches of the notes.

III. By giving us the tones fixed according to their relative pitches, the manuscripts also show them united or separate by groupings.

IV. The form of the neumes does not indicate the proportional value

of duration or of intensity.

V. The rhythm of chant is the rhythm of prose speech.

Before the Congress, Dom Pothier and his assistant were able to

make contact with various people prominent in musical circles, espe-

cially Dom Amelli, the organizer of the Congress, who still harbored

some reservations.

En route to Arezzo, Dom Schmitt wrote on September , :

The outstanding event of our stay in Milan is the complete conversion of Dom Amelli, who appeared totally devoted to Dom Pothier whom he understands better all the time.

He had to abandon part of his program when Dom Pothier explained to

him how the truth simplifies everything. Dom Amelli publicly and on several occasions expressed his personal conviction that Dom Pothier’s excellent and all-embracing synthesis was the means by which all was explained and logical.

He has been personally and without a doubt won over to our side.

Dom Pothier was the hero of the day. His doctrine was applauded

and acclaimed, and a sung Mass with the advance proofs of the Liber

Gradualis enthused those in attendance “like an echo of ages past”. In addition, the resolution “that choir books henceforth should have the

closest conformity to the ancient tradition” was passed almost unani-

mously (cf. Appendix I). It was a triumph for Dom Pothier in the two domains of scientific restoration and of the principles of performance

practice. As early as this point, there was even some discussion of translating the Mélodies Grégoriennes into Italian.

Looking back on the Congress, Leo XIII could not have been more

gracious toward the delegates.114 The Pope expressed concern over the

situation of Father Abbot and his monks, who had been driven from

their monastery.

Dom Pothier wrote to his Abbot:

. Cf. Dom Marsille’s Chronicle, p. .

THE FIRST PUBLICATIONS 87

As for the chant itself, there was nothing notable, some general encouragement; but we did expect, and should continue to expect, some reaction against the Congress, where the general atmosphere and resolutions did not please everyone; to which I say: Let them react.

However, during the audience, the Pope had said: “Oh, the chant, that is your own business, you Benedictines.” Dom Pothier continued:

The name of Solesmes cropped up again in connection with Father Ory, Vicar of Chateauneuf. “Are you choirmaster?” asked the Holy Father. “I am Vicar, and I am very much concerned with the singing of my parish, and I am also near Solesmes,” he replied. “Oh then,” said the Pope, “that is good, I understand.”

In conclusion, Dom Pothier wrote to Dom Couturier (September ,

): “In summary, the audience was good, and will continue to give

the Congress, which will surely be attacked, more force and authority.”

The adversaries had taken refuge in the argument of authority. For

his part, Dom Schmitt wrote: “The Pustet delegation arrived with over

 kilograms of books to distribute to the Congress.”

In the end, Rome condemned the Arezzo resolutions. The issuance

of the decree Romanorum Pontificum sollicitudo on April , , uphold-ing the privileges of the Medicean Edition, was a stunning blow causing

dismay among the friends of Solesmes, because Solesmes was obvious-

ly the target. To all appearances, this meant the collapse of all hope.

The time was not yet ripe for the necessary reforms. However, full free-

dom was granted to researchers of pure scholarship. This was an open-

ing that the Abbot of Solesmes would use to full advantage.

. The Liber Gradualis ()—

Papal Briefs to Dom Pothier ()

It was under these circumstances that the Solesmes Liber Gradualis

came to be published. We have seen that from  on, Dom Pothier

had been negotiating with Desclée in this matter. Thus it was doubtless

at this time, perhaps even a little earlier, that Dom Couturier assisted him, though we cannot name names with certainty:

In order to support and comfort Dom Pothier in a practical way, Dom Couturier provided him with two or three monks zealous for the work of restoration, 88 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

but as yet they were inadequately qualified to work competently in this

effort.115

Problems were resolved with the arrival of the proofs, because prac-

tical instruction could not have been given beforehand. In addition,

Dom Pothier was annoyed by the greater authority enjoyed by the

Ratisbon Edition. These things resulted in undeniable weaknesses, but

such failings did not amount to much in comparison with the progress

achieved. Nevertheless, if we look at the first transcription onto staff lines of St. Gall Codex , accomplished by Dom Pothier in , it is

clear that he would have done excellent work right away, had he been

free to act as he saw fit.

Had the book perhaps already been printed before the Arezzo Con-

gress but they were not yet available for sale? A statement by Dom

Schmitt, in the letter cited above, seems to substantiate this view. In

fact, he regrets “.l.l. that Dom Pothier had insisted on sending half of the Graduals to Solesmes, because they would have served his cause well at Arezzo.” However, the printing was certainly not completed at

that time, as is attested by a letter that will be discussed below. Besides, the Liber Gradualis carries a publication date of . What Dom Schmitt mentions must have been advance proofs that would have been

quite useful at the Congress. So it was from proof pages that the chants were sung at Arezzo on September th, at the Mass of Our Lady of the

Seven Sorrows, directed by Dom Pothier. It was also from proof pages,

by order of his Abbot, that Dom Mocquereau introduced the new

chant on October , , for the feast of the Novitiate: “an experiment that succeeded beyond all expectations,” noted Dom Delatte ( Vie de

Madame C. Bruyère, chapter IV in fine). Finally, a Solesmes chronicle (by Dom Marsille) attests that the printed books from Desclée were received on July , , the Feast of St. Benedict and the fiftieth anniversary of the re-establishment of Benedictine life at Solesmes116 (see Plate

, a page from the Liber Gradualis of Dom Pothier: the Gradual Universi).

. Dom Cagin, L’œuvre de Solesmes, col. .—In a letter of , Dom Schmitt, Dom Andoyer and Dom Cagin were named along with Dom Pothier (Dom Babin, September , ); we know, moreover, that Dom Mocquereau was appointed to this work as early as .

. The Liber Gradualis was inaugurated at Sainte-Cécile, the monastery of nuns where the Pontifical Office was sung during the exile of the monks in the village. On other days, the Office was sung in the parish church, and the first Masses sung from the new Gradual, to the extent that THE FIRST PUBLICATIONS 89

The Gradual, bearing the imprimatur of the Bishop of Tournai (May

, ), was entitled:

The Liber Gradualis originally compiled by St. Gregory the Great, subsequently revised and greatly expanded by authority of the Supreme Pontiffs—restored and provided with musical notation in the manner of our forefathers in a manner faithful to the manuscripts, published for the use of the Benedictine Congregation of France by order of its Presiding Abbot116bis

Dom Mocquereau called attention to the discretion of this title, and

also to the courage of the Abbot of Solesmes who, under the circum-

stances, could appear to some to be like a revolutionary:

Each word of this title is significant: It is honest, for it does not hide the fact that the new Liber Gradualis contains the melodies of St. Gregory the Great, restored from the manuscripts; it is bold, because these things are said one month after the decree that disapproved these melodies; it is discreet, because the Liber Gradualis makes no pretense of intending to be imposed upon the Universal Church; it was published by order of the Abbot of Solesmes, for the exclusive use of his congregation. 117

In fact, Dom Couturier did not lose heart. On June , , a few

days after the decree was published, he wrote to Dom Mocquereau:

This is all quite distressing, but I hope it will not stop you. We are not beaten, not even targeted, with regard to the performance of the traditional chant in our Benedictine churches. Let us therefore move forward. I am happy to learn that your schola continues to set about its work with such great enthusiasm.

This last sentence perhaps refers to the decision, taken earlier by Dom

Couturier, to create a schola distinct from the monastic choir, and to entrust its direction to Dom Mocquereau.

Following up on this, Dom Mocquereau wrote:

they could be rehearsed, were the Masses of St. Anne, St. Peter in Chains, the Transfiguration, and St. Lawrence. It was at this moment that the Abbot decided to form a schola, distinct from the choir, under the direction of Dom Mocquereau. (Dom Marsille, Chronicle, p. .—Dom Pothier to L. Baptiste, October , .—Dom Couturier to Dom Mocquereau, June , .—

Dom Cagin, L’œuvre de Solesmes, col. ).

bis. Liber Gradualis a S. Gregorio Magno olim ordinatus postea Summorum Pontificum auctoritate recognitus ac plurimum auctus—cum notis musicis ad majorum tramites et codicum fidem figuratis ac restitutis—ad usum Congregationis Benedictinae Galliarum praesidis ejusdem jussu editus.

. La pensée pontificale, in Revue Grégorienne, , p. .

90 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

What would have happened if the Abbot of Solesmes, intimidated, paralyzed by defeat and abandoned by his friends, had halted the publication of the Liber Gradualis? I do not know. The Lord has a thousand ways to achieve his ends.

However, by this courageous act of faith in the final triumph of truth in the very bosom of the Church of Rome, our Abbot strode into the future and assured the restoration of the liturgical melodies.

However, in Cardinal Pitra’s mind the book arrived too late. Dom

Mocquereau wrote to his Abbot about this when the Abbot was away

from the monastery, and reported the thinking of the Cardinal verba-

tim:

I admit I do not understand either Dom Pothier or Desclée. Your book was finished in November and you did not publish it. What ever were you waiting for?

If you had taken your position before the Brief, you would have earned the right to be heard. (Dom Mocquereau to Dom Couturier, June , )

Cardinal Pitra himself presented the new Gradual to the Pope and obtained from Leo XIII a very flattering Brief in honor of Solesmes and

of Dom Pothier (March , , cf. Appendix II). This Brief praised the

zeal and intelligence of the author

to interpret and explain the ancient manuscripts of sacred music in the exact and original form .l.l. for the Church of Rome has always held this kind of sacred music which bears the name of St. Gregory the Great in high esteem.

Unfortunately, some people claimed victory too soon, and compro-

mised the situation by imprudent and excessive commentaries. Thus, a

second Brief addressed to Dom Pothier on May , , while confirm-

ing the praise contained in the previous one, emphatically stated that

in order to avoid false interpretations to be given to this letter .l.l. it was not our intention to ignore the content of the public decree Romanorum Pontificum sollicitudo and to approve the use of the Solesmes Gradual in the Sacred Liturgy.

(The texts of these two Briefs are given in Appendix II.)

However, the way was open to study. The conflict moved from the

domain of authority to that of learning, and success was assured.

. Various Publications

From Milan, Dom Schmitt closed his letter to Dom Couturier with

these words: “There is the matter of translating Dom Pothier’s Méthode THE FIRST PUBLICATIONS 91

into Italian, so happily announced by Dom Cagin, and of translating

the Mélodies, as well.” Now this seems to reopen the question of the identity of the Méthode that was in preparation in , and of the Mélodies Grégoriennes. Nevertheless, in our view there is nothing to this.

The book that Dom Pothier was preparing, aided by Dom Jausions,

could only have been the Mélodies Grégoriennes, which Dom Guéranger corrected and approved long before he died. Moreover, Dom Jausions

himself said that it was not a matter of a method in the strict and com-

mon meaning of the word, and he hesitated to put it in the hands of

Baptiste’s students (No. ). When Dom Schmitt spoke of a “method”

in , and perhaps when Dom Pothier did so as far back as , as we

saw above, it could only have referred to one project, namely to an

abridged version of the Mélodies Grégoriennes which would reword the instruction in the Mélodies Grégoriennes for teaching purposes.118 In the end, it was Dom Schmitt himself who did the project. His book, Méthode pratique de chant grégorien, leçons données aux Bénédictines du Temple, rue Monsieur, 119 totaling  small lithographed pages, came out in , and remained at Solesmes for a long time and, in friendly houses, this

practical work gave the essential principles of Solesmes concerning

Gregorian chant. Le Monde printed a review of it on December , , under the name Lenoir, but it was really written by Dom Andoyer. As

for Dom Pothier’s Méthode, announced in October  in the catalogue of the St. Pierre de Solesmes Press, there was no mention of it in the

 catalogue.

To conclude, let us call attention once more to the first Gregorian

transcriptions—in traditional notation, of course—from the Abbey

Press: the four pamphlets presented at the Arezzo Congress by Dom

Pothier and Dom Schmitt came from the St. Pierre de Solesmes Press

(August ). These were followed by other chant pamphlets:

—the Cérémonial de la Vêture et de la Profession (), which, it is true, included only a few scattered chant antiphons;

—a Table of neumes with a few noted examples,  pp.,  table (April

);

—the Cantus in honorem Smi Sacramenti (August ),  pp.;

—the Antiennes pour les Mystères du Rosaire (October ),  pp.;

. The fact is certain, and it is well known that Dom Cagin had wanted to “convince” Dom Pothier to write this practical method.

. Published by Chauvin, Paris, .

92 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

—the Antiphonae et Responsoria in Vestitione Monalium et Consecratione Virginum ( January );

—the Toni Communes Officii et Missae ad usum Congregationis Gallicae O.S.B. (),  pp.

When the Hymni de Tempore et Sanctis in textu antiquo et novo cum tonis usitatis,  pp., came out in ,120 the Gregorian chant publications from the Solesmes presses had achieved, by this very fact, great prestige among the public that was interested in liturgical chant.121

Conclusion

The purpose of these pages has been to establish the date of the ear-

liest signs of the Gregorian restoration at Solesmes and to indicate the principal stages of its development. From all that has been said, it is

clear that the movement of restoration had certainly begun at Solesmes

in , and that the printing of the Directorium chori, planned before that, leads us to consider an even earlier date. When all is said and

done, we can go back no further than , as previously indicated by

Msgr. Rousseau from the testimonies of the very early members of the

Abbey. But the basic principles for an authentic Gregorian restora-

tion, proposed and formulated by Dom Guéranger and consisting es-

sentially in the return to the free rhythm of discourse for the perform-

ance of the chant, and in a comparison of the manuscripts for the resti-

tution of the melodies, entered a new phase in  when Dom Jausions

and certainly Dom Pothier began to copy the ancient neumed manu-

scripts.

The Directorium chori, revised according to a new orientation, was printed in ; moreover, the editing of a Method had already begun

. In collaboration with Dom Andoyer. Cf. Biron, Bibliographie, p. .

. The first trial printings, the Offertory Stetit Angelus, are from  (cf. the catalogue of the Press). Previously there had been various chant leaflets for particular occasions printed on the lithographic presses of the Abbey (Dom Biron, Bibliographie, p. ff.). Dom Biron mentions, in , an “Office of Saint Anne for the diocese of Vannes,” not printed at Solesmes, the chant for which was composed by Dom Pothier. Others, such as Dom Fonteinne, had tried their hand at this exercise before him, and with some measure of success; still others were to do so later.

THE FIRST PUBLICATIONS 93

(discussions relating to that project are recorded starting in ), and the work preparatory to the reform of the practical books was back in

full swing once the remaining uncertainties regarding the integrity of

the restoration were cleared up.

Work had begun in  on revising the Gradual, and in  on revising the Antiphonal. The year  was decisive for the editing of the Method, completed in . This Method, written by Dom Pothier in

cooperation with Dom Jausions, seems to have been the first version of

the Mélodies Grégoriennes. The work was less a Method per se than a treatise on rhythm. The essay that Dom Guéranger had requested from

Dom Pothier for use as a Preface to the chant books being prepared was

later expanded by Dom Pothier himself, and was incorporated into this

Method. All this was approved by Dom Guéranger while Dom Jausions

was still living, i.e. in . An edited version of the Gradual was also approved by Dom Guéranger in , a Processional was published in

, and the preliminary work on the Antiphonal was also well advanced at the time the Abbot of Solesmes died.

As to the role played by each, the preceding pages have defined it ad-

equately. Dom Guéranger was the one who inspired and breathed life

into the effort. Gontier was the first to formulate the basic rules of the Solesmes method, and his very solid counsel was never found to be

faulty. Dom Jausions and Dom Pothier translated the theory into prac-

tice, especially Dom Pothier, who, gifted with a remarkable feeling for

Gregorian chant, assured the triumph of the liturgical chant restora-

tion. After receiving approval of his efforts from his Abbot, Dom Poth-

ier continued his research. His book on the Mélodies Grégoriennes, published in , together with the Liber Gradualis, earned him the title of the “restorer of Gregorian chant.”

The Mélodies Grégoriennes enjoyed enormous success at the Arezzo congress. The same could be said for the Liber Gradualis. But these two books were also the targets of many controversies, and it is not our aim to discuss these here. One need only look through the periodical litera-ture of the time to get a sense of the matter.

While awaiting the day when the good cause would finally triumph,

Dom Pothier encountered many set-backs. But we have already identi-

fied the one who was to help Dom Pothier in his struggle for the

Gregorian cause: Dom André Mocquereau, the future founder of the

atelier of paleography at Solesmes, and of the Paléographie Musicale, the 94 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

war machine that was destined to deliver the death blow to faulty edi-

tions by revealing the sources of the authentic Gregorian chant and

revealing the errors in the editions then in use. In the end, the crown-

ing achievement of all this Gregorian activity would be the Vatican Edi-

tion, published in  by order of Pius X, after sometimes bitter dis-

putes.

T WO

■

The Vatican Edition

A ■ PRELIMINARIES OF THE GREGORIAN

REFORM UNDER LEO XIII

I ■ D O M ANDRÉ MOCQUEREAU AND

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE

The second part of the Gregorian restoration concerns the efforts

and struggles it took to gain acceptance of the restoration, particularly in Rome. We will focus on this aspect, drawing mainly on the correspondence of Dom Mocquereau, Msgr. Carlo Respighi, consultor of

the Congregation of Sacred Rites and pontifical master of ceremonies,

and Father Angelo de Santi, editor of Civiltà Cattolica, who was to be the mainspring of the Gregorian reform. Dom Mocquereau’s great

achievement, the Paléographie Musicale, was crucial for Father de Santi in this regard, because it showed that Dom Pothier’s work was in complete conformity with the manuscript tradition. Even so, once that had

been demonstrated, Father de Santi and Msgr. Carlo Respighi had to ex-

ert all their influence to have the Gregorian restoration accepted by the Holy See itself, and to have it enter universal practice.

The broad outline of the facts is already known1 and the following

pages are intended merely to provide new testimony and some new in-

formation gleaned from many unpublished documents, particularly

concerning the role played by Dom Mocquereau and his friends in

Rome.

We have presented the facts chronologically, which we feel promotes

both the truth and the liveliness of the story.

. These pages are based in part on an article by Dom Mocquereau that appeared in the Revue Grégorienne of –, La Pensée pontificale et la restauration grégorienne, a lecture given in New York at the International Conference on Gregorian chant ( June –, ). The article has been expanded considerably, and the documents on which it is based have been quoted.

99

100 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

. Dom Mocquereau at Solesmes ()

First, let us consider some essential dates. Dom André Mocquereau

was born on June , , at La Tessouale (Maine-et-Loire), but his fam-

ily originally was from Sablé. Almost all of his education was with the

Brothers of Saint-Gabriel. Early on, he showed a remarkable aptitude

for music, which explains his artistic education. At Cholet, where his

family was living, he used to play the cello in an amateur orchestra di-

rected by the violinist Charles Dancla, a professor at the Conservatoire.

Dancla thought so highly of his young student’s talent that he tried to

bring him to the Conservatoire in Paris, convinced that the young Moc-

quereau had a brilliant career before him.

However, André Mocquereau was already thinking about the reli-

gious life. As soon as he was free from certain family responsibilities, he came knocking at the door of the Abbey of Saint-Pierre de Solesmes.

He knew the place very well, since one of his sisters had been a clois-

tered nun since  at the Abbey of Sainte-Cécile, where she was the

organist. Thus he had frequent contact with Dom Guéranger, who rec-

ognized the seriousness of his monastic vocation and consented in prin-

ciple to his admission to the novitiate, as soon as that became possible.

When Mocquereau entered the novitiate on July , , Dom

Guéranger was no longer there, as he had died the previous January .

However, an illustrious professed monk of Solesmes was staying at the

monastery at the time, Cardinal Jean-Baptiste Pitra, Librarian of the

Holy Roman Church. Cardinal Pitra was later to encourage the restora-

tion work begun at Solesmes many years before (Part , Nos.  and ),

particularly that of Dom Mocquereau. André Mocquereau was pro-

fessed on April , , and was ordained a priest on December , , by Bishop Mermillod of Geneva.

The year , when Dom Pothier’s Mélodies Grégoriennes was published, was marked by the forced physical expulsion of the monks from

their Abbey, on November . This expulsion was to last fifteen years,

with the exception of a few months when the monks believed that they

could return to their home. They were evicted once again in March

, and could not return this time until .

At first, the expelled monks were divided into various groups, form-

ing a number of small monasteries in Solesmes and vicinity. Dom Moc-

quereau was among those who took refuge in Chesnaies, in the

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 101

Mayenne region. There, they lived at the home of the Duc de Chaulnes,

where the students were gathered (although a priest, Dom Mocquereau

had not completed his theology studies in keeping with the usual course

followed in the Congregation). The Abbey’s presses had been brought

to Chesnaies, whence the Imprimerie Saint-Pierre (the monastery

press), which was to render such great service in spreading traditional

Gregorian chant, would soon be transferred to Solesmes itself.

In June , the students returned to Solesmes. They resided at “La

Rose,” the monastery’s hostelry, since only the conventual buildings,

strictly speaking, were off limits to their rightful owners. Little by little, nearly the entire community had gathered in Solesmes, albeit scattered

in various houses in the village. The entire community congregated in

various places at various times: all the monks gathered at the parish

church or at Sainte-Cécile for the Offices, for meals at the common re-

fectory (although not right away) in an outbuilding of the monastery,

and for Chapter in the attic of the Presbytery.2

These sad events, which affected the usual development of monastic

life at Solesmes, must be mentioned because to a certain extent they

also hindered the restoration movement begun at the Abbey. Yet it was

at this very time, in the midst of these various events, that Dom Moc-

quereau had the idea of publishing the sources of Gregorian chant, and

brought his project to fruition.

. Initial Work

It appears that Dom Mocquereau, just after his priestly ordination or

perhaps even earlier, was assigned to assist Dom Pothier. In , he was studying the Latin accent. This was an in-depth study indeed, to judge

from the sort of books he had on hand (for example, the works of L.

Benloew and H. Weil). His correspondence also reveals the orientation

of his work. He was also responsible for rehearsing the novices in Gre-

gorian chant. In that role, using galley proofs, he inaugurated the Liber Gradualis in , on the feast of St. Placide, patron of the novitiate. It was on that occasion that the Abbot, Dom Couturier, determined to

form a schola that would be separate from the choir. Dom Mocquereau

was made director of the schola.

. Cf. Dom A. Savaton, Dom Paul Delatte, Abbé de Solesmes (Plon ), pp. ff.

102 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

On this matter concerning the performance of Gregorian chant,

there were some differences of opinion between Dom Pothier and

Dom Mocquereau. For Dom Pothier,

perfection in Gregorian chant can only be the privilege of an individual, of a small number, but essentially, Gregorian chant does not require perfection.

When sung simply and naturally, it is always pleasing. (Notes by Dom Mocquereau)3

To this Dom Mocquereau replied that there is some truth in what Dom

Pothier says, but does that mean that here at Solesmes we should not

try to attain at least a relative degree of perfection? No. For his part, in keeping with Dom Guéranger, Dom Mocquereau believed that careless

chanting with little regard to rhythm and expression was part of the

reason for the decline of Gregorian chant. Moreover, his Abbot did not

contradict him. Even then, the Abbot wanted Solesmes to become a

school of chant, “regretting that Dom Pothier did not establish such a

school” (letter of F. Velluz, June , ). In Dom Mocquereau’s corre-

spondence, one finds echoes of these differences of opinion between

Dom Pothier and him concerning the performance of the chant. The

attitude of Dom Couturier himself explains very well why Dom Moc-

quereau was made conductor of the Schola in , and then general di-

rector of the Abbey choir in . There is also an explanation why

Dom Mocquereau immediately oriented his research toward greater

precision in Gregorian rhythm. Here, too, his correspondents urged

him on, particularly Father A. Lhoumeau and Father F. Velluz, a fervent

Gregorianist and former novitiate companion of Dom Mocquereau. In

fact, we will see that this preoccupation at least partly determined the selection of the manuscripts that Dom Mocquereau would publish in

the Paléographie Musicale.

The Solesmes Liber Gradualis was published in . Before that, however, a decree of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, the decree Romanorum Pontificum sollicitudo of April , ,4 had disavowed, in practice, the resolutions of the Arezzo Conference, by maintaining the priv-

ileges of the Pustet edition (Part , No. ). Dom Mocquereau had

written to his Abbot immediately, asking whether it might not be wise

to notify Rome before launching the Gradual. He said, “It seems almost

. On “Dom Pothier’s Manner,” cf. Part , No. .

. Text and French translation in Musica Sacra of Ghent, June , p. , cf. Part , No. .

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 103

impossible to me for us to release the Gradual without notifying Rome, because (people) would certainly not fail to point Solesmes out to the

entire Catholic world as a pack of rebels” ( June , ).

Some specifics must be mentioned regarding the relationship be-

tween Dom Pothier and Dom Mocquereau. Dom Mocquereau’s es-

teem for the restorer of the Gregorian melodies never wavered. Let us

consider just one example. In , Dom Antonin Schmitt had litho-

graphed the lessons in plainchant that he had given to the Bénédictines

du Temple at the Rue Monsieur in Paris. This was a -page book enti-

tled Méthode pratique de Chant Grégorien (Paris, Chauvin, ). It was published at the request of Dom Couturier, who deplored Dom Pothier’s slowness in providing a practical method. This displeased Dom

Pothier. Thus Dom Mocquereau pleaded his master’s cause, writing to

his Abbot in his own words; like Dom Pothier, he was unaware of the

Abbot’s order to Dom Schmitt.

In this whole matter, it seems to me that we are forgetting what Dom Pothier did and suffered for the sacred cause of Gregorian chant, that at a particular point he carried on Dom Guéranger’s restoration work, and that he is one of the glories of Solesmes. Let us add that this is even more the result of God’s grace than of the intrinsic merit, however great it may be, of the Mélodies Gré-

goriennes. God chose Dom Pothier for this great work of restoration, and without doubt He made Dom Pothier well suited for the goal he was to attain. No man is perfect, and like any individual, Dom Joseph Pothier was to have his failings .l.l. but, when all things are weighed out in the sight of God, I first recognized that we must give thanks and praise for the goodness, wisdom and intelligence of this man. (April , )

Dom Pothier learned of this intervention and, from the monastery in

Silos, Spain, where he was accompanying his Abbot, he thanked Dom

Mocquereau most warmly.5

Twice before (in  and in ), Dom Mocquereau had to go to

Cauterets to care for his throat, which had caused him a great deal of

pain. When passing through Paris in , he visited Don Bosco to seek

healing from him.6 He returned to Cauterets in November . Howev-

. On April , Dom Couturier replied to Dom Mocquereau, from the Abbey of Silos, that he had acted as he did for the good of the Gregorian cause. On May , the Abbot wrote to Pothier himself: “Rev. Schmitt generously did what I had asked him to do.” Dom Andoyer wrote a summary of Dom Schmitt’s book in Le Monde, under the pen name Lenoir.

. “You will never have much of a voice,” the saint and miracle healer said to him, “but you will have enough for the work that Providence expects of you” ( Bulletin Salésien, March , p.

104 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

er, as early as July of that same year, he spent some time in Paris for the same reason. It was on that occasion that Dom Mocquereau had direct

contact with the manuscripts in the Bibliothèque Nationale. He wrote

to his Abbot:

Amid all these old liturgical books, I find that I am happy and at ease; I feel at home. They all remind me of the good old monks who wrote them for the Divine Office; and the whole monastic past of the Holy Church reawakens. I am happy and respectful in leafing through them, and cannot refrain from groaning at seeing all these books, Bibles, Missals, Graduals, etc., all holy books of our Religion, in the hands of the secular State. ( July , )

. Catalogue of Manuscripts— Scriptores

In the last letter, Dom Mocquereau mentioned a “catalogue of noted

manuscripts” already begun at Solesmes, and which he hoped to com-

plete. Once again, we find indications of his methodical mind. Before

starting in on anything, he began by drawing up as complete a list as

possible of the main chant manuscripts, and of the treatises by ancient

and medieval authors. We still have these venerable notebooks in our

possession. Far from being a dry enumeration, they contain various in-

teresting pieces of information about the manuscripts listed, in the or-

der in which they were registered.

It has already been mentioned that the question of Gregorian rhythm

preoccupied Dom Mocquereau. Thus, he thought first of doing a re-

vised and completed edition of the Scriptores by Gerbert and Coussemaker, which had been studied at length by Gontier, Dom Jausions, and

Dom Pothier. At one point, regarding this project, he wrote: “At

Solesmes, there is a sort of dictionary, still in manuscript form, in which extracts from the major authors, musicians, and grammarians of the

Middle Ages are collected and arranged by subject matter” ( Paléographie Musicale, XI, pp. –), and the first copies date from . What Dom Mocquereau does not say is that largely, this dictionary was his own

work, and that the project was started at his instigation. The detailed

catalogue of the various editions of the Scriptores is written entirely in

). Let us also note in passing that it was Dom Mocquereau who composed the Gregorian melodies of the Mass of St. John Bosco. Made of formulas, these melodies are well balanced and tuneful.

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 105

his handwriting. We even have a complete copy done by Dom Moc-

quereau of a treatise that took on special value since the manuscript was lost in the fire at the Library at Chartres in . This was manuscript 

of that library: Musica Enchiriadis.

However, Dom Mocquereau did not take long to realize that to

achieve any complete archeological restoration of Gregorian chant, it

was the manuscripts that had to be studied in detail.7

. Establishment of the Paléographie Musicale

In addition, events themselves brought Dom Mocquereau to change

the orientation of his work. As soon as it came out, the Liber Gradualis was the object of dispute. On the one hand, there were the partisans of

the return to traditional Gregorian chant. On the other hand, there

were those who upheld the official Ratisbon edition. The two camps

collided. One need only read the musical periodicals of the day to be-

come aware of what was going on. (See Plates  and , the Gradual Universi according to the Ratisbon edition and according to the Solesmes edition. A comparison of the two versions of the music reveals that they reflect two completely different orientations).

Once again, the practical and far-sighted mind of Dom Mocquereau

knew immediately what had to be done to prepare the way for and has-

ten success, without wasting his time in trotting out the same argu-

ments over and over again. In the Revue Grégorienne , p. , he wrote: After all, canonical discussions of papal briefs, decrees, and personal interpretations were secondary. The main question lay in the intrinsic value of the two competing editions, the Neo-Medicean and the Benedictine. If we could manage to prove beyond a doubt that the melodies of the Medicean edition were merely a miserable caricature of the early cantilenas, the battle would be won. All the decrees would fall by the wayside automatically, because once Rome was in possession of all the elements of the matter, it would never allow chants unworthy of divine praise to be used in Catholic churches, as events were to prove. As master and guardian of the arts, the Church possesses these sacred melodies as a treasure. The Church would put them back in a place of honor once their ancient beauty was restored, once their historic authenticity had been

. He explains his view in the Introduction Générale to the Paléographie Musicale, vol. . See the passage quoted below, No. .

106 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

established rather than their canonical authenticity. So it was on this purely scientific terrain that the fight was to be waged; there, we were sure of victory.

What is more, the modern Mediceans were so unwise as to draw us onto that terrain. After their favorite argument of authority, to which we did not want to respond out of respect, their favorite lines of reasoning were (a) that the Solesmes edition could not contain the chant of Saint Gregory, because that chant had been lost; and (b) that even if it were found, it was impossible to decipher the manuscripts that contain it.

A response had to be made to these gratuitous affirmations, but that re-

sponse had to be unassailable. Should this response be made by means of newspaper articles or articles in periodicals? People were tired of those. That type of light weaponry would no longer do. The fight had been going on for fifteen years (–), and it had to be brought to an end. In another fifteen years, the famous thirty-year privilege was set to expire. At that point, it was essential for light to have dawned in Rome, a light so bright that the truth would emerge as a triumphant master.

But what war machine could overturn all obstacles and hasten victory?

What had to be found was a kind of scientific tank—powerful, invulnerable, and capable of crushing all the enemy’s reasoning.

The new war machine that Dom Mocquereau was thinking about

was the publication, by phototype, of the main manuscripts of Gregori-

an chant, with essential commentaries. In his opinion, and future events were to prove him right, this was the best possible response to offer

to his opponents, whoever they may be. It would justify the recent pub-

lication of the Liber Gradualis by Dom Pothier, showing that it was based on indisputable documents, the many chant manuscripts

preserved in the libraries, the oldest of which went back to the th and

th centuries. In commenting on a letter of Father Lhoumeau, who

was worried that people thought everything had been placed back in

doubt, Dom Mocquereau wrote: “It is firmly established that the main

goal in publishing the manuscripts is to prove to everyone the truth of

Dom Pothier’s doctrine and the version of the chant given in his Gradual, by using the very sources themselves” (August , ). Moreover, publication of the manuscripts would also make a more in-depth study of

the various problems related to Gregorian chant possible, particularly

the question of rhythm. It was Dom Guéranger himself, the founder of

the Gregorian restoration movement at Solesmes, who set down the

general principle, which applied to this domain as well: “The original

documents contain the basic facts of the various sciences, unalloyed

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 107

and without a system of organization, but doubtless with all their

original energy” ( Paléographie Musicale VI, p. ).

It must be admitted that although the idea of publishing the sources

of Gregorian chant was not absolutely new (Father Lambillotte had

published a copy of a Cantatorium from St. Gall, Manuscript ), it was bold. Dom Pothier’s young disciple, who was then thinking of starting

a monumental collection of that type, was not lacking in courage. He was going to need it. Even at the Abbey itself, he encountered significant resistance, and even opposition. Nevertheless, Dom Mocquereau immediately received his Abbot’s approval; once again, the Abbot support-

ed Mocquereau’s youthful ardor. There is no need to underscore

the fact that the project was significant, and that starting up such a

collection posed many problems. First, they needed assurance that an

adequate number of subscribers could be guaranteed, all the more

so as the temporary scattering of the monks of Saint-Pierre in the vari-

ous houses in the village imposed a certain burden on the Abbey’s fi-

nances. The monastery’s Cellarer was going to be asked to make great

sacrifices.

. The Project ()

The first references to Dom Mocquereau’s project date from . In

early August, Father Lhoumeau sent his encouragement to Dom Moc-

quereau. Dom Delpech was already at work recruiting subscribers (Au-

gust ), Dom Cabrol was sending Dom Mocquereau information ob-

tained in his name and for this purpose from Léon Gautier (August ),

Dom Andoyer was assisting Dom Mocquereau in his research at the

Bibliothèque Nationale with regard to the planned publication (three

letters in September), and finally, in December, Dom Mégret offered

Dom Mocquereau his assistance.

In rendering an account to Dom Mocquereau of his visit to Léon

Gautier, Dom Cabrol mentioned exactly what was at issue: the condi-

tions for the loan of manuscripts, the support that could be expected

from musical periodicals, the Prospectus for launching the periodical,

and the booksellers. Léon Gautier was charming, noted Dom Cabrol,

and said that he was “drawn immediately to the significance and useful-

ness of the publication,” and agreed to assume the responsibility for

108 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

 . Dom André Mocquereau

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 109

securing the loans of manuscripts needed from St. Gall, and promising

a subscription to the new periodical from the École des Chartes.

As for Father Lhoumeau, he gave his wholehearted support to Dom

Mocquereau’s idea, and in particular, he pressed Dom Mocquereau to

clarify the question of Gregorian rhythm. At the same time, however,

he asked that a practical periodical be published as well, since “providing specifics on rhythm is essential so that the rhythm is not lost. With a method or a musical translation, the rhythm will be fixed and stereo-typed; interpretation will always have its place, as in music, but there will be built-in protective limitation (August ).

In October , Dom Mocquereau himself went to Paris to work at

the Bibliothèque Nationale with Dom Andoyer. On October , Dom

Mocquereau noted, “Dom Andoyer has done good work .l.l. and he is

doing me a great service. Tomorrow we will select the manuscript page

that will serve as a model” (a reference to the phototype reproduction

to appear with the Prospectus). However, Dom Mocquereau was al-

ready thinking about publishing his collection of the Justus ut palma Graduals, proving that this Gregorian melody had been preserved down

through the centuries in various countries. This is evidenced by the fact that Dom Andoyer was researching those pieces for Dom Mocquereau

at the Bibliothèque Nationale. In Paris, Dom Mocquereau visited

Arthur Loth and told him of his project.

. Journey for Subscriptions ()

The following year, in May , accompanied by Dom Cabrol, Dom

Mocquereau made a journey to Paris and the surrounding area to find

potential subscribers. They visited Chartres and Versailles, then Ville-

d’Avray, Auteuil, and Orléans. In all, they obtained  subscriptions, including those of Msgr. Freppel, the École des Chartes, and the Library

of Sainte-Geneviève (the Curator offered to write personally to his

friends in Germany and at the Conservatory of Music). In Paris, Dom

Mocquereau again studied the various practical questions that arose, re-

garding the loan of manuscripts and matters involving booksellers.8

Dom Cabrol had returned to the Abbey slightly earlier than Dom

. Dom M. Havard, Révérendissime Dom Fernand Cabrol, in Revue Grégorienne, , p. , describes the welcome Msgr. d’Hulst, rector of the Institut Catholique in Paris, gave Dom Mocquereau, based on the correspondence of Dom Cabrol.

110 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

Mocquereau, following the death of the Reverend Father Prior of

Solesmes. Dom Mocquereau was quite upset by Dom Cabrol’s return,

because Dom Cabrol was most useful to him on their visitations. Their

most recent success had been receiving the subscription of the École des Chartes. However, from Solesmes Dom Mocquereau received the following encouraging news from Dom Cabrol himself. On May , ,

he wrote:

I can tell you that the Abbot is very pleased with your success, and that he is allowing you to continue your work in Paris, in order to obtain as many subscriptions as possible. I have also seen a certain number of the Fathers, and I am pleased to see that the interest in your work increases the better it is understood.l.l.l. The printers are also very happy, and are taking heart. So, take heart.

You will need constancy and energy to bring this business to a happy end, but you have an abundance of both.

. Opposition—The Vow to Our Lady of Chartres ()

We must mention, however briefly, the various objections made to

Dom Mocquereau with regard to his publication project.9

We know of Dom Pothier’s objection, because Dom Mocquereau

himself spoke of it, and replied to it.10 Dom Pothier was somewhat

. With regard to the establishment of the Paléographie Musicale, we should point out that new documents have come to our attention since these pages were written, notably letters from Solesmes (Dom Mocquereau and Dom Babin, director of the Imprimerie Saint-Pierre) to Dom Cabrol, which would confirm, if there were still such a need, that the initiative for establishing and producing the periodical came from Dom Mocquereau and from him alone. It has been claimed that it was not Dom Mocquereau who established the Paléographie Musicale, but rather Pothier, who was always opposed to the project. Nor have we overlooked what Dom Joseph Gajard wrote about this matter (cf. La “Paléographie Musicale” et Dom André Mocquereau, Foreword to Volume XIV of the Paléographie Musicale, pp. –). We do not wish to enter into these polemics, which were quite legitimate at the time. The new documents that we have published in the course of this study are sufficient proof that the entire initiative for establishing the Paléographie Musicale came from Dom Mocquereau.

. Examen des critiques dirigées par dom Jeannin contre l’École de Solesmes (Desclée , pp.

–). “Dom Pothier was opposed to this publication. He had many arguments to oppose it, one of which he repeated in thousands of ways: “Yes,” he said, “at first sight this project seems very seductive and full of promise. However, the closer you look at it, the sorrier the results will be. It could ruin the Gregorian restoration that we are attempting at Solesmes .l.l. we will see a harvest of the most extravagant theories on its origin, on the reading of neumes, on rhythm and the modes of the Gregorian melodies, etc.; in short, there will be fights, controversies, and battles that will certainly delay the restoration for many years, if not ruin it outright.”

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 111

afraid, which is quite understandable, that the new collection constitut-ed a revision of his Gradual. But the most tangible result, and this was certainly the goal sought by Dom Mocquereau, on the contrary, was to

show that the Liber Gradualis was in conformity with the manuscript tradition. Above all, Dom Pothier was afraid that the manuscripts

would be misread and misinterpreted when placed in the hands of the

general public. Father Lhoumeau shared this fear. After having encour-

aged Dom Mocquereau to pursue his project, Lhoumeau requested, as

we have seen, that the scientific periodical be accompanied by a practi-

cal periodical, “since to offer the manuscripts up for study without guiding instruction is to expose people to the risk of not drawing all the desired benefit from them and to expose the manuscripts to erroneous

interpretation” (August ). That was true, and so Dom Mocquereau

proposed that the publication of the manuscripts be accompanied by

the various studies needed to interpret them.

There was also the fear of turning Rome itself against Solesmes, at

the time when Msgr. Franz Haberl, the defender of the Ratisbon edi-

tion, was in great favor.11 However, Cardinal Pitra applauded the proj-

ect enthusiastically, and his support was to carry great weight, without doubt, in the decision of the Abbot of Solesmes to support Dom Mocquereau ( Revue Grégorienne , p. ).

Finally, there was also opposition from the printers, the monks

charged with operating the Abbey’s printing works. They were begin-

ning to take heart, thanks to the arguments of Dom Cabrol (cf. No. ).

However, the director of the printing works, Dom Babin, remained to

be convinced. On May , Dom Cabrol, who had returned to Solesmes

before Dom Mocquereau, explained to Dom Mocquereau how he had

broached the issue with Dom Babin:

I met with Dom Babin for nearly two hours.l.l.l. I outlined the situation for him clearly, without bringing you into it at all and speaking only in my own name, i.e. as a humble assistant who has no commission whatsoever to make deals or to make commitments on your behalf. At first, he seemed to me rather hostile to the whole undertaking, fearing the risks involved, etc. I showed him, or at least tried to show him, that those risks could be reduced to next to nothing provided that we managed to get the desired number of subscribers together.

. On July , , Msgr. Haberl was appointed to the Commission for the Reprinting of the Authentic Books of the Chant (Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra, , , p. ).

112 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

Secondly, I pointed out to him that we were turning to him out of a sense of brotherly commitment, to give him the right of first refusal in an advantageous and honorable undertaking, because from many perspectives it was far better for a work of this nature, which was conceived at Solesmes, to be carried out at Solesmes.l.l.l. Then I described the steps we had taken, the success that we had had, and the favorable opinion of so many specialists with regard to scholarship, the chant, paleography, bookstores, etc. In the end, he was convinced.

However, for a time it looked like the whole business might never

see the light of day because of these various sources of opposition, particularly that of Dom Pothier. As soon as he returned to Solesmes—and

this information comes from Msgr. Rousseau, who received it directly

from Dom Mocquereau—he was called in to see Couturier, who told

him, “not without hesitation and sadness, that, because of urgent and

powerful approaches to him, the planned publication would have to be

abandoned.l.l.l. All he could do was agree.”

It was at this point that, to rescue the work then in jeopardy, Dom

Mocquereau made his well-known vow to Our Lady of Chartres, on

May .

It so happened that it was his turn to perform the functions of hebdomadary, that Trinity Sunday, and during Benediction as he knelt before the Blessed Sacrament, Dom Mocquereau was moved to place this laborious undertaking

under the protection of the Virgin Mary, promising that, if it were successful, he would offer the first volume to Our Lady of Chartres, which had given the first subscribers. The Right Rev. Dom Couturier, then Abbot of Solesmes, whose position alone it was to ratify this vow, gladly consented to it. From that day on, the obstacles disappeared one after the other.12

First of all, the decision of the Abbot was promptly revoked, thanks to

the intervention of completely devoted brother monks, Dom Cabrol,

and Dom Cagin.

Nevertheless, some time later Dom Cabrol wrote once again to

Dom Mocquereau, who was on his way to Switzerland:

I see nothing new to tell you as far as the printers go. They seem generally well disposed ( July , ).l.l.l.

Generally, the disposition (of the printers) is the same as when you saw

. The two texts just quoted, that of Msgr. Rousseau and the second, by Dom de Sainte-Beuve, are found in the Paléographie Musicale, vol. XIV, p. . In an article in the Revue Grégorienne,

, p. , Dom de Sainte-Beuve says that it was in fact from Chartres that the very first subscriptions came.

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 113

them upon your departure, on all three sides. From the first, keen sympathy, but hardly any influence to exert; from the second, confidence, somewhat cool firmness, and an absolute determination to carry on; and from the third, inde-cision and disbelief which will not disappear, like that of St. Thomas, until he sees the facts, if it would disappear even then ( July , ).13

. Dom Couturier and the Gregorian Movement

In discussing the establishment of the Paléographie Musicale, it is fitting to mention the role of Dom Couturier, Abbot of Solesmes. As was

proper, the final decision was up to Dom Couturier. We must be grate-

ful to him for supporting Dom Mocquereau and for having approved of

his work. Without Dom Couturier, nothing would have been possible.

He had already given evidence of decisiveness and courage with Dom

Pothier. In fact, it was Dom Couturier’s actions that brought Dom

Pothier to decide to publish the Mélodies Grégoriennes, and then the Liber Gradualis. It was said in his day that this act of faith in the ultimate triumph of the truth ensured the restoration of the liturgical melodies. In

, distressed at Dom Pothier’s slowness in providing a practical

Method for the chant, Dom Couturier asked Dom Schmitt to publish

the lessons he had given to the Benedictine nuns at the Rue Monsieur in

Paris. We also owe to Dom Couturier the establishment of the Im-

primerie Saint-Pierre, which was to publish many works starting in

, spreading traditional Gregorian chant. Dom Couturier would

have liked Dom Pothier to establish “a school of Gregorian chant” (F.

Velluz, letter of June , ). Finally, as we shall see later on, Dom Couturier did not hesitate to appoint Dom Mocquereau choirmaster, in or-

der to ensure the unity of the chant at the Abbey itself, on the one

hand, and more widespread development of the work of the Gregorian

restoration, on the other hand.14

. Dom Mocquereau, commenting on the letter of Dom Cabrol, noted in the margins: Dom Vannier, most favorable, Dom Lenoble and Dom Babin. Among those who supported Dom Mocquereau, there was also Dom A. Schmitt, author of the memorandum Les propositions sur le chant grégorien d’après les faits universellement admis par les archéologues, présentés au Congrès d’Arezzo (Part , No. ).

. Part , No. , in particular.

114 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

. The Prospectus

Once the printers were convinced that Dom Mocquereau’s project

was viable, they set to work on the typographical composition of the

Prospectus, written by Dom Mocquereau himself. (We have in our pos-

session the proofs of the two prospectuses in French, corrected by Dom

Mocquereau, as well as the rough drafts of the cover letters). Right

away, they requested a second, much shorter prospectus intended for

the general public. In the absence of Dom Mocquereau, they addressed

their request to Dom Cabrol. “The printers have asked me to shorten

the Prospectus, so that they can send out a single octavo page,” Dom

Cabrol wrote to Dom Mocquereau in early July . “They told me

that this had been arranged with you. I made up the Prospectus, draw-

ing my inspiration from your version.”

Dom Mocquereau’s Prospectus comprised eight large quarto pages,

with a plate, which, according to Monsignor Battandier, Cardinal Pitra’s secretary, “rivaled the best that Dujardin has to offer” (letter to Dom

Pothier). The date of the first printing was June , . The Prospectus was entitled: Paléographie Musicale. Les Mélodies Liturgiques ou recueil de Fac-similés phototypiques des principaux manuscrits de chant grégorien, ambrosien, gallican, mozarabe, avec préface explicative publiée par les Révérends Pères Bénédictins de l’Abbaye de Solesmes (Solesmes, Imprimerie Saint-Pierre, ). Les Mélodies Liturgiques, then, was the main title used for the new collection. They may have been anticipating later confusion

with the title of Dom Pothier’s book, Les Mélodies Grégoriennes. The Prospectus set forth the goal, scope, and plan of the new collection. The text was a foretaste of the masterful Preface that Dom Mocquereau was

preparing for the opening of the periodical.

A second French edition was soon to be issued by the Abbey press,

followed by several translations into foreign languages:15 one edition in Latin and French (printing date: August , ,  copies), one in English (November , ,  copies), and one in German (December

, , , copies).16 These foreign-language editions of the Prospectus refer to the collection as the Paléographie Musicale. (There was a third

. Cf. Dom P. Combe, Bibliographie de dom André Mocquereau, in Études Grégoriennes, II, , p. .

. We are speaking here only of the quarto editions of the Prospectus, not of the shorter versions.

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 115

edition in French, published on November , , which obviously

bore the same title.) The director of the monastery press sent the an-

nouncement of the first fascicle to the subscribers himself (on Sept. , Oct. , and Oct. , ).

. A Trip to Switzerland ()

What manuscript was Dom Mocquereau going to use to head his

collection? There was no doubt and no hesitation whatsoever on his

part: he would use a manuscript from the school of St. Gall.17 He was

seeking to justify the Liber Gradualis and to advance studies on Gregorian rhythm, which he felt were essential for the success of the restora-

tion. The St. Gall manuscripts were rich in information that would shed

light on this problem.

However, he had to go choose the desired manuscript on site. Dom

Pothier, who was already familiar with St. Gall, and who wanted to look

at some more manuscripts there, went with Dom Mocquereau, which

must have been a great pleasure for Mocquereau. In fact, Dom Moc-

quereau was afraid that his request for the loan of a manuscript would

be denied, particularly for the phototype reproduction of the manu-

script, and he was counting on Dom Pothier’s presence to obtain such

permission. This is also why Dom Mocquereau had Cardinal Pitra get

involved. Dom Pothier, who had known Cardinal Pitra at Solesmes, was

assigned to ask the Cardinal to plead the cause of his brothers at

Solesmes with the Dean of the Chapter at St. Gall. The Cardinal gra-

ciously agreed to do so, glad once again to support the work undertak-

en by Dom Guéranger toward the restoration of Gregorian chant.

For Dom Mocquereau, the trip to St. Gall was an opportunity to go

around to the major libraries in Switzerland, the first of a series of visits abroad that he took himself, or that others did on his behalf. Dom Mocquereau much preferred the silent work of the monastic cell. This var-

ied research was to enable him to form the paleographical workshop at

Solesmes that is one of the monastery’s treasures.

. Pothier could only encourage Dom Mocquereau along these lines, because Pothier also attributed great significance to the manuscripts from the school of St. Gall: “The school of St.

Gall,” he wrote on September , , “seems to be the school where the chant was cultivated with the greatest care and preserved with greater purity.”

116 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

For the moment, let us follow him on his trip to St. Gall. This will be

easy, since, as was his custom, Dom Mocquereau left a detailed account

of his travels for his sister, the Benedictine nun. After stopping at Delle, Dom Pothier and Dom Mocquereau went on to Basel, Constance, and

Rheinau, visiting libraries (Dom Mocquereau, as usual, has left various

paleographical notes taken during this trip). Once at St. Gall, the two

travelers got down to work. Dom Mocquereau noted that he worked

“from :  to noon, and from :  to : .”

On July  he wrote to his Abbot:

At the library, Mr. Idtenson was very nice. He made available to us eleven old manuscripts that contain the Liber Gradualis. We made our choice as early as yesterday, and we were quite clear in expressing our objectives to the librarian. With almost no difficulty at all, he promised to do what he could to provide us with the manuscript we selected. He is taking care of that. Although we do not have a final answer, we are sure of getting our manuscript. So, God be praised.

It is a th-century manuscript, its notation is very clear, it has the romanian letters and signs, it includes the Offertory verses, and finally, and most importantly, we know the name of its author, a monk of St. Gall. This, in and of itself, “dates” the manuscript.

The Cardinal’s letter carried great weight for our success, and Dom Pothier intends to thank him for it.

As soon as the final answer concerning the manuscript is given, I will send Dom Babin the few lines to be added to the Prospectus.17bis

The trip continued with a visit to Chur, stopping very briefly at

Wartegg castle, the residence of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of

Parma, whose mother was a cloistered nun at St. Cecilia at Solesmes,18

where three of her own daughters were to enter. At Chur, Dom Moc-

quereau immediately set out to look for manuscripts, but this time

without success. From there, with Dom Pothier he went on to Ein-

siedeln, then to Zurich, where Dom Pothier left his companion to re-

turn to France.

On July , Dom Mocquereau wrote:

bis. For his part, Dom Pothier was copying prose texts and sequences, doubtless with an eye toward his Variae Preces that he was preparing at the time. (“Our territories are quite distinct,” Dom Mocquereau noted pleasantly.)

. The Reverend Mother Adelaide de Braganza, widow of Don Miguel, King of Portugal, entered St. Cecilia in . Two princesses of her family had entered St. Cecilia before her.

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 117

I was sorry that Dom Pothier did not want to stay in Zurich, because after taking him to the station, I went to the Cantonal library, where I found a veritable nest of manuscripts of liturgical chant, Graduals, Antiphonaries, Hymnaries, etc., all from the Abbey of Rheinau. With these documents, it would be easy to write the history of the music and liturgical notation, and the story of their decline, at that Abbey. (Letter to Dom Couturier)

From Zurich, Dom Mocquereau went on to Beuron, where he re-

ceived a fraternal welcome. Dom Kienle had also thought of publishing

a manuscript, the one from Montpellier discovered by Danjou in ,

but in light of Dom Mocquereau’s grand project, Dom Kienle perma-

nently renounced going ahead with his own project. From Beuron,

Dom Mocquereau returned to St. Gall, and to Zurich, to continue

working there.

. The Manuscript Chosen for Publication

We noted that the manuscript Dom Mocquereau chose to publish

was a St. Gall manuscript from the tenth century, noted in campo aperto and decorated with Romanian letters and signs. Some were astonished

at the choice, believing as they did that it would have been better to use the bilingual manuscript from Montpellier first, one that was noted in

neumes and in letters (Ms. H. ). However, Dom Mocquereau did not

want to open his collection with a manuscript that strictly speaking was not a liturgical book, but rather a school book. The manuscript from

Montpellier presented the chant pieces in groups by type and by tone.

In any event, he did plan to publish it eventually (in volumes VII and

VIII of the Paléographie Musicale). Moreover, as he explained in a note on this subject, it was only appropriate to proceed chronologically. Manuscripts in campo aperto are the oldest, and, according to Dom Pothier, the Montpellier manuscript is not always in conformity with the pure

Gregorian tradition.

Furthermore, even as he wanted to justify the reading of the Liber

Gradualis, Dom Mocquereau wanted to shed light as quickly as possible on the question of Gregorian rhythm. He explained this desire in the

following terms to a correspondent:

The main question at issue now among musical scholars is not that of the translation of the neume; everyone now acknowledges the possibility of this 118 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

transposition by means of comparisons with the Guidonian and alphabetic

manuscripts. What is more, this transposition is done in several periodicals and particularly in the Liber Gradualis. The problem occupying minds today is rhythm.l.l.l. The oldest manuscripts, i.e. the manuscripts in campo aperto, retain the grouping of the notes more faithfully than do the more modern manuscripts. The St. Gall manuscripts, moreover, have the romanian letters and signs to which we attach very great importance in determining the rhythm and the nuances of expression.l.l.l. We have subjected Manuscripts  (Lambillotte) and  from St. Gall to detailed analysis once again, which has resulted in quite important and absolutely certain discoveries regarding the use of these signs.

These discoveries will be presented in a booklet which will be published in the first few months of , and will, we hope, provide the fullest possible justification for the selection we are making among the St. Gall-Romanus manu-

scripts. (To Father Morelot, September )

The selected manuscript, St. Gall , did not reach Solesmes until

Sunday, September , the feast of the Holy Name of Mary, as Dom

Mocquereau noted with satisfaction at the bottom of the cover letter.

The delay resulted from the fact that permission had first to be obtained from the Library Committee. At that time, Dom Mocquereau had just

issued the second Prospectus (the printing date is September ). It met

with the expected success, partly due to the devotion of faithful friends who placed themselves at Dom Mocquereau’s disposal. Subscriptions

were coming in, and some of them were particularly welcome, such as

those of Alexandre Guilmant and of his Society, as well as that of the

Société Française d’Archéologie.

. Episcopal Approvals

Among the episcopal approvals, particular note must be made of

that from Cardinal Langénieux, Archbishop of Rheims, because its

wording differed from the regular formulas:

Your studies of the plainchant are all the more useful in that, since they have an edition that has won the praise of your own Fathers,19 you make the interpretation of the ancient phrases and melodies easier for us, retained as they were with all due care by the Rheims-Cambrai Commission.

Since we take advantage of every possible opportunity to encourage proper

. A reference to the Rheims-Cambrai edition of .

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 119

performance in our diocese of the chant placed into use by Cardinal Gousset, friend of the learned and pious abbot Dom Guéranger, we look upon everything that you are doing to help our priests and the faithful to achieve this goal as a service for which we are most grateful. (November , )

Above all, one approval was particularly well received at Solesmes.

This was a “practically apostolic” word, a letter from Cardinal Parocchi, Vicar of His Holiness, which read: “As for the Mélodies Liturgiques, I welcome them as a nearly prophetic sign of the complete restoration of sa-

cred music in the churches” (October , ). The correspondent who

passed this word along to Dom Mocquereau concluded,

The letter in which His Eminence, Cardinal Parocchi, makes quite a consoling prediction, in a few lines that you will certainly appreciate,l.l.l. such approval, coming from so high up, is well worth a subscription. (Dom Bourigaud, October , )20

This last approval was soon to be followed by another even more ap-

preciable one, since it was made in the name of the Pope himself, ap-

proval from Cardinal Rampolla, Secretary of State, which was to appear

at the head of the first volume of the Paléographie Musicale.

. Volume I ()

Volume I of the Paléographie Musicale was first published in January

, the date that the first fascicles were delivered. In fact, even though the publication was a collection of volumes, and not a periodical, the

notebooks were sent to subscribers as they were printed, in the form of

fascicles similar to the issues of a periodical.

The letter dated April , , from Cardinal Rampolla, Secretary of

State, appeared at the top of the volume. This letter conveyed the con-

gratulations, encouragement, and blessing of the Sovereign Pontiff.

There followed an impressive list of subscribers: the name of the Minis-

ter of Public Education and of the Fine Arts, who had subscribed for 

copies, was followed by the names of eight cardinals, the Apostolic

Nuncio to Paris, nineteen bishops, three Princes or Princesses, eighteen State Academies or Libraries, and twenty-four other libraries, and final-

. See E. Moneta-Caglio, in Musica Sacra, , , p. , on Cardinal Lucido Maria Parocchi (–).

120 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

ly, many other subscribers. Then there was a dedication to Leo XIII. Fi-

nally came the masterful Preface or General Introduction by Dom Moc-

quereau, dated November , , on the feast of St. Cecilia. The sub-

headings of the Preface were as follows:

I. Influence of new reproduction techniques on the progress of

archeological studies.

II. The use of facsimiles in musical archaeology from the seven-

teenth century to our day (with a copious bibliography).

III. Musical treatises and noted manuscripts: their respective signifi-

cance from the perspective of the archaeological restoration of the

chant.

IV. The current state of mind with regard to questions concerning

Gregorian music.

V. Musical philology.

VI. Musical paleography.

VII. Plan and implementation.

Here we will reproduce just a few passages of special interest from

the Introduction because, beyond the immediate goal sought by Dom

Mocquereau, as previously mentioned, these passages also show the

more remote and broader purpose that he sought, and the hopes that

he placed in this new collection.

In acknowledging his teacher Dom Pothier, who had already shed

some light upon the texts of the ancient medieval authors of the Middle

Ages in Les Mélodies Grégoriennes, precisely by using the monuments that transmit to us the chants themselves in traditional musical notation,

Dom Mocquereau wrote:

For archaeologists, these monuments have the distinct advantage over musical treatises that they are the raw material of their research. In and of themselves, they contain everything we want to know about the version, modality, rhythm, and notation of the ecclesiastical melodies. They are not exposés on the principles of chant; rather, they contain substantially both the theory and the practice. They are not the ancient masters whose readings we would like to hear, but they are the written translation of what those masters taught and did, and thus, for those who know how to read and understand this writing, they are the most perfect expression of the liturgical songs. That is why they are important, and why they are ranked above the authors. (p. )

He makes a similar statement a little further on:

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 121

The musical texts form the most solid basis for our studies; let us add that a deeper understanding of these very same documents would remedy the inces-sant divisions that continue to occur among archaeologists who work on the sacred chant. (P. )

These are just glimpses, and we still have not mentioned the Mozarabic and Gallican psalmodies; yet one can already sense all the riches of this mine that science must exploit, and the usefulness of a collection of the kind we are undertaking. Once armed with the texts, scholars will be able to analyze at their leisure each musical work, each phrase, each neume, and will be able to trace its history. For each dialect, they will be able to classify the various intonations and successions of intervals that constitute the modes, study the combinations that the rhythm may assume, the cadences that are like the declensions and in-flexions of the musical language. The prejudices, confusion, and doubts that still prevail against our liturgical chants will gradually fall by the wayside, in light of the facts and of history when these are better known and better appreciated. (P. )

The presentation of the manuscript itself included:

A few words on Manuscript  of St. Gall and on its notation (pp. –, by Dom Mocquereau).

Codex  from the Library of St. Gall:

I. The Library and the monastery of St. Gall (pp. –, by Dom Cabrol); II. Description of the Codex .l.l. (pp. –, by Dom Cagin and Dom Mocquereau);

III. Origin and classification of the various neume scripts (pp. –, by Dom Mocquereau).

These were followed by the plates of the manuscript.

That the printing and presentation of the volume were extremely

painstaking was to contribute enormously to the reputation of the Im-

primerie Saint-Pierre. Dom Mocquereau wrote: “Comparison between

this manuscript and our Liber Gradualis proves that we reprinted, nearly note-for-note, group-for-group, the true melodies of the Roman

Church” ( Revue Grégorienne, , p. ). This comment reveals the immediate goal that Dom Mocquereau was pursuing in response to those

opposed to tradition. In fact, we will see that this goal was attained—

though some were not convinced, or pretended not to be—because it

was easy to make the comparison that Dom Mocquereau suggested;

the neume script of St. Gall, all things considered, was the easiest to decipher, and the manuscript was in a perfect state of conservation.

122 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

. Publications by Dom Pothier

For his part, in  Dom Pothier published the Variae Preces ad Benedictionem SS. Sacramenti praesertim cantandae ( pp.; there was a second edition in ), and particularly the Processionale Monasticum ( pp., in cooperation with Dom Andoyer), a new edition of which came out in

). These books from the Imprimerie Saint-Pierre were welcomed

enthusiastically not only in monasteries, but all over. They provided a

repertory of varied and select chants, which brought many Gregorian

pieces back to life from the oblivion into which they had fallen, particularly the beautiful Responsories of the Divine Office which were no

longer sung, many other pieces taken from old antiphonaries, and ex-

quisite sequences.

The Processional had been preceded by an Officium ultimi Tridui Ma-

joris Hebdomadae (), an Officium pro Defunctis (), an Officium et Missa in Festis praecipuis () and some extracts from the Liber Gradualis. Other choral books were underway, particularly the monastic Antiphonal and Responsorial. Dom Pothier was also composing various propers for dioceses or religious congregations.

In addition, he was continuing his Gregorian apostolate, which be-

gan around . The bishops themselves were issuing urgent appeals

for him to come teach the clergy, seminarians, and the faithful. In , he went with his Abbot to Spain where a daughter house of Solesmes,

the Abbey of Silos, had already been established. His biographer wrote,

Among other documents, the Abbey had the precious noted Liber Ordinum dating from the eleventh century. The text was to be published by Father Férotin, and Dom Pothier made a complete copy of it for us on one hundred fifty-two large pages. I cannot leaf through with you the daily account of this iter hispanicum that Dom Pothier’s correspondence provides, at all times a vibrant and picturesque account with rapid descriptions: stays in Toledo, a circuit through Burgos, Valladolid, Salamanca, Seville, and Segovia where the two travelers

[Dom Pothier and Dom Férotin] discovered two chests of documents from Silos; another trip through Seville, Grenada, Cordoba, Tortosa, Barcelona and finally Montserrat.21

. Dom David, Dom Joseph Pothier, Abbé de Saint-Wandrille et la restauration grégorienne, St.

Wandrille , p. .

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 123

It also happened that Dom Mocquereau had occasion to sow the

seeds of good Gregorian doctrine. For example, in Paris the Benedictine

nuns of St.-Louis-du-Temple requested lessons from him whenever the

opportunity arose. At Solesmes itself, in fact, Dom Mocquereau was

called upon to accept the position of precentor, and thus of choirmas-

ter, in . The first fascicle of the Paléographie Musicale came out in January  (the volume was to end with ). However, Dom Mocquereau did not go out much, and did so only with evident reluctance.

Yet there was research that had to be done, if only to secure the loan of manuscripts, or to obtain photographs of them.

This was, in fact, the beginning of the paleography studio22 that was

brought about through his efforts, though at that time it contained only a few dozen copies of manuscripts made by Dom Jausions and Dom

Pothier. In his library research, Dom Mocquereau was assisted by Dom

Cabrol and Dom Cagin. In , Dom Cagin made a trip through the

north of France in May and June, while Dom Cabrol headed to the east

in November. Dom Cagin was also assisting Dom Mocquereau at the

monastery itself, as was another young monk. But outside Solesmes

Dom Mocquereau had volunteer assistants, collaborators as far away as

Spain, who required much personal attention from him since it was not

always a matter of simple inquiries, as Dom Mocquereau’s correspon-

dence testifies. For example, in Paris the cloistered nuns were making

magnificent copies for him (among others, we have a splendid copy of

the Antiphonal of Hartker, which is a true and perfect copy, as well as a copy of an Antiphonal from Saint-Maur-des-Fossés (B. N. ), also extremely well reproduced, with text and dropped capitals). Dom Mégret

and Dom Delpech also made several copies of manuscripts.

. Dom Mocquereau in Rome ()

The publication of volume I of the Paléographie Musicale had

demonstrated that the Solesmes Liber Gradualis gave the authentic chant of the Church of Rome. Nevertheless, this proof did not convince the adversaries. To answer the objection that a single manuscript

. Dom Pierre Combe, Bibliographie de dom André Mocquereau, in Études Grégoriennes, II, pp.

ff.

124 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

proved nothing, Dom Mocquereau had the wonderful idea of publish-

ing a single piece of music (the Gradual Justus ut palma, the formula of which appears several times in the Gregorian repertory), according to a

very large number of manuscripts (volumes two and three of the Paléographie Musicale reproduced this piece according to  Graduals of various origins, from the ninth to seventeenth centuries). In fact, Dom

Mocquereau had already foreseen this objection, and as early as  he

was already looking for the piece he had selected to illustrate his proof.

In September , Dom Andoyer was looking for it for him at the Bib-

liothèque Nationale, at the same time that he was also on the lookout

for treatises by medieval scholars of music. Others in addition to Dom

Andoyer had been called upon for contribution, as Dom Mocquereau’s

correspondence for  shows. However, such an undertaking re-

quired a vast canvassing of libraries. That is why the first stage in this process required that Dom Mocquereau travel to Italy in , where

he stayed with Dom Cabrol from January  until May . Moreover,

Dom Mocquereau wanted to reassure himself that Solesmes could

print a Liber Vesperalis, to follow up on the Liber Gradualis, without risk.

It was quite understandable that the first stop was Turin ( January ), where Dom Mocquereau stayed with the Salesian Fathers. The tomb of

Don Bosco, whom Dom Mocquereau had met in Paris in  during

his triumphant tour of France, drew Dom Mocquereau to Turin. But he

also knew that at the Salesian Seminary in Turin, they sang the chant according to the Solesmes Gradual. Don Bosco had hoped that the Gregorian reform would spread throughout Italy from Turin, so the study of

plainchant was emphasized there, and was included amongst the exam-

ination subjects.

On January , accompanied by Don Musso, a Salesian kindly placed

at his disposition, Dom Mocquereau left Turin after visiting the City Library, the archives of the Cathedral of Ivrea and the archives at the

Cathedral of Aosta,23 where he was received especially warmly by the

bishop. Photographs were taken of the Justus ut palma, but Dom Mocquereau also took advantage of the occasion to continue work on the

catalogue of Gregorian chant manuscripts begun in . He noted that

. Cf. Dom J. Marsille, La restauration du chant grégorien, in Échos de Santa-Chiara, Nov.–Dec.

, p. .

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 125

the Ivrea archives bore witness to the history of the notation in that diocese, and the Turin archives did the same for the Bobbio notation. At

the same time, he took the opportunity to point out the beautiful or-

ganization of the traditional chant, the regularity of its formulas and

the recitative nature of its style. One detail should be underscored: before leaving Turin, a Salesian gave Dom Mocquereau the address of Fa-

ther Angelo de Santi, whom Dom Mocquereau wanted to meet.

Dom Mocquereau then went on to Rome directly, after a brief

stopover in Genoa. He met up with Dom Cabrol once again in Rome.

The two of them were to remain there for several months (until late

April), spending their time visiting libraries. It must be noted right away, to avoid the need to address this point later on, that after his stay in Rome, Dom Mocquereau’s research brought him and Dom Cabrol to

Naples, La Cava, Salerno, Assisi, Capua, Loretto, Perugia, Florence,

Cortona, Arezzo, Fiesole, Lucca, Pistoia, Bologna, Modena, Nonantola,

Venice, Padua, Verona, Monza, and Milan. With his companion, Dom

Mocquereau visited Monte Cassino and Subiaco during their stay in

Rome. Finally, both returned through Switzerland, which Dom Moc-

quereau had visited previously in , to take some more photographs

of the Justus ut palma.

. Dom Mocquereau and Father de Santi

The very day after he arrived ( January ), Dom Mocquereau went

to visit Father de Santi.24 Immediately he understood the significance of this meeting, knowing that this Jesuit priest from Civiltà Cattolica was in the thick of things. Moreover, Dom Mocquereau was intent on discussing Father de Santi’s articles with him, in which Father de Santi always spoke of Solesmes with considerable deference. In a brief report,

for example, Father de Santi praised Dom Ambrose Kienle for having

attempted to apply Dom Pothier’s method “to the only authentic and

official books of the Church of Rome,” i.e. the Ratisbon edition ( Civiltà Cattolica, May ). Most importantly, at the Soave Congress (September , ), Father de Santi had very recently spoken in favor of the re-

. Born in Trieste on July , ; professor of music at the Seminary in Zara in . Brilliantly successful at the Schola Puerorum in Padua, musical contributor to the Trent La Voce Cattolica (E. Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra, , . p. ).

126 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

form movement that was slowly taking shape, after having restated his

submission to the Roman decrees as far as practical application was

concerned, of course, in terms of the choice of edition. The conse-

quences of this Congress will be seen below.

In his first conversation with Father de Santi, Dom Mocquereau got

right down to the heart of the matter immediately, namely the adop-

tion of the ancient traditional melodies. Father de Santi explained to

Dom Mocquereau how he had been called to Rome by Leo XIII in 

to discuss religious music in Civiltà Cattolica. The Pope, it seems, was well aware of the musical movement in France and Germany, and did

not want Italy to fall behind. He even followed what was being said very attentively, as he had just reviewed an article by Father de Santi prior to its being printed. Father de Santi admitted that he had never been concerned with such questions before receiving this particular commission,

and now it was his duty to defend the official edition. Needless to say, this state of affairs was to put Father de Santi in an awkward position on occasion, but he had managed to reach the following solution, which

left his conscience quite clear: Pustet was for practical use; Dom Pothier was archeology. Father de Santi willingly acknowledged that, although

it was everyone’s duty to submit to the decrees of the Holy See in terms of practice, Solesmes had every right to pursue its research and to publish the results of that research in all freedom.

The discussion was closely conducted. Dom Mocquereau managed

to get Father de Santi to admit that Rome could review the Gregorian

issue from the historical perspective, that originally the Holy See did

not want an abridged edition, but a “genuinus cantus gregorianus” (decree of January , ), for it was only later that Roman chant was mentioned, when they realized that the Ratisbon edition did not contain the traditional chant. Once Father de Santi relaxed, he began to speak in

confidence, and said that the members of the Commission responsible

for preparing the edition did not know anything about the issue, and

that the decree to which Dom Mocquereau had just alluded had in fact

simply been suppressed in the Bullarium, and that he himself acknowl-

edged the contradictions in the Pustet edition (he gave some examples,

and also admitted that he had had to give up on having one particular

piece sung), and that at Rome, the official edition was hardly ever used any more, but was accepted musically. Then he took the offensive himself, and complained of certain articles that had appeared in France re-

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 127

cently, merely poisoning the issue and assuring the success of the Ratisbon edition. It was easy for Dom Mocquereau to prove that Solesmes

was uninvolved in any such polemic.

Finally, they took leave of each other, promising to meet again. In

summing up this initial meeting, Dom Mocquereau wrote in his Notes:

From our long conversation, it was clear to us [Dom Cabrol and himself] that we were not dealing with an impassioned individual, an implacable opponent; he was searching for the truth. He acknowledged the order that he had received from Leo XIII, and wanted to obey it; all the while recognizing, in his straightforwardness, the superior value of our “method.” He did not yet fully appreciate the superiority of the Solesmes edition. For the moment, he wanted to study, in order better to serve the cause of art and the Church.—In sum, he was the Holy Father’s man; through him, we might possibly reach His Holiness and, in the long run, shed light on the real status of things for him. ( Revue Gré-

gorienne, , p. )

Dom Mocquereau saw Father de Santi again on February , but the

only subject they discussed was the Congress that was to be held at

Rome for the thirteenth centennial of the Exaltation of St. Gregory the

Great. They arranged to meet the following morning, when, in the ab-

sence of indiscreet witnesses, the two religious could continue their

free conversation, which had started a few days earlier. That same

evening, Dom Mocquereau, who was accompanied by Dom Cabrol,

wrote to Dom Pothier about the encounter:

This evening I saw Father de Santi, and we understand each other very

well.l.l.l. If I were to publish the interview that Dom Cabrol and I had with him, he would be sunk in Rome.

When we arrived, he went to fetch Father Grisar, and it was only then that the conversation began. I kept strictly to the line of reasoning you laid out for me in your letter. He, Pustet in hand, and I, with my Pothier edition, sang one after the other an Introit, a Gradual, and an Alleluia; and I did not fail to point out on every line the outrageous rhythmic and melodic blunders in his Pustet.

He admitted everything with remarkable candor; in the end, he was so well educated that he himself was finding the errors. He had no idea about our manner of performance, and believed, in keeping with a ridiculous reputation that people ascribe to us, that our chant was vivace, one endless allegro.— Moreover, he had no idea about Gregorian rhythm, the construction of a Gregorian phrase, nor any concept of the beauty of this chant.

Then we spoke of neumes.l.l.l. How can we read this illegible scrawl? I took the Paléographie and sang a piece for him, and he asked, “How can you read a 128 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

third, a fourth?” “Read the answer yourself,” I said, “it’s on page so-and-so in the Paléographie.” The comparison with the word “timbre” shed light on the subject for him, and even more so for Father Grisar, who was delighted.

At another point, I had the opportunity to see how much prejudice there

was against us. I showed him a photograph of the Justus XII or XIV on lines.l.l.l.

He looked at it carefully, then started singing the Justus, and said, “But then Dom Pothier didn’t just make up his own notation, as they say he did, because here it is, in a th-century manuscript.l.l.l.” So that’s where he is for the time being, but this won’t last long because he is a hard worker. He is frank, loyal, and wants to discover the truth; but what a tight spot he finds himself in when he finds it! Yet he is a good Jesuit, and he will certainly find a way to defend authority without praising the authentic edition, because he recognizes its errors.

He may even find a way to praise our own edition. He is counting on his clever-ness to avoid all the difficulties surrounding him, in order to obey the Holy Father to the letter, yet without harming the truth.

However, here is another thing, which you may already know from the pa-

pers, concerning the centennial of St. Gregory: they want to hold a Roman Congress of liturgical arts and sciences. I am sending you the general program drawn up by Father de Santi. There will be a section on music, and it is he, Father de Santi, who will chair it. The general chairmanship of the Congress is reserved for Cardinal Parocchi. The dates have not yet been settled. Father de Santi is preparing an issue on the program for the Musica Sacra of Milan [March

], which will focus solely on St. Gregory.l.l.l.

We are making the rounds of all the libraries, one after the other, starting with the smallest ones. We have not yet been to the Vatican; that will be the crowning moment. The Angelica and the Vallicelliana are still occupying our time. There is a lot in this depository.l.l.l. (February , )

A few days later, Dom Mocquereau met Father de Santi again at

Holy Apostles, on the occasion of the funeral services for Cardinal Pec-

ci. Dom Mocquereau noted:

The Sistine Chapel choir sang; Father de Santi sat next to me, as did the son of General Kanzler, a plainchant enthusiast.l.l.l. The voices are magnificent and the music is performed with great perfection, but the plainchant is hammered out, with a heavy beat, and shouted; one would not believe that these are the same artists.l.l.l. At the end of the ceremony, Father de Santi said to me: “See of what stuff the unity of the chant is made; in my hands, I have the Pustet edition, from which the Sistine Chapel choir did not sing, and I am quite sure that they didn’t sing from your edition either.”

Dom Mocquereau noted these avowals, and saw with pleasure the evo-

lution that was soon to become so pronounced in Father de Santi.

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 129

. At the French Seminary

An event that was small enough in and of itself soon occurred, but

under circumstances that were to prove decisive. The evening of Febru-

ary , at the invitation of the superior of the French Seminary, Dom

Mocquereau gave a lecture on Gregorian chant to all the students at

Santa Chiara. In his journal, he wrote: “I tried to prove to them that

Gregorian chant is a recitative. I had a reading, some psalmody, and an

ornate chant performed.” The superior did not stop at that, however. A

few days later, on February , he asked Dom Mocquereau if he would

kindly have the Mass of the Second Sunday of Lent sung at the Semi-

nary. In truth, it was the two students responsible for chant at the Seminary who, by their insistence, made up the Superior’s mind to take this

step, a step that he did not take without a certain amount of hesitation, fearing that he might upset the bishops of France in so doing.

Dom Mocquereau accepted the invitation, but, since he wanted the

Gregorian cause to benefit from the experience, he wanted everything

to turn out for the best, and he made his acceptance subject to certain

conditions: () There would be a schola of only  to  students to sing; () they would sing from the Solesmes Gradual; () finally, there would be a one-half hour lesson every day. Dom Mocquereau wrote: “I have

one week in which to work. I do not know if I will succeed, because

they have serious errors to overcome and must learn a rhythm with

which they are unfamiliar.” Without regard to his own discomfort and

this excess of work, Dom Mocquereau got right down to work, encour-

aged by the good will of the seminarians.

On March , the second Sunday of Lent, the small schola of Santa

Chiara acquitted itself quite honorably. The choir sang its responses to the schola according to the Rheims-Cambrai edition. “The length, the

confusion and the disjunction of the voices in the choir showed off the

disciplined performance of the schola to its advantage.l.l.l. In all, our fifteen students sang well, and it was a success for our cause.”

Clearly, the matter could not be left as it stood, and Dom Moc-

quereau was invited to rehearse the Mass of the following Sunday,

Laetare Sunday. On March , he noted, “The lessons begin tonight, and

if the students sing well, we will invite Father de Santi, etc. In God’s hands!”

Father de Santi had been shaken by his conversations with Dom

130 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

Mocquereau, and now was asking him “how to speak of the Paléogra-

phie in the Civiltà, he, the official representative of the Pustet edition.” It was on this occasion that Dom Mocquereau invited him to come to

Santa Chiara on Laetare Sunday. He also invited the choirmaster of the

Collegio Germanico, who was becoming interested in what was going

on at the French Seminary. For their part, the seminarians had turned

into apostles.

They invited their confreres, and on Laetare Sunday, students from the various Colleges of Rome were all gathered at the chapel of the French Seminary.

There were students there of every stripe, some even wearing red habits, the Germanics with their choir director, sworn supporters of the neo-Medicean edition.25

Father de Santi was there, along with priests invited by the students

at Santa Chiara as well. Dom Mocquereau noted: “I was a bit frightened

by this assembly; I was calling upon St. Gregory and St. Cecilia most

vigorously.” With the exception of the Kyriale, everything was sung correctly, without accompaniment. After the Mass, Father de Santi went to

Dom Mocquereau’s room, accompanied by Baron Kanzler. Father de

Santi said: “It is clear that this chant will be the chant of the Roman

Church some day.”

Baron Kanzler subscribed to the Paléographie Musicale on the spot, and the superior of Santa Chiara decided to keep the schola on an on-going basis.

From then on, every Sunday brought new listeners to Santa Chiara; everyone was struck, delighted with the beauty of the Gregorian melodies.—Soon, the French schola became well known at Rome. It was often invited to sing at ceremonies. It also soon had imitators and rivals. ( Revue Grégorienne , p. ) The Gregorian chant restoration movement out of France found a natural home at the French Seminary. Yet it was above all the ultimate con-

version to traditional Gregorian chant of Father de Santi that marked

Laetare Sunday, .

. Dom Mocquereau wrote: “I knew that the Belgian seminarians were quite pleased; as for the Germanics, they found this chant so beautiful that they could not believe that it is the chant of St. Gregory. They no longer recognize it. Naively, they had brought along their Pustet editions to follow along (to Madame Bruyère, May , ).

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 131

. Pustet’s Visit

Clearly, Dom Mocquereau’s success at the French Seminary could

not go unnoticed. Pustet himself was, no doubt, the first to be dis-

turbed by it. He requested an interview with Dom Mocquereau,

through the good offices of Father de Santi. No sooner was the visit

over than Dom Mocquereau sent an account of it to his Abbot.

Of course the conversation focused not on the performance at Santa

Chiara, but rather on the respective rights of the two competing edi-

tions. Pustet did acknowledge rather easily that his edition was merely

the approved and privileged one, but it did not exclude other editions

that maintained their place. He agreed, as well, that his edition was not perfect, and that he would like to have revised it, but that such as it was, he said, it was capable of being well sung (that, one will recall, was Father de Santi’s position, as well), a point that Dom Mocquereau disput-

ed. As for the attacks in the French press, it was easy for Dom Moc-

quereau to separate the cause of Solesmes from that of the individuals

given to excess (according to a letter from Dom Cabrol to Dom Cou-

turier dated April ).

The position taken by the main proponent of the Pustet edition in

Rome itself was becoming quite interesting. Nevertheless, one might

wonder under what conditions the Congress in honor of St. Gregory,

planned for , would take place. Plenty of talk was going around on

this subject, as reflected in Dom Mocquereau’s notes. At a recent meet-

ing with him, on March , Father de Santi had told him that no one

wanted to hear talk of a Congress as such in Rome itself, but rather at

Monte Cassino, for example, because they were afraid of a repeat of the

Arezzo Congress, which had dared to pass resolutions in support of a

return to traditional Gregorian chant. Now, Father de Santi was inform-

ing Dom Mocquereau that a Congress in Rome would be accepted,

provided that music was not discussed at it. Dom Mocquereau himself

deemed it useless to raise such a problem, while minds were as yet un-

ready to accept the changes that were necessary. It would appear that

Father de Santi was of like mind.

132 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

. Discovery of the “Old Roman” Chant

The purpose of Dom Mocquereau’s trip to Italy was to visit libraries,

where he spent most of his working time, obtaining as much informa-

tion as possible, assisted by Dom Cabrol, while still finding time to satisfy his pious inclination in the venerable churches of the Rome, and to

write a travel journal, from which we have drawn in this book.

We must point out the discovery of Graduals containing the special

chant, since then called “old Roman”, that Dom Mocquereau made in

the Archives of St. Peter’s. As soon as he made this unusual discovery,

Dom Mocquereau wrote a letter about it to his Abbot:

I must tell you of a discovery we made at the Vatican, and that continues to astonish us. Perhaps Dom Pothier will be able to explain what I am going to say?

It is a th-century Gradual, certainly of the Roman liturgy, with the exception of some slight peculiarities, but in which the chant is not the one used in all manuscripts in all countries. This is a singular exception that intrigues me. For a time, I had thought that the Ambrosian chant had replaced the Gregorian chant; but this is not the case, because in this new chant the universal Gregorian chant is easy to recognize, but with constant variations that give it a very special character.

This is surely an Italian manuscript, as proven by the notation. One note that I found, I no longer know where, advances the unsubstantiated notion that it belonged to St. John Lateran. We have yet to see the Archives at that Basilica; are surprises of this kind awaiting us there, perhaps? I have no idea. But I would be most interested to know what the Reverend Father Dom Joseph Pothier26

thinks about all this. I have not yet studied this curious manuscript in detail, because I had hoped to manage to get it to Solesmes.”

On the th, Dom Mocquereau wrote in his journal:

How astonished I am to come upon a second Gradual with the Roman liturgical text and a different version of the Gregorian chant, and this at St. Peter’s itself, in Rome! One of these manuscripts absolutely must be copied so that we can study this chant at our leisure at Solesmes .l.l. These two manuscripts are from the same school, have the same writing and the same Roman liturgy with a few variations, the same chant.l.l.l. We do not have an Ambrosian Gradual at

. On April , Pothier answered: “.l.l. bring us as many details as possible. What do the variations in the chant or the text consist of ?l.l.l. we must have a good analysis of it; it is on that analysis that we will base the research needed to understand the nature of the variations, their origins and their cause .l.l. the more numerous and the more accurate the details, the narrower the scope of guesswork will be.l.l.l. Traditions thrived in prior times; at St. Peter’s they still use not only ancient hymns, but even a special Psalter that dates from far back.”

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 133

hand; in Milan, we will be able to compare the relationships between these two chants easily.

Dom Mocquereau published the results of his study of the special

chant in the Graduals of the Vatican (Manuscript ) and of the Archives at St. Peter’s (Manuscript F.  and B. ), in volume II of the Paléographie Musicale, p. , note :

Most of the chants used in these codices are not related to tradition either by the economy of the distribution of their neumes, or by the series of musical intervals. These are no longer variations or alterations being offered to us: this is truly a distinct chant, as far removed from Ambrosian as from Gregorian. Yet the melodic basis is generally borrowed from Gregorian song: one recognizes the original design behind the flourishes, embroidery or, as they also say, the embellishments that disfigure it. These melodies seem to date from a relatively recent period, when the rules of Gregorian composition were beginning to fall into disuse. That is what the often incorrect or awkward manner in which the words are applied to the music reveals, not to mention the other indications that would take too long to discuss here.

The reader can decide how prudent was Dom Mocquereau’s judg-

ment. This simple note sufficed, moreover, to explain the reason why

he viewed the melodies found in those Roman manuscripts as outside

the general stream of melodies studied earlier. That was also his view of the Ambrosian melodies.

. Travel within Italy

Dom Mocquereau left Rome in late April, to continue his travels to-

ward Loretto, Perugia, and so forth, accompanied all the while by Dom

Cabrol. His return brought a note of triumph. Of course, he was feted

at the French Seminary upon his departure, and saw that the students at

the Collegio Germanico themselves were beginning to be swayed. He

was pleased to announce: “Next Sunday, the students at the German-

icum are going to sing the two Alleluias of St. Joseph in our Gradual. It is scarcely to be believed.”

At Lucca, after his visit to the Chapter Library with its rich holdings

in liturgical antiquities, the academy of music, to honor the Bene-

dictines, assembled not only the seminarians, but the canons of the

Cathedral and some notable personalities from the town. In Bologna,

134 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

the monks from Solesmes received an enthusiastic welcome from Don

Gamberini, author of a chant method in the manner of Dom Pothier.

In Venice, things were even better. Father Tebaldini, a professor at the Schola Cantorum founded by Cardinal Agostini, invited Dom Mocquereau to hear his Schola. “The Cardinal came and presided at the

gathering. Speech by the Cardinal on sacred music. Tebaldini intro-

duces the Benedictines and their scholarly work in the Paléographie.”

In Milan, after the visit to the libraries, it was Father Magistretti who brought together

the chief cantor of the Cathedral, a few canons and several students from the Seminary at the Archbishop’s residence. From : to : we sang Gregorian chant and Ambrosian Chant, and I think that here, too, we have sown good seed.

All, or nearly all, the names listed above are quite familiar in the Gregorian chant world, and the welcome extended to Dom Mocquereau

bears witness to the interest expressed even that early on in the restoration of Gregorian chant then underway. In fact, several of these Grego-

rian chant scholars from Italy stayed in contact with Solesmes.

His return from Italy brought him to Switzerland: Einsiedeln, Zurich

and St. Gall, where Dom Mocquereau had some photographs yet to

take in the libraries (by mail, he asked for his Notes taken in ). Dom Mocquereau and Dom Cabrol returned to Solesmes about May .

Dom Mocquereau was anxiously awaited. On April , Couturier wrote

to him: “We stand in great need of the return of our choir director, so

that he can take over the chant lessons. Whether they like it or not,

Solesmes must remain the center of the movement.” Dom Mocquereau

returned with a good harvest of notes and photographs, not just of the

Justus ut palma, but also of anything that might be of interest for his Gregorian chant research and study, particularly concerning notation.

. The Influence of the French Seminary

The trip to Italy had other fortunate results, as well. The work done

at the French Seminary was considerable. From Milan, on his return

trip, Dom Mocquereau had received encouraging news. On May , he

sent the following report to his Abbot:

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 135

The news from Rome is quite interesting, as I learned in a letter from M. Ginisty. The French Seminary is being called upon to do good things for our cause.

I received proof of this most recently at Verona. A canon from there, Father Bonuzzi, had occasion to go to Rome for a few days. Father de Santi sent him to the French Seminary, where he heard the Mass of St. Monica. This good canon told us that he thought he was in heaven, when he heard the plainchant, the Gregorian chant, performed by these young French seminarians. He could-n’t stop talking about it. He said, “I have finally found what I have been looking for for forty years.” He also told us, “What amazed me even more was to hear Father de Santi, our leader, praising and advocating Dom Joseph Pothier’s Gradual and his method of performance. It is a complete turnaround in our favor, and for you, the Benedictines, this conquest is of capital importance.” I was glad to hear Father Bonuzzi thus confirm everything that Father de Santi had told us, i.e. Dom Cabrol and me. If we had stayed longer in Milan, it would have been easy to bring about a similar revolution. We saw everyone at the Musica Sacra.

Once back at Solesmes, Dom Mocquereau stayed in close contact

with Father Ginisty. Every Sunday brought more and more visitors to

Santa Chiara. Father Ginisty told Dom Mocquereau of his successes,

and also of his difficulties and fears. On May , he wrote:

The seminarians at the Germanicum performed true plainchant from our

Gradual on two occasions. Among them, some, particularly the musicians, were filled with wonder; the others accused this style of chant of excessive sen-timentalism. The authorities (of the College) became involved, and forbade chanting from Dom Pothier’s Gradual from then on.

The opposition was to take advantage of such slight incidents to forbid

everywhere the use of the Liber Gradualis.

. The Gregorian Conversion of Father de Santi

Above all, Father de Santi’s complete conversion to traditional Gre-

gorian chant was a great satisfaction for Dom Mocquereau. As early as

August , in one of the first letters in a long correspondence between

Rome and Solesmes, Father de Santi congratulated Dom Mocquereau

on the Paléographie Musicale, 27 persuaded as he was that it was thanks to

. “My heartfelt congratulations on the extraordinary and fascinating work which is the Paléographie. I am convinced that all doubts will be cleared up, and that whatever becomes of the 136 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

it that doubts concerning the adoption of the traditional melodies

would be dispelled. What he feared was the intemperate language used

in certain periodicals. One newspaper, Le Matin, had recently antago-nized the Holy Father by claiming that, in this whole question of the

chant, the Holy See had allowed itself to be taken in by speculators. On August , Father de Santi pointed out to Dom Pothier that he understood the attitude of the Holy See in this regard. The Holy See could do nothing other than stay with the neo-Medicean edition when a new edition of liturgical books had to be made, specifically because of the lack of clarity on the questions raised at that time on the legitimate form of the traditional melodies. Now, however, he added that many questions

had been resolved,

particularly since  (Liber Gradualis) and following the publication of the Paléographie Musicale, to the point that one can see that the Benedictine edition truly corresponds to the demands of the art and that it reproduces faithfully the original and legitimate form of the Gregorian chant. Consequently, this edition could be considered as liturgical, and can be recommended.28

However, Father de Santi insisted on silence regarding such confiden-

tial statements, because his duty was to support the official editions. Yet he said that he knew that the Pope’s private thinking on this matter was

“less strict than the wording of the decrees.” On August , , Father de Santi went to His Holiness to present the acts of the Soave Congress

(), and the action plan of the Standing Committee on Sacred Music,

of which he was president.

question of practice (for now), attacks on the principles themselves will cease henceforth.” (“Mi congratulo ex toto corde dello stupendo e sempre più interessante lavoro che è la Paléographie.

Sono persuaso che i dubii si dissiperanno, e che quidquid sit della questione practica (per ora), si lascerà oramai d’attaccare i principii”) (August , ).—This is one of many expressions of esteem that greeted the appearance of the Paléographie Musicale.

. Although he complained about certain advertisers, Father de Santi did not question the Benedictines of Solesmes in any way. In an article published on August  in the Osservatore Romano, which was a response to the newspaper mentioned above, he clearly stated: “In France, there are many distinguished men who love their traditional chant, or who are involved in archaeological studies on the original form of the Gregorian melodies. The first take advantage of the freedom granted to them by the Holy See, the others are encouraged in their studies by the words of the Holy Father himself [Brief of March , ], which blesses and sustains everything that is true art and true science. We are convinced that neither the first group nor the second is involved in the bad intentions, the impertinence and the sectarian spirit of Le Matin and its correspondents” (August , ). The Brief of March ,  was addressed to Pothier after the publication of the Liber Gradualis (see Appendix II).

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 137

The address of the Soave Congress, signed by Father de Santi, on behalf of the Managing Committee of that Congress, and by Mr. Gallignani, on behalf of the Committee on Sacred Music in Italy, protested the submission of those attending the Congress to the decrees of the Congregation [of Sacred Rites], and thanked the Holy Father for the encouragement he had given to the movement to reform Church music, which is building steam slowly, but with a certain degree of success, in Italy.

The Pope demonstrated that he was very much up to speed on

everything, and had said, particularly: “You are aware that you are de-

fending the truth, and fighting for what is right and just. Carry on ar-

dently: truth always finds a way, and eventually, it triumphs.”29

At the end of the year, Father de Santi himself told Dom Cabrol,

who was then in Rome, what he knew personally of the private think-

ing of the Holy Father: yes, the Pope wanted freedom for all the edi-

tions. He was still advancing his favorable consideration by supporting

his actions in Civiltà Cattolica, actions already attacked by the adversaries of the traditional chant, who were quite well aware of his change of view in this field (Dom Cabrol to Dom Mocquereau).

Once this is clear, one understands why Father de Santi, knowing the

Pope’s thought, did not hesitate to promote the Benedictine editions, at least indirectly. We have already seen that he sent Verona’s Father

Bonuzzi to the French Seminary. Here is further testimony, provided by

Father Ginisty:

Father de Santi gave the young Apollinarists “a good lesson” in the parlor; he gave them the principles for proper performance, and encouraged them to go to the French Seminary as often as possible to hear and to understand the rhythm of our melodies, so that they could incorporate it into their singing from the Pustet edition. He reminded them of the example of the choirmaster from the Germanicum, who compares his text to Dom Pothier’s text each

time, re-inserts some pressus here, some strophicus there, which he has his singers perform as best they can. But that is the work of a Roman. One day, not all that far off, tired of this partially futile labor, they will abandon their Pustet editions and will adopt your edition plain and simple: it will be easier for them that way. The other day, Father de Santi told me, “When will I see this edition at the Apollinare? When will we hear these melodies at this Roman Seminary?

That hour has not yet come.” (To Dom Mocquereau, December , )

. Msgr. de T’Serclaes: Le Pape Léon XIII, sa vie, son action religieuse, politique et sociale, vol. , 138 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

. Volume II—Trip to Belgium and Holland ()

The first shipment of Volume II of the Paléographie Musicale appeared in January .30 Along with the presentation of the first plates of the Justus ut palma, this volume was to include a long study by Dom Mocquereau on the accent-neumes. But a second volume of plates (volume III) was needed to show even more fully that Dom Pothier’s Liber Gradualis was identical to the manuscript tradition. Thus Dom Mocquereau went off once again, on the hunt for manuscripts. This time, he

and Dom Cagin traveled to Belgium and Holland, from March  to the

end of April. Their itinerary took them to Namur, Maredsous, Liège,

Maastricht, Averbode, Tongerloo, Brussels, Louvain, Mechlin, Ghent,

Bruges, and Ypres. At that point, Dom Mocquereau returned to France,

having been called back by Dom Delatte, successor to Dom Couturier

as Abbot of Solesmes, who sent Dom Mocquereau to Rome with Dom

Pothier, for the Congress on the Centennial of the Exaltation of St.

Gregory the Great. Father Abbot had been invited by Cardinal Parocchi

(on February ), who requested that he come in person, or that he send

personal delegates to these Gregorian celebrations. Clearly Father de

Santi had a hand in these invitations (see the letter from Father de Santi on February , ).

Dom Cagin visited the libraries in Holland by himself, in The

Hague, Leiden, Katwijk, Warmond, Haarlem, Amsterdam, Utrecht,

Groningen, Dordrecht, and Delft.

From the very beginning, Dom Cagin kept the travel journal; Dom

Mocquereau took up his pen only once, from Brussels (on March ), to

tell his Abbot some important news:

I was delighted to handle all these manuscripts, and I have been able to see all the types of notation used in Belgium and Luxembourg. One of the goals of this trip has been achieved. The study of complete manuscripts has confirmed my theory.

p. , Desclée .—Father de Santi’s address to the Holy Father is printed in the Ghent Musica Sacra, September , , pp. ff., and in the Toulouse Musica Sacra, October , p. .

. Volume II contained: Le Répons-Graduel “Justus ut palma” reproduit en fac-similé d’après plus de deux cents antiphonaires manuscrits d’origines diverses, du IXe au XVIIe siècle. Préface, pp. – (Dom Mocquereau), Étude sur les neumes-accents (ordinary neumes, liquescent or semi-vocal accent-neumes), pp. – (Dom Mocquereau), and the first  plates of the Justus ut palma.

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 139

It is possible that Dom Mocquereau was alluding to his rhythmic sys-

tem, but he could equally have been alluding to the results he had

achieved regarding the rules of composition of Gregorian melodies,

which he was going to publish in Volume III of the Paléographie Musicale, then in preparation.

They brought back quite a few photographs of the Justus ut palma

from Belgium and Holland, and even a good selection of manuscript

fragments graciously made available to them by generous librarians.

. Congress of St. Gregory the Great ()

Before following Dom Pothier and Dom Mocquereau to Rome, we

must review how this Congress in honor of St. Gregory the Great came

about. Dom Mocquereau writes:

On January  (), at the inaugural meeting31 at the French Seminary, in the presence of the Prefect of the Congregation of Sacred Rites and Cardinal Parocchi, Vicar of the Pope, Reverend Father Grisar, from the Civiltà: a. openly praised the book of Mélodies Grégoriennes by Dom Joseph Pothier; b. made solemn mention of the archaeological and musical studies by the

Benedictines at Solesmes, and of their Paléographie Musicale, and c. finally, was not afraid to congratulate the young students at the Seminary.

He said: “In Rome, everyone knows the artistic perfection and deep piety with which they perform the ancient Gregorian melodies at their church of Santa Chiara.”

Such a beginning for the celebration was a good indication that it would be truly worthy of our great St. Gregory.

In fact, on the following March , there was another meeting. This time, it

. Revue Grégorienne , p. .—On the inauguration day, Father Ginisty gave Dom Mocquereau a detailed account of this session: “(Father Grisar) mentioned the work of the Benedictines at Solesmes, with effusive praise, particularly the Paléographie Musicale, which is the most striking archaeological confirmatur of Pothier’s Mélodies Grégoriennes. ” “What is this Gregorian chant? Where is it heard? You don’t have to leave Rome, or even the French Seminary.l.l.l. All Rome knows (e noto a Roma) the perfection and piety with which the students at this Seminary perform the ancient melodies every “Sunday” in their church.”—“This compliment, which is quite flattering to us, but also quite useful for the cause of St. Gregory, caused a silence and a thrill that nearly triggered a burst of applause .l.l. as well as a few comments made between the two cardinals” (Cardinal Parocchi, and the Cardinal Prefect of Sacred Rites who were presiding).

Letter of January  to Dom Mocquereau.—As for the speech by Father de Santi, dated March , the text is printed in the Ghent Musica Sacra, March , , pp. ff.

140 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

was the students at the Vatican Seminary who offered the Sovereign Pontiff a test of sacred music, under the direction of the Reverend Father de Santi.—The first part of the program was devoted to Gregorian chant. Father de Santi outlined its history in broad strokes, and drew parallels that were striking in their truth between St. Gregory the Great and Leo XIII, the first having presided over the organization of the melodies, the second over their renaissance. Essentially, he said that revertimini ad fontes S. Gregorii is the watchword given by the Pontiff. Under his reign, archaeologists have sifted through antiquity, and uncovered and deciphered the manuscripts. Even better, they have restored life to and rediscovered the rhythm of the ancient melodies. In his enthusiasm, Father de Santi said: “The Gregorian notes are like the fields of sparse and dried bones that Ezekiel saw .l.l. Fili hominis, putasne vivent ossa ista? And a new Ezekiel appeared, and answered: Ecce ego intromittam in vos spiritum et vivetis .l.l. This new Ezekiel is Dom Joseph Pothier, of the Abbey of Solesmes.” Father de Santi elaborated his theme with captivating eloquence.l.l.l.

Then Father de Santi had his schola, now an emulator of the one at the

French Seminary, perform two Gregorian melodies the texts of which were

contained in the archives of St. Peter’s, entirely in conformity with the Solesmes Gradual. Other similar performances followed in Rome during the month of March. Cardinal Parocchi, hearing only what confirmed the judgment of his piety, officially invited the French Seminary to crown these celebrations of the centennial of St. Gregory with their chants at the Coelius on April

 and .

The steps taken the previous year, forbidding all discussion of sacred

music during this Congress, had thus been revoked. Father de Santi

wrote to Dom Mocquereau on February  about this whole business,

but without mentioning that it was he, Father de Santi, who had inter-

vened with the Pope the previous August . Shortly thereafter, the Car-

dinal Vicar had set up a Commission, on which Father de Santi was

called to sit. At one of its meetings, the question of the chant was discussed, as was the possibility of intervening on behalf of the Bene-

dictines at Solesmes (Father de Santi, February , ).

At an audience granted to him, the Pope congratulated Father de

Santi on his speech, delivered on March , a speech that was circum-

spect with regard to the attitude of the Holy See as far as Gregorian

chant was concerned. In a March  letter to Dom Mocquereau telling

of his audience, Father de Santi summed up his position as follows:

In my speech, which had to be read at such a solemn session and presented to the Holy Father, I strove to raise the question in such a way that the truth was THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 141

safeguarded, yet without divulging the entire truth, in keeping with St. Paul’s advice: Omnia mihi licent, sed non omnia expediunt. Dom Amelli would prefer the est est, non non, which comes from the same mouth that told us Estote prudentes, etc., and that inspired St. Paul. No, neither the Holy Father nor the Congregation of Sacred Rites will ever accept any demonstration whose purpose is to make them say Ergo erravimus. We would just be greeted with yet more decrees. But if we say () that the Authorities have done well to limit themselves to the archaeologists during this period of debate, and () that the discovery of Dom Pothier, although dating from before , has not been supported by proof until our own time in the Paléographie, and that consequently the Congregation was justified in not addressing the issue until now, then the door is open for us to take the steps that we can, to bring about a satisfactory solution.

We will need time to do it, but we will get there. Dom Amelli, I hope, will be wise enough not to compromise a cause that has been so dear to him.l.l.l. I went to the Holy Father to offer the speech to him. I know that he has read and praised it. That in itself is something.32

. Dom Pothier and Dom Mocquereau in Rome ()

After an enthusiastic welcome by the Salesians in Turin, the two

monks from Solesmes arrived in Rome on April  (in fact, Dom Pothier

did not arrive until April , since he was obliged to give a lesson in chant to the Salesian seminarians). When they reached Rome, they learned

that at an important meeting, the Pope had said how happy he was to

know that the traditional Gregorian chant would be sung at St. Gregory

at the Coelius under the direction of Dom Pothier. In addition, as Dom

Mocquereau recorded in his journal, Father de Santi assured them that

“everyone was well disposed in our favor, and that the Holy Father was

entirely on our side.”

In another visit with Father de Santi, Dom Mocquereau, who was

still following up on his idea, showed Father de Santi the charts of the modes that had been prepared for Volume III of the Paléographie Musicale, as well as other similar work.33 It was a true success, the very suc-

. In a letter written in French, Father de Santi spoke once again of the possibility of applying the Solesmes rhythmic system to the Pustet editions; he saw this as a means for gradually achieving the adoption of traditional chant.

. It was these same comparative charts of the various versions of melodies that Dom Mocquereau had prepared that made such a strong impression on Father de Santi in .

142 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

cess that Dom Mocquereau was looking for. They sang together, as

well.

The feast of St. Gregory at the Coelius was celebrated with Cardinal

Parocchi presiding, on April  and . Dom Pothier and Dom Moc-

quereau had prepared the schola of the French Seminary, but it was

Dom Mocquereau who directed the Gregorian chants during the Mass

and at Vespers, the eve and on the day of the feast.34 The effect of the Mass was decisive. Said Civiltà Cattolica:

The students of the French Seminary, directed by Dom Mocquereau (Dom

Pothier had yielded the honor of directing to his eminent colleague), admirably performed their program, enabling all to taste the beauty of the Gregorian melodies in their true rhythm, which appeared to a great many of the listeners as a musical novelty, or, to put it better, a return to antiquity, worthy of the highest praise. We can attest to this not only in our own name, but also in the name of many highly competent music directors, excellent judges, with whom we discussed this performance.35

On April , there was a literary meeting. Dom Pothier spoke after

Dom Amelli from Monte Cassino, and at the invitation of Cardinal

Parocchi. Dom Mocquereau wrote: “Before he had said a single word,

Dom Pothier was greeted by one of those endless waves of applause

that attest to the sympathy and enthusiasm of the assembly. It was a

real triumph for him and for our cause.” Dom Pothier outlined the dis-

tinct character of the Gregorian and Ambrosian chants, and their rela-

tionship to each other.

The next day, Tuesday, April , Dom Pothier spoke once again, summarizing several chapters of his Mélodies Grégoriennes in a most interesting and delightful talk. He highlighted the nature, origins, and incomparable beauty of the musical works of St. Gregory. At the same time, he explained the scrupulous fidelity through which these works were handed down over the centuries, and how the countless copies that he had found and consulted in the libraries of Europe were in accord with each other and, with few exceptions, present the same single traditional melodic text.35bis

. “Great was the astonishment of the Romans, accustomed to hearing offices that take up a quarter of the day, with psalms the shortest of which were well over half an hour in length; in under three quarters of an hour, everything was finished at the Coelius, and more than a few of those in attendance heard, for the first time in their lives, possibly, the entire office of Vespers, in a church in Rome, on a major feast day” (Abbé Ginisty, Échos grégoriens des deux Centenaires, p. , Paris).

. Ch. Ginisty, op. cit., p. .

bis. Ch. Ginisty, op cit., p. .

THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 143

Significantly, Dom Mocquereau noted that:

There was no direct or indirect reference to Pustet.l.l.l. We know that they are quite pleased at the Congregation of Sacred Rites, and one might even say that this marked the beginning of a solution to the difficult situation in which they found themselves, because now it is no longer possible to say (so they affirm) that we are not allowing the greatest possible degree of freedom in the matter of Gregorian chant to the French as well.

That evening, Dom Pothier and Dom Mocquereau gave a course in

Gregorian chant at the Vatican Seminary itself, where Father de Santi

had brought them, and where he had gathered the leading choir mas-

ters, Gallignani and Magistretti from Milan, Bonuzzi from Verona, sev-

eral prelates and a few monks from St. Anselm. The meeting lasted

three hours, and Dom Pothier and Dom Mocquereau took turns direct-

ing the chants.

. Results

The April  Gregorian chant demonstration had not been to every-

one’s liking. Dom Mocquereau points out irate articles published

against the chant and the French. But that was of little significance in comparison to the Pope’s benevolence. In fact, the Pope received those

attending the Congress in a private audience on April . Cardinal

Parocchi introduced them to Leo XIII who, in a prepared speech,

highly praised the organizers of the centennial, and was pleased to take note of its success. As for sacred music, the Sistine Chapel was the object of well-deserved compliments. Then Leo XIII clearly showed his contentment with the fact that, during these Gregorian feasts, at the Coelius the French Seminary had sung the chant of St. Gregory, returned to its ancient purity, richiamato alla sua antica purezza. ( Revue Grégorienne, , p. )

The Pope spoke a word to Dom Pothier, then Dom Mocquereau was

introduced by Father de Santi as the founder of the Paléographie Musicale and the one who had conducted the chants at the Coelius: “Oh, that’s good, that’s good,” said Leo XIII.

Dom Mocquereau concluded:

In the end, despite the little inconveniences of the trip, I am happy, the results will be significant, quite significant, I believe. This performance at St. Gregory 144 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

produced an extraordinary effect in Rome: the ant hill has been kicked over.

The fight is going to begin now, at the very time it is ending in France. Father de Santi was not frightened, because he has the truth and the Pope on his side, along with a good number of partisans. Father de Santi is an upright, daring man who is not afraid of struggle or contradiction. What’s good is that he is feared quite a bit, because of his pen and his personal value. It is to him that the Vatican sends bishops so that they will have precise information on matters of the chant. Yesterday, the Archbishop of Dublin went to see him and told him,

“I no longer understand what’s going on in Rome. How is it that a few years ago you were inviting us vehementer to use the Medicean edition, and now the preference is all in favor of Solesmes; yesterday, the Cardinal Vicar himself was telling me that the Pustet edition, the edition of Rome, was the worst of them all.” And the poor archbishop went on and on with his groaning. Upon which Father de Santi told him the whole truth.l.l.l.36 The archbishop went off regretting that he had adopted the Pustet edition in his diocese. ( Journal of Dom Mocquereau)

Father de Santi would soon bear public witness to his feelings with

regard to Solesmes. Shortly after his return from Rome, Dom Moc-

quereau was pleased to read, from the pen of Father de Santi himself, in the Musica Sacra of Milan, a piece praising the Gregorian chant work done by Solesmes. In a review of a posthumous book by Nisard ,

L’Archéologie musicale et le vrai chant grégorien, in which the author concluded that “Here scholars are faced with an insoluble problem,” Father

de Santi had written:

Those whose minds are not prejudiced by passion and who have followed the course of Gregorian studies and the marvelous results achieved by the Benedictines at Solesmes must conclude, without any fear of error, first that the period for discussions of the Gregorian problem is now past, once and for all; secondly, that the period for solutions is beginning under favorable auspices, especially since the start-up of publication of the Paléographie Musicale on January , ; and thirdly, that in the archaeological and historical field, everything is pointing toward a stunning victory, such that the Benedictines of Solesmes could write this beautiful sentence on their books: Here scholars find themselves in the presence of a problem solved.37

. Father de Santi had asked Dom Mocquereau for a report on the history of the Pustet matter.

. Musica Sacra , p. . Translation in Musica Sacra of Ghent, February .—On this same subject, see also the Lettre du Père de Santi à M. A. Kunc, in Musica Sacra, of Toulouse, August , and Musica Sacra, of Ghent, September .—An impartial testimonial written by the THE PALÉOGRAPHIE MUSICALE 145

Once again, on a card sent from Rome as he was leaving, Dom Moc-

quereau had written: “The fight goes on, and this is good, but the Ital-

ians will have to work hard to fight against the current and achieve an

understanding of the pious and pacific music of St. Gregory.” Later on,

he was to write:

Finally, we, the Benedictines and our friends, were no longer revolutionaries, Jansenists, and heretics—for all of that had been said. Much to the contrary, we were on the right path—we had heard that from the mouth of the Holy Father himself—on the path traced out by the successor of St. Gregory. We were

merely profiting from the freedom that he had asserted so many times and that assured us, with the help of God, full victory in a relatively near future.

It is true that we had to quit Rome; but we left there a group of true friends, devoted to the Gregorian cause. And at their head was the Reverend Father de Santi. We knew that he had the Holy Father’s confidence.l.l.l.

Word of the celebration in honor of St. Gregory quickly spread throughout the entire world. The Revertimini ad fontes sancti Gregorii, the Richiamato alla sua antica purezza were repeated in newspapers, magazines, and in speeches, and hope was on the rise everywhere. Increasingly our friends took heart. In the years that followed—I can merely summarize—the congresses and performances of Gregorian chant increased in number. Admirers of the restored

melodies became countless in number. ( Revue Grégorienne , p. )38

. Dom Mocquereau’s Assistants

On the return from Rome, Dom Mocquereau stopped once again at

various libraries in Florence, Vercelli, and Montpellier, where he want-

ed to get some idea of the possibility of reproducing in phototype the

famous manuscript discovered by Danjou (the bilingual manuscript H.

 of the School of Medicine). Dom Mocquereau also stopped at Aix

and Apt. Dom Pothier, for his part, took another route back.

Since the opportunity presents itself here, we must note the assis-

Rev. Eugène Chaminade, a zealous partisan of the Ratisbon edition, on the perfection of the chant of Solesmes directed by Dom Mocquereau is available in the Semaine Religieuse du Diocèse de Périgueux et Sarlat (November , ).

. In November , there was a Congress of Religious Music at Milan: “Father Angelo de Santi (was) prevented for reasons pertaining to his Order from taking part in the work that his zeal had prepared in such an intelligent way” ( Musica Sacra of Ghent, April , , p. ). One can see in this the beginning of the difficulties that the music director of Civiltà Cattolica was to encounter.

146 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

tants to Dom Mocquereau in this work of finding manuscripts. We have

already mentioned Dom Cabrol, wandering through the East of France

() and Dom Cagin in the North ( and ), but we must also

mention Dom Delpech in the South (,  and ),39 Dom

Roullin from the Abbey of Silos, who visited libraries in Madrid and

Toledo (in ). There were many other people of good will—as attest-

ed by Dom Mocquereau’s correspondence—who helped him, if only in

sending him photographs of a manuscript that he had pointed out to

them. The harvest grew to a total of , photographs, a collection of

specimens of manuscripts that was quite valuable for studying various

Gregorian notations. This was the beginning of the great collection that Dom Mocquereau was soon to undertake and that was to contain hundreds of manuscripts photographed in their entirety.40

. Journey to Chartres ()

On July , , at the first Vespers of the Translation of St. Bene-

dict, the Monastic Antiphonal restored by Dom Pothier was inaugurated at Solesmes. This book, which also included an edition for the Roman

Office, thus completed the restoration of the Gregorian melodies be-

gun in  with the Liber Gradualis. Shortly thereafter, as soon as he could, the Abbot, Dom Delatte, went to Chartres to fulfill the vow of

Dom Mocquereau at the founding of the Paléographie Musicale and ratified by his predecessor, Dom Couturier. Thus on August , , the Ab-

bot of Solesmes, accompanied by Dom Mocquereau, placed the first

volume of the collection, decorated with a splendid binding, at the feet of the Virgin. The other volumes were to be added to it gradually, although the vow specified only that the first volume would be offered.

But Dom Mocquereau, whose Marian devotion is well known—many

references to it are found in his correspondence and in his travel notes—

insisted on extending this sign of the consecration of the work to the

Virgin of Chartres.

. Dom Mocquereau himself was there in .

. Other paleographical journeys were to take place in  (August–December, to Italy), in

 (July–December, to Germany and Belgium), and in  (April–August, to Austria). England was visited during the monks’ exile on the Isle of Wight, beginning in , and Spain was visited in  (April –January ) (see below).

II ■ FAT H E R D E S A N T I A N D

M O N S I G N O R C A R L O R E S P I G H I

. New Orientation

Once he returned to Solesmes, Dom Mocquereau soon had good

news from Rome. On October , , Father de Santi told him, in fact,

that the Pope had ordered the Congregation of Sacred Rites to review

the Regulation of September , , which had followed the decree of

April , , published after the Arezzo Congress to maintain the privilege of the Ratisbon edition,41 and to publish another, the interpretation of which would leave no room for hesitation concerning the Gregorian

question, and which could serve as the rule for all Churches. Father de

Santi also knew, through Cardinal Rampolla, that the leading musicians

in Italy and abroad would be consulted. Yet, he added, it does not seem

that the question of the editions was to be addressed. But still, “the Holy Father seriously desires musical reform, and I believe that stricter rules of order than before will come out of this” (October , ).

Unfortunately, there were behind-the-scenes maneuvers that ran the

risk of compromising everything. For example, the Chambre Syndicale

des Imprimeurs Français [Employers’ Federation of French Printers],

through the French Embassy, was trying to obtain a clearer statement of

freedom from the Holy See with respect to the editions, but using means

that could only result in displeasure (Father de Santi, November ,

).

Nevertheless, Father de Santi wrote reassuringly:

. The decree Romanorum Pontificum sollicitudo of April , , cf. supra, Part I, Nos.  and

. These documents are published in the Musica Sacra of Ghent, June , pp. – (decree) and November , pp. – (regulation).

147

148 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

I was able to discuss at length with Monsignor Nussi (Secretary of the Congregation of Sacred Rites) everything that concerns our cause. From it all, one can conclude that our studies have been taken into consideration, and that they are no longer thinking of issuing a reconfirmation of past decrees. (December ,

)

Father de Santi invited Dom Mocquereau to prepare a comparison of

the Medicean edition with the manuscripts (which was to be the object

of a study published in volumes III and IV of the Paléographie Musicale).

Regarding Msgr. Haberl himself, Father de Santi added this curious de-

tail: “Haberl left last night. He went to Santa Chiara and told me that he came away quite satisfied.” Yet Father de Santi had pointed out a few

days earlier (November ) that any discussion was difficult with him.

Msgr. Haberl appealed to authority, Father de Santi to tradition and art (December , ).

. The Report by Father de Santi ()

Father de Santi alluded not only to the studies published in the Paléographie Musicale, but also to his own work. The reference was certainly to his own articles in Civiltà Cattolica, but to other studies as well, particularly a work on the editions of the chant for which he had requested

assistance from Solesmes. He sought that assistance from Dom Pothier

(August , , cf. February , ) and from Dom Mocquereau (Feb-

ruary , , cf. December , ).

Encouraged by the steps taken by the Pope regarding the revision of

the Regulation of , Father de Santi was thus able to present an his-

torical report to the Congregation of Sacred Rites in , on the errors and contradictions of the decrees concerning the Medicean edition. On

May , , he wrote to Dom Mocquereau:

In part with the notes sent by Dom J. Pothier or by Your Reverence, and in part with the fruit of my own studies, I have written a report containing twenty major observations on the decree Romanorum Pontificum (of April , ). Father Chatillon has summarized it and presented it to the meeting of the consultors for the revision of the decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites. All the consultors, in a unanimous vote, decided to forego the decreeing of the new authentic collection that is in preparation. This resolution of the consultors will be submitted in September to the cardinals at the regular Congregation. If the FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 149

suppression of the decree runs into any trouble, the consultors will protest, and will defer to the Holy Father in the matter. So we can consider it a certainty even now that the decree will be, as it were, tacitly suppressed. The seriousness of the matter consists only in the fact that Gardellini had already published it at the same time as the others. Therefore, its suppression is quite significant in the present circumstances.

Nevertheless, this is merely a first step. It seems that the consultors are of the opinion that the Congregation must no longer propose any official edition, but merely recommend the true Gregorian chant. For my part, I believe that the truth and the beauty of the Gregorian melodies will make their way all by themselves, without the outside support of a privilege, a recommendation, or imposition.

In a recent book, Monsignor Romita has pointed out that this histor-

ical report was accompanied by a draft Regulation intended to replace

that of . Prepared as early as , these two documents were sub-

mitted to the Congregation of Sacred Rites in January  (La preformazione del motu proprio di S. Pio X sulla musica sacra, con documenti inediti, Rome, Desclée, , p. ). We will return to these two documents later on.

. Miscellaneous Efforts

In an earlier letter, Father de Santi had asked Dom Mocquereau for a

study comparing the Pustet edition with the manuscripts (December ,

), a study that Dom Mocquereau had discussed with him in Rome

itself in , showing him the charts prepared for that purpose on

psalmody. To assuage his impatience, Dom Mocquereau had already

sent him two tableaux on psalmody in mode . On February , , Fa-

ther de Santi answered him: “In truth, they are crushing and serve to

demonstrate the truth, even to those who understand nothing about

notes and melody.”42 Later on, Father de Santi received other “tavole

parlanti e eloquenti,” which he promised to show to the Secretary of

the Congregation of Sacred Rites, Monsignor Nussi (April , ).

Finally, in June , Dom Mocquereau sent a work that Father de

Santi wanted to have printed for the use of the consultors of the Con-

. “Davvero sono schiaccianti e servono a mostrare l’evidenza della verità anche a chi non capisce nulla di note e di melodia” (February , ).

150 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

gregation of Sacred Rites. Doubtless this was a memorandum on the

errors in the Pustet edition, in which case this document would be a

summary that we possess of the study that was to appear shortly in vol-

ume III of the Paléographie Musicale (comparison between Pustet and Solesmes concerning the three psalmodic styles: simple, ornate, and

neumed). After a few observations, Father de Santi concluded: “The

demonstration, in and of itself, is so strong and eloquent that it stands in no need of commentary” ( June , ).43

On September , once again Father de Santi acknowledged receipt

of a stupendo extract from the Paléographie Musicale, most likely an offprint of the Preface on the Response Justus ut palma, or of the study on the neume-accents, which he quickly distributed to the consultors.44

Father de Santi added that the consultors already had in their possession a report on the decree of , that is, his own report mentioned above.

In this regard, he noted that the Congregation of Cardinals would not

be examining the matter in September, as originally planned, but in No-

vember. Yet everything looked quite promising, because Father de Santi

wrote shortly thereafter (October , ) that the consultors were still in favor of suppressing the decree of  in the new edition of the

Bullarium.

. The Gregorian Apostolate of Father de Santi—

Volume III ()

While waiting, Father de Santi continued his work of introducing

the traditional Gregorian chant into the Roman milieu. In May , on

the occasion of the inauguration of the organ at its church, the Vatican Seminary had held a meeting at which Father de Santi had given those

in attendance a taste of the gentle character of the Gregorian melody,

. “Nel resto la dimostrazione è per se stessa tanto forte ed eloquente che non ha bisogno di commenti” ( June , ).

. “I received the wonderful excerpt from the Paléographie. I distributed four copies of it to the consultors of the Congregation. They have already cast their votes against decree  so that Gardellini will withdraw it. But the Congregation of Cardinals will not take up the matter until November.” (“Ho ricevuto lo stupendo estratto della Paléographie. Ho distribuito  copie ai con-sultori della Congr. Essi hanno già dato il loro voto contro il Decreto  perchè sia espunto del Gardellini. Ma la Congreg. dei Cardinali non esaminera la cosa che in novembre”) (September

, ).

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 151

an experience that was, for many, “something new and a true revela-

tion.” The Musica Sacra of Ghent noted, in this regard, that a real revolution had taken place in Rome in this area, and that several institutes, specifically the Vatican Seminary and the Capranica College, had adopted the Benedictine editions, which the authorities viewed with pleasure.

Likewise, on June , , the Vatican Seminary once again, still under

the direction of Father de Santi, sang two melodies taken from Dom

Pothier’s Liber Gradualis for the Pope at a concert (the Introit Dispersit and the Alleluia Loquebantur). “Father de Santi’s harmonious and perfect interpretation” was singled out ( Musica Sacra, Ghent, , p. ).

The first copies of volume III of the Paléographie Musicale (Justus ut palma II) were delivered to subscribers beginning in July .45 The volume was to open with a study by Dom Mocquereau, entitled L’influence de l’accent tonique latin et du cursus sur la structure mélodique et rythmique de la phrase grégorienne (I. L’accent tonique et la psalmodie), pp. –. The continuation of the plates of the Justus ut palma (Plates –) followed, along with a Précis d’histoire de la notation neumatique d’après les fac-similés publiés dans la Paléographie Musicale, also by Dom Mocquereau (pp.

–), and various tables.

The study of the neume-accents, begun in volume II, was therefore

interrupted, and the chapter on The Apostropha and its derivatives (the strophicus, the pressus and the oriscus) in the delivery of April  was not followed up. Why this change in plans? Dom Mocquereau explained

it this way to one of his correspondents, in November :

I had to yield to unforeseen circumstances, and to pressing demands that required the immediate publication of the study in progress. Although it entails a certain amount of inconvenience, this change does have its advantages .l.l. it allows us to demonstrate earlier, through intrinsic proof, the truth of our teaching with respect to the recitative rhythm of Gregorian chant, and at the same time to answer the unfair criticisms leveled so often at the ancient chant of the Roman Church. The practical and artistic value of the Ratisbon writing is revealed in the process. At the very least, you will allow that we are proceeding with the help of scientific and pacific discussions. Facts, nothing but facts, not a word of criticism.” (To Father Chaminade, November , from a rough draft by Dom Mocquereau)

. Volume II ( Justus ut palma) had begun with the deliveries of January  and concluded with the delivery of April .

152 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

We have seen Father de Santi’s great interest in this study by Dom

Mocquereau on psalmody, and the tables that accompanied it. As soon

as he was able, he distributed extracts of it to the Cardinals and consultors interested in the Gregorian question (April , ). For his part, Dom Mocquereau saw to it that the study, which he viewed as very important, was translated into German for the Ratisbon supporters.46

The goal that Dom Mocquereau intended to achieve by publishing

the Gradual responsory Justus ut palma has already been indicated above: to show that the manuscripts spread out across all of Europe

were in agreement with each other, and that the restitution of the true

Gregorian chant was possible. Dom Mocquereau wrote:

A piece of music was selected and reproduced from two hundred nineteen antiphonaries of various origins, dating from the ninth to seventeenth centuries.

All the Churches, those of Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, England and Spain, were called upon to bear witness to this quest, and all testified in favor of the Gregorian musical tradition of the Roman Church, by contributing to our collection the same melody in all cases, that of the Solesmes Liber Gradualis, with the exception of some insignificant variations in detail. The proof was there for those with honest minds. ( Revue Grégorienne , p. ) Dom Mocquereau continued, pointing out the conclusions of his

study on the Latin tonic accent and its relationship with Gregorian

melody, or better yet on the rules of composition for Gregorian chant,

which was, at the same time, a timely condemnation of the Ratisbon

edition:

After having determined the external shape of the melody and its historic authenticity, the Benedictines pushed ahead. Through precise analysis, and entering into the most minute detail, they rediscovered the laws of composition of this ancient musical language:

rules for applying words to the melody,

rules for tonic accentuation,

rules concerning weak penultimate syllables,

rules for the melodic “cursus” copied from the “cursus” of the text,

rules for musical rhyme, etc.

In the organization of the melodies, they noticed a whole series of ingenious and artistic procedures transferred from everyday language to the musical art;

. Der Einfluss des Tonischen Accents auf die Melodische und Rhythmische Struktur der Gregorian-ischen Psalmodie (Herder ).

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 153

for example, in a given melodic formula, the suppression or addition of notes, required by the modification of texts; or yet again contractions, divisions, or even permutations of notes or groups, all used by the composers according to well and duly verified rules, based on countless examples taken from the oldest Gregorian pieces. These unexpected discoveries came to light in due course, and gave the defenders of Gregorian art the happy opportunity of having at their disposition an entire arsenal of proof, new, irrefutable proof of the soundest sort, which would bear witness against the neo-Medicean edition and save this art, this inestimable treasure of the Church, from becoming shipwrecked. Until then, the Paléographie Musicale had been engaged solely in defense and reconstruction. From that point on, it was in a position to go on a strong offensive, and to transform itself into the war machine I mentioned before, intended to wipe out the chants that claim to be Gregorian in the Ratisbon edition.

To achieve this goal, all that needed to be done was to draw up tables comparing the two editions. On one side, the ancient version with a short summary of its laws of composition. On the other, the neo-Medicean version, with its mutilations and its total ignorance of the rules. There was no need for any commentary; the mere sight of these tables was convincing. ( Revue Grégorienne,

)

. Father de Santi’s Method

Dom Mocquereau, as you will recall, had met several choirmasters

in Italy, all of whom were won over to the Gregorian reform. Three of

them came to Solesmes as early as the summer of . In August, Don

Bonuzzi came from Verona, along with Don Minetti from Genoa.

Then, somewhat later, Don Tebaldini came from Venice.

Father de Santi envied them. Thus the idea of coming to the Abbey

himself occurred to him, apparently for the first time. Nevertheless, he did not think that he could undertake such a trip for the time being,

even though he wanted to have his Rules (Guida) for the performance of Gregorian chant printed at Solesmes, for the use of the Vatican Seminary. This book, he added, would not be redundant with regard to the

Method that Bonuzzi was also going to have printed at Solesmes.47

There was no reason for concern about obtaining the requisite ap-

proval. The approval of the Master of the Sacred Palace and that of the

Vicar General of St. Peter, Ordinary of the Vatican Seminary, were cer-

. Metodo teorico-pratico de Canto gregoriano (Solesmes, ,  p.).

154 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

tain (August , ). Even better, a few weeks later he told Dom Moc-

quereau that the Pope approved of his plan, and was sending him with

his blessing (September , ).

Dom Pothier and Dom Cabrol, the latter being at Rome at that

point, pressed Father de Santi to come to Solesmes. Dom Mocquereau

did the same, because Father de Santi had sent him his manuscript, and

there were several matters to clear up before the printing.48

The trip was on the verge of taking place, in October . The Very

Reverend Father General of the Jesuits had granted his permission, but

he did ask Father de Santi to put off publication of his book. Given the circumstances, the General wanted explicit permission from the Pope

(October ), and Father de Santi’s Rector had already asked him not to

continue his articles in Civiltà Cattolica on the Church’s tradition regarding religious music (October , ). Finally, the plan for a visit to Solesmes was dropped, and Father de Santi was all the more upset by

this fact because he was truly moved by Dom Mocquereau’s criticisms

of his book, and even more so concerning the performance of the Gre-

gorian melodies.

In this regard, Father de Santi spoke for the first time of the maneu-

vers of his adversaries to drive him out of Rome, where his influence

really was too strong for their liking. The Cardinal Vicar, at the urging of Father de Santi, of course, had just imposed the study of the

Solesmes Liber Gradualis on the Roman Seminary (October , ), after all. Yet Father de Santi remained calm throughout all this, because

. On October , , Dom Mocquereau wrote, “It is because we sense the significance of your work, all the responsibility that you are going to assume, that Pothier and I have not hesitated to critique your initial work on certain points, and to indicate in grosso several corrections to be made, some slight, others more serious. As for the substance, it can and it must remain. For my part, provided that certain modifications are made in these matters and in the terms used, I accept the theory of rhythmic feet, and the analogy that exists between the rhythm of the words and that of the neumes, on condition that you reduce this latter theory to a simple school system intended to help students better understand the rhythm of the neumatic periods. What I mean is that your Guide is correctable. This is easy enough to say, but it does require prior agreement for reworking the second part of your work.”

“.l.l. And then again, just imagine how fruitful it will be for you to hear the Gregorian melodies at Solesmes, particularly at Sainte Cécile with our Benedictine sisters. In your Guide, there are certain instructions (on the expression to be given to the Gregorian melodies, for example) the exaggeration of which you will not understand fully except through savoring and hearing these sweet and pious songs over and over, an act of listening which cannot be replaced by books or even discussion. Fortunately, Rev. Bonuzzi has experienced what I am telling you”

(Dom Mocquereau’s copy).

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 155

he still hoped in the uprightness of the Holy Father (December ,

).

In addition, Father de Santi did not neglect the practical aspects. We

have seen his influence in Rome, particularly at the Vatican Seminary,

but his actions extended beyond there, to Fiesole and to Reggio, of

which he spoke enthusiastically in a letter dated January , . Under his influence, others were working in the same direction and, for the

first time, Father de Santi mentioned Perosi and the success that he had had at Vigevano (Piedmont). All of this, particularly the benevolence of Leo XIII (“The Holy Father is fully disposed in favor of the right

cause”), was a consolation, even though the newspapers announced

that the document expected from the Congregation of Sacred Rites,

supporting freedom, had been put off ( January , ). And so Father

de Santi bravely continued his efforts to support the traditional chant, and announced a study in which he wanted to compare the Pustet edition with that of Solesmes, and another in which he wanted to show

that the Council of Trent had never passed any resolution in favor of

abbreviating the Gregorian melodies, and that Pius IV had never set up

a commission for that purpose (February , ).

The matter of a visit to Solesmes by Father de Santi came up once

more at Easter, .49 But in the end, he gave up on that plan of his own accord, since he could not have his Method printed (May , ). The moment was not well chosen, in fact, and soon he would be forbidden

to write about Gregorian chant, not only in Civiltà Cattolica, but even in the Musica Sacra of Milan or in any other publication ( July , ).50

. The Work of Dom Pothier

In April , Dom Pothier left Solesmes for the Abbey of Ligugé,

where he received the title of Monastic Prior. Dom David wrote: “The

. De Santi, October , . According to a letter from Dom Cabrol, then passing through Rome, Father de Santi was once again thinking of coming to Solesmes in June (April ).

. Having gotten word via Tebaldini that Dom Mocquereau was thinking of coming to the Congress held at Thiene, Father de Santi advised him not to draw attention to his presence there, and to go there “as if by chance” ( July , ).—In an article in Civiltà Cattolica, the Reverend Father Bauducco spoke of Cardinal Aloysi Masella’s violent opposition to Father de Santi (who often discussed the matter in his letters to Dom Mocquereau) ( Il p. Angelo de Santi S.J. e l’edizione vaticana dei libri gregoriani dal  al , p. ).

156 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

Abbot and the entire Community of that monastery pressed Dom De-

latte at Solesmes, begging him to send Dom Pothier to them; Dom

Pothier could hardly refuse, despite his deep attachment to Solesmes.51

In  Dom Pothier had published the Liber Antiphonarius at the Solesmes press. Apparently the book was received with the greatest joy,

and all the more so as there was one edition for the Order of St. Bene-

dict, one for the Benedictine Congregation of Solesmes, and one for the

Roman Church (in two volumes: Lauds and the Minor Hours, Vespers

and Compline). In  as well, Dom Pothier published his Principes pour la bonne exécution du chant grégorien (Solesmes,  pp.), which was distributed very widely. In , he came out with a new edition of the Variae Preces, and in , one of the Monastic Processional, not to mention other excerpts from books published before then. We must also point

out several Diocesan Propers and Propers for Religious Congregations

that he composed. Finally, beginning in , Dom Pothier had started a

long collaboration with the Revue du Chant Grégorien founded at Grenoble by Father Vincent-Martin (the first issue came out on August ,

). As if there were any need to say so, Dom Pothier’s commentaries

were to contribute substantially in helping others savor and appreciate

the ancient Gregorian melodies. Dom Pothier was also to exercise this

apostolate through his practical conferences, which he gave in many

places.

In this context, let us also point out two trips that Dom Mocquereau

made to the Abbey of En-Calcat in February and August . The first

trip was primarily to go to Lourdes. The new Office of the Apparitions

of Our Lady, composed by Dom Pothier, was sung there for the first

time on February , and it was Dom Mocquereau who rehearsed and

directed the performance.

. The Votum of Cardinal Sarto ()

Following various tactless steps taken by French typographers,

which the press ( Le Matin, Le Génie and L’Éclair, for example) orchestrat-ed and to which we have previously referred,52 the situation had deteriorated for the supporters of the old traditional chant. Thus the most con-

. Dom Joseph Pothier, p. .

. For example, see the commentary by the Courrier de Saint-Grégoire (Liège), , pp. –.

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 157

tradictory news was circulating, and especially the announcement of a

new decree in favor of Pustet ( July , ), or even of a decree that would impose the Ratisbon edition excepting France alone (November

). “This exception will be a consolation for the French,” Father de San-ti wrote, “but what about for us?”53 In any event, a note in the Osservatore Romano (August , ) confirmed that “the Holy See never intended to impose on the bishops the obligation to introduce the chant books

published by Pustet in their dioceses.” Thus, concluded Father de Santi,

“these tactless steps taken by the French typographers ended up pro-

ducing a positive result, which is that no one will dare do anything further in support of the Ratisbon edition.”

Father de Santi was correct in saying that Leo XIII was well disposed

in favor of the reform of sacred music, and particularly of Gregorian

chant. We have seen that he had decided to revise the Regulation of

 and to consult the most famous church musicians, as well as the

Chairmen of the Episcopal Conferences in Italy. A commission had

then been charged with collecting the wishes of the musicians and to

draw conclusions from them, then to draw up a schedule of modifica-

tions to be made to the Regulation of , a schedule that was sent to

the Chairmen of the Episcopal Conferences on June , .54

According to Father de Santi ( July , ), Leo XIII was not very

pleased (non fosse troppo contento) with the wishes of the musicians, and furthermore, he wished to settle the matter of the books of liturgical

chant. To do that, Father de Santi was relying heavily on the influence

of Monsignor Sarto, recently made a cardinal on May , , and Patri-

arch of Venice on June . He was among the first of the prelates to be

consulted. Thus Father de Santi thought that the document desired for

so long would soon be in hand—as early as November, he hoped. Twice

before, he had told Dom Mocquereau the opinion of the consultors of

the Commission, in favor of a revision of the decrees. They were unan-

imously in favor of suppressing the decree of April ,  (May  and

October , ), the one that had preceded the Regulation of . So

there were grounds for having confidence despite the tenacious opposi-

tion and tactless maneuvers of some.

. “L’eccezione per la Francia, consolera i Francesi. Ma noi?”

. We have drawn this detail, and those that follow, from the book by Monsignor Romita, La preformazione del motu proprio di S. Pio X sulla musica sacra (con documenti inediti). Desclée, Rome, pp. ff.

158 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

Furthermore, Father de Santi was still continuing to study the histor-

ical aspect of the problem in greater depth: on the one hand, the de-

crees themselves (August , ),55 and on the other hand, the work attributed to Palestrina, which posed a number of problems in its own

right. How had Palestrina been able to create so unmusical a work? (De-

cember , ).

In July , Cardinal Sarto, consulted on the Regulation of ,

turned to Father de Santi to prepare the response that he was to pro-

vide. On July , the Cardinal, who was still in Mantua and who was

preparing to take possession of the Patriarchal See of Venice, essentially asked Father de Santi to prepare a report for him, which he said he

wanted to present to the Congregation of Sacred Rites. The Cardinal

was incapable of dealing with this matter at the time he was being

transferred to the See of Venice and, moreover, he protested that he

was completely in agreement with the ideas of the music director of

Civiltà Cattolica in matters of religious music. Father de Santi certainly rejoiced in this unhoped-for opportunity to have a Cardinal present documents that he had written in , a report on the reform of sacred

music and a draft of a new Regulation, which was discussed above.

Thanks to the benevolence of the Secretary of the Congregation of Sa-

cred Rites, he was able to retrieve the documents that he had submitted

to him in January , and send them to Cardinal Sarto, who thanked

him most deeply for them as early as July , .

It was already known that the motu proprio of November ,  reproduced a votum submitted by Cardinal Sarto to the Congregation of Sacred Rites in , and a recent study has shown that the motu proprio of Pius X relied upon the writings of Father de Santi.56 Now we know

the precise origin of the pontifical document. The votum of  comprised the report on the reform of sacred music and the draft of a new

Regulation on sacred music prepared by Father de Santi, in part with

the help of his friends from Solesmes. All this was collected into a single document:

The report:

. Letter of August , . Father de Santi had sent some documentation on this topic to the Courrier de Bruxelles.

. Dom André Mocquereau e la restaurazione del Canto gregoriano, in Musica Sacra, , nos. , , and .

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 159

. General considerations (on the role of the Church in matters of re-

ligious music), seven printed pages;

. Special observations (on desirable reforms), four pages; and

The Regulation:

. Instruction on sacred music, fifteen pages with indications of the

sources used.

Father de Santi reworked this document before sending it to Cardinal

Sarto in July . The Regulation or Instruction on sacred music be-

came the motu proprio of November , or more precisely the Instruction that followed it and that he promulgated, with the same titles, the same sub-titles, and nearly the same text.57 We will specify below the

changes that were made.

Father de Santi had merely told Dom Mocquereau that he was counting

on the influence of Cardinal Sarto ( July , ), but he did not seem to doubt that some persons were dead set against him. At the end of the

year, he spoke of having a Liber Tonarius (Toni Communes) printed at Solesmes, a project for which he had his Rector’s consent (November

, ).

. The Exiling of Father de Santi ()

In January , the news that Father de Santi had been exiled and

was required to leave Rome hit Solesmes like a thunderbolt. Dom Moc-

quereau wrote to him immediately, and Father de Santi’s reply was dat-

ed from Modena on February , stating that he had, in fact, left Rome

on January . This response was, nevertheless, full of hope. Father de

Santi had left bearing the Pope’s blessing. Thus he was confident in the triumph of truth and justice. On March , writing from Piacenza, Father de Santi reminded Dom Mocquereau that the Palm Sunday Hosan-

na was followed by the Crucifige of the Passion, but also by the Alleluia of the Resurrection.

The reasons for this persecutory measure are easy enough to dis-

cern. Father de Santi had taken a position practically against the official edition, and was using all his influence to see to it that the traditional

. F. Romita, op. cit., p. , note; text of the votum, pp. –.—Cf. Appendix III.

160 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

chant was adopted. He was already being criticized for the fact that he

had revived the Cecilian movement in Italy.58 Ultimately, it was not difficult for the Congregation of Sacred Rites to pick up the scent of Father de Santi’s style in the votum of Cardinal Sarto, just as it had perceived his style in the program at the Soave Congress.

A Roman correspondent of Dom Mocquereau, however, provides an

even more specific cause for this exile:

The opinion of the most highly regarded choirmasters had been sought (on the Regulation of ). Several did not answer at all, and the others had submitted their parere; the responses were bound together in a volume, and that volume had been placed in the archives with a prohibition against communicating its contents to certain individuals whose extremely competent adversarial position was feared. What happened? Someone, clearly a traitor, immediately offered the first fruits of the collection to the very people from whom it was to be kept.l.l.l. The most obvious outcome of all this was that Father de Santi was sent away from Rome. (Reverend Father Vincent Laporte, O.P., March , ) For its part, the Musica Sacra of Ghent59 provided an even more discreet explanation, and Father de Santi complained bitterly to Dom Moc-

quereau about the indiscretions that placed some of his brothers in religion in question, accused of having compromised with his adversaries

(Piacenza, April ; Padua, August , ), indiscretions that could do nothing but harm to him. In fact, it seems that they contributed to prolonging his exile.

In truth, the friends of Father de Santi committed certain errors of

their own which did him disservice. For example, one of them took ad-

vantage of his exile to have his Method printed in Italian and French. Father de Santi had to take decisive action to see that this plan was halted, first with Dom Mocquereau, who had already received a copy of the

manuscript (Padua, August ; Piacenza, August , ).

Despite all this, Father de Santi did not lose interest in musical mat-

ters. He spoke of Monsignor Nussi, who remained supportive of the

cause and, as necessary, sometimes had spirited debates with the Cardi-

nal-Prefect of Sacred Rites (Padua, June , ).60 He said that the

. Moneta-Caglio, in Musica Sacra, , , p. .

. Lettre de Rome in Musica Sacra, Ghent, February , pp. –.

. Cf. Moneta-Caglio, L’attività musicale di S. Pio X, in Bollettino Ceciliano, November , p.

. Cf. De Santi, June , , announcing the resignation of Msgr. Nussi, who was replaced by Msgr. Tripepi, “mi ottimo amico.”

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 161

Pope did not want to renew the Pustet privilege, but rather that he

wanted to leave all completely free, under the supervision of the bish-

ops ( June ). On another occasion, he expressed the wish to see a calm-ly presented report on the imprecision of the  decree (Piacenza, Au-

gust , ).

. Perosi at Solesmes ()

It was at this same time that Father de Santi was occupied with a trip

to Solesmes by Perosi, who had expressed a desire to come to the Abbey

(Padua, May , ).61 In a previous letter, he had already introduced the famous conductor to Dom Mocquereau ( January , ). More recently still, he told Dom Mocquereau of Perosi’s appointment as choir-

master at the Basilica of St. Mark in Venice. “He is an ardent friend of Solesmes,” he added, “and during the upcoming vacation he hopes to

go there. How glad I would be to accompany him!” (Padua, May ,

). Father de Santi, too, hoped that Perosi would be his strong ally on behalf of the cause he was defending (Padua, August , ). On June

, from Padua, Father de Santi specified that Perosi desired to come to Solesmes in July, and that through de Santi’s mediation he requested

hospitality “in that same monastery.” Perosi, added de Santi, had al-

ready studied Gregorian chant at Monte Cassino as well as with de San-

. On Perosi’s trip to Solesmes, cf. the Musica Sacra of Milan, , p. ; Rassegna Gregoriana, , col. –: Un aneddoto. —On the first page of his Gradual, Perosi was accustomed to note down significant dates. There are thirteen of them, the seventh of them being: “Solesmes, July ” (Capra Catalogue, p. ).—Contrary to what has been said on this topic, Perosi was not sent to Solesmes by Cardinal Sarto; he went there of his own accord, and his trip was prepared by Father de Santi, as appears from two excerpts, presented here, from Father de Santi to Dom Mocquereau: “May , , Padua. The young Perosi, who has taken the ecclesiastical habit at Imola, has been appointed to St. Mark’s Basilica in Venice. He is an ardent friend of Solesmes and, during the upcoming holidays, he plans to visit there. How I would love to accompany him.” “June , , Padua. You are well aware that Perosi, now Father Perosi, has been appointed choirmaster at St. Mark’s Basilica in Venice.... Now Perosi intends to make the pilgrimage to Solesmes this coming July, when he is free, and he has asked me to request your generous hospitality at the monastery. I am certain that Father Abbot and you will welcome him, knowing that, in doing so, you are doing a great good. He is now entirely on the side of Solesmes. As for the manner of performing the melodies, he had learned very little at Monte Cassino, then he studied under me for a few days two years ago. He will perfect his understanding by listening to the monks of Solesmes. Would that I, too, could accompany him! But I am do not despair; it is unclear whether I will be able to come now. But who knows, perhaps things will work out later.”

162 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

ti himself, but perfect understanding would come to him at Solesmes.

For himself, de Santi had not abandoned hope of coming to the Abbey

in his turn, but somewhat later (Padua, June , ).

Perosi did come to Solesmes in July . He found only Dom Moc-

quereau there, as Dom Pothier had already left the monastery where he

was professed for the Abbey of Ligugé. It was at Solesmes that Perosi

received a famous letter from Cardinal Sarto, which is well worth repro-

ducing here. The letter is dated July  at Mantua. The Cardinal wrote:

I am most grateful for your greetings, and I am profoundly happy that you have arrived safe and sound at the first stop on your tour. The mere mention of the Vespers that you heard sung by the venerable monks has stirred in me the desire to hear the Lord praised in a similar fashion in Italy, as well. The wait will be long, but I hope that I shall not die before tasting of its fruits. According to a notice that I read in the newspapers, it would seem that the Holy Father has already submitted the new Regulation for music to the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, which will be printed before long. Let us hope that everything will be in keeping with our wishes. Try to relax a bit. Please pay my respects by kissing the hand of Reverend Father Abbot on my behalf. I wish you a very joyful and happy continuation of your travels. Most affectionately yours in Jesus Christ.62

In his letter, Cardinal Sarto was referring to the impending and long-

awaited publication of the document on sacred music (signed on the

same day that Perosi arrived at Solesmes, July , ). Alluding to the votum that he had sent to the Congregation of Sacred Rites in , he hoped that the document would be in keeping with his wishes. We will

see that he would not have much cause for rejoicing.

. The Decree of July 

The decree on sacred music Quod Sanctus Augustinus was published in Rome on July , . It was in response to the consultation of the Bishops of Italy with musicians, as discussed above. The decree published a

new Regulation that recommended Gregorian chant “as it is found in

the books approved by the Holy See” and Palestrinian music. The new

decree upheld former decisions in the matter of plainchant and once

. Études Grégoriennes V, , p. .

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 163

again exhorted bishops to adopt the official Ratisbon edition “in order to achieve uniformity, yet without imposing it on each Church, according

to the very wise conduct of the Holy See.” A Letter from the Congrega-

tion of Sacred Rites to the Bishops of Italy, dated July , , drew the following conclusions about the Gregorian question:

As the old debate about plainchant has been revived in recent years, despite the many statements of the Holy See on this matter, His Holiness wished that this subject be reconsidered, and that the questions raised be examined and resolved by the Congregation of Sacred Rites. That Congregation, having taken into consideration all that was suitably proposed in this regard, determined that there was no cause to revise any of the previous orders.62bis

Although the decree of April , , had not been suppressed, as

had been hoped, at least the new document said that the bishops were

left free to choose from among the editions of plainchant, and this freedom indicated progress on the road to reform and to the return to the

ancient Gregorian melodies.

Yet this was a disappointment for the supporters of traditional chant.

This turn of events was to be expected, however. It was still too early to speak of reform, because minds were not yet sufficiently prepared for

that. It must also be acknowledged that the press campaign waged in

France had contributed substantially to hardening the situation. In addition, at that same time the supporters of the Ratisbon edition were little inclined to capitulate, since Msgr. Haberl had discovered a document

establishing that the Medicean edition was indeed the work of Palestri-

na (a thesis that opponents were soon to demolish).

Msgr. Moneta-Caglio notes that the new Regulation disorganized

the restoration movement in Italy, by suppressing any reform effort at

the national level, limiting initiatives to the diocesan level at a time when the sympathies of Italian scholars were being won over to the traditional chant. The National Congress of Sacred Music held at Parma in

November  was authorized reluctantly. The Standing Committee

on Sacred Music in Italy had to resign. Yet the decisions in Rome galva-

nized the Italian bishops, who strove to outdo each other in comment-

ing on the new Regulation.63

bis. These documents are found in the Musica Sacra of Ghent , pp. –, and in F.

Romita, Jus Musicae Liturgicae, Rome , p.  and p. .

. Moneta-Caglio, in Musica Sacra , , pp. –.—Cf., by the same author, L’attività 164 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

Father de Santi’s return to Rome was greeted as a sign of détente.

On November , , Father de Santi notified Dom Mocquereau of his

return, saying that he would even get into the business of his Method, which some had wanted to print without his knowledge, as early as September. Yet although he returned to the Eternal City, it was through the desire of the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, on

condition that he not become involved in either religious music or Gre-

gorian chant. He was “to play dead,” as Father de Santi put it, and he be-moaned the fact that the defense of the Gregorian cause had caused

him so many problems and so much humiliation (November ). Raucae

factae sunt fauces meae.—In salicibus suspendimus organa nostra.—Perdidi promptae modulas loquelæ—all these laments appear in his letters to Dom Mocquereau (April –August , ).

Reduced to silence, Father de Santi still followed the Gregorian

movement very closely. Every piece of good news caused him to rejoice

greatly, such as the Pastoral Letter on sacred music, written by Cardinal Sarto and published in Venice on May , . This letter presented Gregorian chant and the classical polyphony of Palestrina as models of religious music (Tribune de Saint-Gervais, July , pp. ff.). Father de Santi wrote enthusiastically about it to Dom Mocquereau, yet without noting

that the letter was based on the ideas in the votum that he himself had prepared in , although the form of the Letter was the personal work

of the Patriarch of Venice. Father de Santi added that the Cardinal had

adopted the melodies of the Liber Gradualis, and he mentioned once again the good that was on the horizon in this regard in Reggio Emilia,

Piacenza and Modena (April , ).—In this regard, it must be noted

that as early as , Charles Bordes had founded the Schola Cantorum in Paris, to “encourage the performance of plainchant according to the

Gregorian tradition,” and to restore the music of Palestrina to its place of honor. The Tribune de Saint-Gervais, founded in January , was the monthly bulletin of the Schola Cantorum. 63bis

In July , a Diocesan Congress on religious music and plainchant

was held at Rodez, a congress that drew its main inspiration from the

Abbé Ginisty, a former student of Dom Mocquereau at the French Sem-

musicale di S. Pio X, p. , in Bollettino Ceciliano, November .—See also the commentaries by the Italian episcopate in the Musica Sacra of Milan.

bis. On the Pastoral Letter of Cardinal Sarto, see Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra (Milan) , nos. , , and .

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 165

inary. The work of Dom Pothier was praised and acclaimed. For his

part, Dom Mocquereau, who was taking part in the Congress, met with

great success. The directing of the chant had been entrusted to him,

and to Dom Delpech, and Dom Mocquereau gave a well received con-

ference on Roman Psalmody and the Latin Tonic Accent (Rodez , 

pp.). The topic was familiar to readers of the Paléographie Musicale, but the conference was accompanied by musical examples sung by the

schola that Dom Mocquereau had trained. Concisely but firmly, Dom

Mocquereau himself stated the conclusion:

The tonic accent and the cursus are the elements that generate the liturgical melody. In other words: the tonic accent and the cursus have exercised a considerable influence on the melodic and rhythmic formation of the chants.

At the conclusion of the Congress, Cardinal Bourret, Bishop of Rodez,

recommended the Solesmes chant method, even as he temporarily re-

tained the edition of Digne ( Tribune de Saint-Gervais, November , p.

). Although the Benedictine school had not been present long before

the Congress of Religious Music at Bordeaux, “its spirit was present and led the Cenacle” (Tribune de Saint-Gervais, June ). The next year, the Congress of Rheims, where Dom Andoyer praised the work of the

Paléographie Musicale, was to adopt the same approach ( Tribune de Saint-Gervais, September , p. , note ).64

Father de Santi congratulated Dom Mocquereau on all of this. But

what made him most happy was the success of the Paléographie Musicale and the fascicles that Father de Santi asked to be sent to him in Rome

(he had been unable to receive them during his exile) (April –August

, ).

. Volume IV (–)

Volume IV of the Paléographie Musicale began to appear in October

. It reproduced an Antiphonal of the Mass from the tenth or eleventh centuries, from the monastery at Einsiedeln (Codex ) and the School

of St. Gall. This manuscript, which is particularly rich in Romanian let-

. On this Congress, see also the Revue du Chant Grégorien –. Dom Mocquereau’s conference at Rodez is found in it on p. . On p. : Dom Mocquereau conducts the chants at Aniane on the occasion of the millennium of St. Benedict of Aniane, February .

166 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

ters and signs that complete and perfect the neumatic accents, proved

that not only had the traditional melody and rhythm of the Gregorian

melodies been preserved, but the expressive nuances as well. After a

twenty-four page Preface on those signs, Dom Mocquereau continued

his study of The Influence of the Latin Tonic Accent and the Cursus on the Melodic and Rhythmic Structure of the Gregorian Phrase. (II. The Cursus and Psalmody, pp. –), in which he outlined the laws of composition of the ancient liturgical chants. Dom Mocquereau demonstrated by this

very fact the errors in the Ratisbon edition, thanks to comparative ta-

bles of the melodies. Certain conclusions from this study may be dis-

puted (such as the date of composition of the Gregorian melodies), but

that does not diminish in any way the objective value of the detailed

demonstration.65

. The Gradual of 

On August , , the monks of Solesmes, exiled in the town of

Solesmes since , returned to their monastery. Their exile at the very doors of the Abbey had not slowed the growth of the Abbey Press (Imprimerie Saint-Pierre de Solesmes). Much to the contrary, the Press had

gone on perfecting its techniques and increasing in size. Thus when the

 edition of the Gradual, printed by Desclée, had sold out, the Abbey requested a new edition from Dom Pothier, an edition that the Imprimerie Saint-Pierre de Solesmes published in . The Preface noted

some improvements (increases or decreases in the spacing between

neumes, for example); other improvements did not amount to much (a

few b naturals added, liquescents eliminated). There were also many additions (new Masses).66

Likewise, in  the monks of Solesmes published the Liber Respon-

sorialis for the Night Office, with an extract for the Roman Office, Cantus officii nocturni de Communi Sanctorum ad normam Breviarii romani (

pp.). These two books were mainly the work of Dom Pothier, who also

continued with his effective Gregorian apostolate, through his articles

. In must be noted that on p.  Dom Mocquereau announced his treatise on rhythm that was already in preparation.

. Revue du Chant Grégorien, –, p.  and pp. ff.

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 167

and practical conferences.67 Similarly, his recent elevation to Prior of Saint-Wandrille (December , ) did not dry up his genius as a composer. He composed melodies for many Masses and offices.68

. New Hopes (–)

Upon his return from exile, Father de Santi had been reduced to si-

lence. By February , he was showing signs of melancholy at no

longer being able to speak out on an issue that was of the greatest interest to him and for which he had already suffered so much, and of his in-

terest in everything that was said or done in this area.

In February , he told Dom Mocquereau that the French Em-

bassy was once again involved (as in ) with presenting memoranda

to the Vatican denouncing Pustet’s de facto monopoly. Father de Santi did not believe that much could be achieved through such pressure tactics. Nevertheless, the situation did seem to be evolving slowly. In the same letter, for example, he noted something that was said by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, Pustet’s protector

and defender, which indicated a reversal on the Cardinal’s part. Recent-

ly, on the issue of the editions of Gregorian chant, he had said to the

Abbot Primate of the Benedictine Order: “Let the Benedictines do

whatever they think is right, according to their own traditions” (Febru-

ary , ).

Father de Santi also noted the modest advances made by Gregorian

chant in Rome itself. On October , , he said that at the marriage

of the prince heir to the throne of Italy, at Santa Maria degli Angeli, the Introit Deus Israel had been sung according to the Benedictine edition, and con tutte le regole di Solesmes, which had made an excellent impression on all the musicians in attendance.

But, while congratulating Dom Mocquereau on the Paléographie Mu-

sicale (the latest fascicles of Volume IV), he complained that for his part, he could not say anything regarding music (February , ). He went

so far as to say that he could not even accept the responsibility for tak-

. Dom Delpech also went on a tour giving conferences and practical courses in the south of France in April .

. A list of Pothier’s articles and Gregorian compositions (Masses and offices) is given in Biron, Bibliographie des Bénédictins de la Congrégation de France (), p. .

168 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

ing photographs of manuscripts for Dom Mocquereau, and left that up

to Baron Kanzler because, as he said, “For me, that would be major ex-

communication latae sententiae ipso facto incurrenda” ( June , ). It was all too true that he had to remain on his guard. For example, he reported, the Voce della Verità had recently spoken of him in complimenta-ry terms; the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of Sacred Rites,

who was quite displeased, had brought the matter up with the Very

Reverend Father General of the Jesuits ( July , ).

Nevertheless, they could not prevent Father de Santi from working

and from pursuing his historical research on the decrees that supported

Pustet. Here is a translation of a letter he sent to Dom Mocquereau on

November , . After congratulating his correspondent on the

Paroissien Romain or Liber Usualis (its first edition), which included the chants of the Gradual and the Antiphonal for Sundays and the major feasts of the year in a single volume, he told him of the discovery he

had just made in the Vatican Library:

On the occasion of your feast, I would like to give you some news that will make you happy. In a manuscript at the Vatican Library, I found a previously unknown letter from Fernando de Las Infantas (cf. Fétis) to Gregory XIII against the corrections of the Gregorian chant. He says that the errors that some well-intentioned eminent musicians (virtuosi) were pointing out in that chant were not errors at all, but rather an admirable artifice of music. He added that it is not right to do such harm to him (to St. Gregory the Great), and that in his own homeland and under the reign of another Gregory. He concluded that: “it is up to the Pope (tocca al Papa) once again to prohibit any similar attempts at correction, by ordering that the manuscripts that had been prepared for printing should be burned.” What is more, this letter opens up a new horizon:

. Las Infantas mentions a long report that he had written on this issue the year before.

. He asserts that Palestrina acknowledged the accuracy of his observations, and was quite astonished by them (fu tutto sospeso),

. He says that some musicians were continuing their efforts in view of the printing, that Philip II had written in his own hand to the Sovereign Pontiff, and that he was still protesting through his Ambassador,

. Gregory XIII gave the formal order to suspend all corrections,

. Despite this, the musicians in their own interest were plotting to succeed in the end, and that perhaps all the errors in Gregorian chant derived from that, and

. This is why Las Infantas was protesting once again.

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 169

As Your Reverence can see, here we have a whole series of steps taken under Gregory XIII against these corrections; that is why Palestrina did nothing, and it was not until Paul V that the musicians brought to light what they did.

Now we must go on the hunt for the other documents related to this issue, even though this is already sufficient to shed new light on the matter. I am telling you of all this as a token of friendship, because I reserve the right to publish this document myself as soon as I am freed, in some way or other, from ex-communication. [This weighed heavily on him; see above].

We point out this discovery by Father de Santi because it was not he

who published the documents by Las Infantas. He sent them to Dom

Janssens for publication in a German periodical; Dom Janssens in turn

sent them on to Dom Molitor of Beuron (Father de Santi, August ,

). In the end, it was Msgr. Carlo Respighi who published them first, as we shall see.68bis

The last fascicles of Volume IV of the Paléographie Musicale edited by Dom Mocquereau appeared in April .69 The next volume, on an

Ambrosian Antiphonal (Additional Codex   of the British Museum) was entirely the work of Dom Cagin.70 The reason was that Dom Mocquereau was, by that time, nearly fully occupied with the study of Gre-

gorian rhythm, in preparation for writing a theoretical and practical

method, the main thrust of which he had already worked out.

In February , he sent Father de Santi a little work that was pre-

sented as an extract from that method in preparation, namely a Petit traité de la Psalmodie, which was extremely well received because of its clarity and precision. In fact, that little book went through several

French-language editions, as well as four editions in foreign languages.

Father de Santi was among the first to congratulate Dom Mocquereau.

Here is what he wrote to Dom Mocquereau on February , :

Thank you for your latest letter, and the very handsome little book on

Psalmody. This is the first time that this matter is seen so clearly.l.l.l. So I am looking forward to the full method, which will be what we can and should expect of Solesmes. I certainly hope that my situation has changed by the time

bis. Msgr. Carlo Respighi, born in Bologna in , nephew of Cardinal Vicar Pietro Respighi. He was the director of the Rassegna Gregoriana (–), member of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, Prefect of Pontifical Ceremonies, and Secretary of the Pontifical Commission of Sacred Archaeology. He died in .

. This volume was discussed previously in this book; see above.

. In , Dom Mocquereau published Notes sur l’influence de l’accent et du cursus toniques latins dans le chant ambrosien, Milan, Cagliati, ,  p.

170 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

your method finally is published, so that I can translate it into Italian immediately, thereby making up for ignorantias juventutis meae, when, in all good faith, I set about translating the Magister Choralis.”

Father de Santi then gave various items of news that augured well:

Here a glimmer of light is starting to be seen. In Rome itself, there is a movement in favor of sacred music that, if well directed, may yield excellent results.

In the meantime, the adversaries are changing their minds a little, and hardly a day goes by, it seems, that I don’t hear an ergo erravimus from one of them. A Society of St. Gregory is being formed, whose members will be choir directors and church singers. It is Msgr. Gessi, a longtime close friend of mine, who is the driving force behind it all. I do not know the particulars of their statutes, but I am sure that they are acceptable, at the very least. They are doing everything they can to get me involved in it somehow, but I am remaining quite cool, as is my duty.

In the meantime, in addition to the news I have already given you concerning the performance of Gregorian melodies at the marriage of the Princes, I must tell you the news about the Offertory at the anniversary Mass of Victor-Emmanuel at the Pantheon. It was also taken from the Liber Gradualis, and performed in keeping with your method. A chair of Gregorian chant has been established at the Royal School of Saint Cecilia, a chair held by Professor Mattoni. The exercise book is the Compendium from Solesmes, and they sing in accordance with the teaching and principles of our schola. That at least is something.71

The Society of St. Gregory, which dealt with sacred music, founded

in Rome in March ,72 was in a position to provide significant sup-

port for the return to traditional Gregorian chant. Father de Santi as

well was following its development with great interest and often spoke

of it in his correspondence. The presiding board of the Society consist-

ed of musicians, all of whom were friends of Father de Santi ( July ,

). At one point, everyone believed that all was going forward for the best. On January , , Father de Santi announced that the Society

was sailing on the high seas, and that the Pope wanted to make it a pon-

. A little later, on July , , he wrote to a French correspondent: “By contrast, in Rome you will find not only a place uneducated on this issue, but even rebellious, in some respects.

There are precious few even interested in it. But Rome is the seat of truth, and sooner or later the truth will make its own way, and, I hope, it will manage to break through in the very near future” (to the Abbé H. Villetard).

. This society was founded on March , , thanks to the good offices of Msgr. Angelo Gessi ( Civiltà Cattolica, April ), cf. Musica Sacra of Toulouse, June , p. .

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 171

tifical academy. Unfortunately, there was opposition and even some car-

dinals opposed the Society ( January , ). Thus the high hopes of

the early days were short-lived. “The Society is enduring the brunt of

the storm,” Father de Santi wrote on April , . Then, the following June , he announced that the Society was utterly moribund.

The reasons for this failure were twofold, as Father de Santi saw it.

Although the Society represented the right principles, it was wrong not

to come out frankly in favor of the Benedictine editions ( January ,

). Yet the failure was also due to the fact that, because it had not wanted to compromise itself with Pustet, the Society had drawn the

wrath of those who supported the Ratisbon edition (August , ).

Pustet had already suffered one defeat with the Society. Pustet had sent its books to the Society—at the request of the Congregation of Sacred

Rites. Instead of the public letter he expected, the only thanks he re-

ceived was a private letter that contained nothing that could be inter-

preted as any sort of support for the Ratisbon cause ( July , ). Still more recently, the vice-president had refused to serve on the Commission peritissimorum virorum for the Pustet publishing company (August

, ).

Despite all this, Father de Santi said, there was still room to hope that no further action would be taken against the traditional chant. In fact, several months previously a new Prefect of Sacred Rites, Cardinal

Camille Mazzella, had replaced Cardinal Aloysi Masella. Masella had

protected the Society of St. Gregory, and in the end had shown less

aversion than in the past toward Father de Santi ( July , ). Cardinal Mazzella was more reasonable and more prudent than his predecessor.

Father de Santi had even gone so far as to hope for a response from the

Congregation of Sacred Rites affirming that the Gregorian melodies

from the Solesmes edition were not contrary to the spirit of that Con-

gregation. But the cardinal was reticent and, as a Jesuit, did not want to show excessive favor to someone of his own order ( July , ).

Thus vigilance remained the watchword. The Pope had requested

that a motu proprio be prepared to support the Society of St. Gregory, and a text was drawn up that actually imposed the Ratisbon chant and

repeated all the errors of the decrees, particularly those that concerned the role played by Palestrina. Happily, the President of the Society managed to enlighten the Holy Father, who suspended publication of the

document (August , ).

172 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

For several months, Msgr. Antonio Rella, a student of Father de San-

ti, had been teaching Gregorian chant at the Vatican Seminary, thus fol-

lowing there the lead of his teacher ( January , ). Msgr. Rella was also handling the chant at the monastery of St. Benedict-de-Urbe, with

the English Benedictine nuns (April , ), who were providing an

example of a complete Gregorian practice ( June , ). Many came

from all over Rome to hear it.73 Cardinal Parocchi encouraged them ful-

ly in this direction ( June , ), praising their performance “of the very gentle melodies of the legitimate chant according to tradition”

(November , ), just as he had exhorted the Salesians to follow the Solesmes method which, he said, would inevitably be approved at some

time or another (card from Don Grosso, no date). Likewise, at the

French Seminary, the Cardinal had said:

This chant is a sermon full of life and eloquence, because the religion, the Church that was capable of inspiring such a chant, could be none other than divine. Love Gregorian chant always. Once, Rome gave it to France through St.

Gregory; today, we have lost it, and now it is France that will return it to us.

(Revue du Chant Grégorien , p. )

. The Gregorian Apostolate of Dom Mocquereau

Although Dom Mocquereau was completely wrapped up in study-

ing rhythm and preparing his method, on rare occasions he did give lec-

tures. On March , , he gave an address at the Institut Catholique

in Paris, before a large and select audience, on The Gregorian Art, Its Purpose, Its Procedures, and Its Characters. 74 Alternating with portions of his address, the schola directed by Dom Delpech performed chants that

demonstrated the application of the principles developed by the speak-

er ( Revue du Chant Grégorien , p. ).—Dom Mocquereau gave the same speech, also accompanied by chants under the direction of Dom

. “Yesterday I, too, went there for the feast of St. Scholastica. There were several students from the Germanicum there, with the Liber Gradualis, two foreign German priests, several from the French College of Santa Chiara and from the Ecclesiastical Academy. There were a few Frati dressed all in white, some bearded missionaries, an archbishop, several ladies and gentlemen, etc.” (Father de Santi to Dom Mocquereau, February , ).

. The text was published in several magazines, particularly in the Revue du Chant Grégorien

–.—Cf. Audition de chants ambrosiens et grégoriens, Solesmes, March , ,  p.

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 173

Delpech, at the Cercle Catholique of Besançon on May , . This

conference had been preceded by chant lessons at the Major Seminary

and at the Choir School of the Cathedral, in preparation for the feast of the Ascension ( Revue du Chant Grégorien, ).

On April , , Dom Mocquereau gave a lecture at Poitiers, with

slides, on the Gregorian timbres and on the errors contained in the

modern editions, a lecture that he gave at St. Jean de Luz, as well, in August  ( Revue du Chant Grégorien , p. ).75

There was no dearth of visitors at Solesmes, either. Since , as

you will recall, Dom Mocquereau had been directing the chant, which

he had managed to bring to a high degree of refinement. The Schola

Cantorum, founded by Charles Bordes, came to Solesmes in July , and for a full week studied with Dom Mocquereau and Dom Delpech.

Dom Mocquereau introduced them to the secrets of paleography, while

Delpech gave practical courses in the chant. At the same time, the

members of the Schola Cantorum listened to the chanting of the monks of St. Pierre, and to that of the nuns at St. Cécile. Charles Bordes even convinced the Abbot to allow Dom Mocquereau to come to Paris to repeat the lessons he had given at the Abbey before a larger audience. As

early as December , therefore, Dom Mocquereau went to Paris, and

gave eight lectures on paleography at the Schola Cantorum, in the presence of many artists and musicologists.76 He covered the origin and

evolution of the neumes, and Gregorian rhythm. Dom Delpech accom-

panied him once again, to direct the chants ( Revue du Chant Grégorien,

–).77

Charles Bordes was to return to Solesmes with his singers in June

. For several days, the children even joined the monks in the

psalmody, and sang the brief Response at Vespers by themselves. On

June , on the feast of St. John the Baptist, the full Schola sang with the monks, the children in red cassocks standing in the choir, the older

singers in the first row of the nave with the choir of the Lay Brothers.

On that day, the congregation included Camille Bellaigue, music critic

for the Revue des Deux Mondes (Chronicle of Solesmes).

Let us go back a bit. A group of some twenty Englishmen belonging

. Dom Mocquereau had gone to the south of France from September  to October , .

. Those in attendance included C. Bellaigue, A. Hallays, M. Brenet, J. Tiersot, J. Com-barieu, P. Aubry, A. Coquard, and A. Marty.

. Timbres Grégoriens transcrits en notation moderne, December , , Schola Publications.

174 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

to the Anglican Church closest to Catholicism, came to the Abbey in

August , to study Gregorian chant ( Revue du Chant Grégorien, –

). Another well-known visitor, J. K. Huysmans, often came to

Solesmes and admired the chant of the nuns at St. Cécile, in particu-

lar.78 All agreed that Dom Mocquereau had been able to give the chant

great firmness and precision, while also imbuing it with vigor and en-

thusiasm.

Let us also note in passing one fact that is of interest, in one way or

another, to the entire Gregorian world. In July , Dom Pothier, who

had been prior at Saint Wandrille since , was elevated to the rank of Abbot. The installation ceremony was presided over by the Abbot of

Solesmes, whom Dom Mocquereau accompanied. The Abbatial Bless-

ing took place the following September . The “restorer of the Grego-

rian melodies,” as busy as he was with restoring the monastic life at

Saint Wandrille, did not lose sight of the Gregorian movement, as wit-

nessed by his assiduous work on the Revue du Chant Grégorien. 79

. Suppression of the Decree of April ,  ()

In , the ancient Gregorian chant had made its way everywhere,

even to Bavaria, just steps from the citadel of Ratisbon. Father de Santi then returned to a project that he had had to abandon in . As you

will recall, at that point he had wanted to have the decree of April ,

, Romanorum Pontificum sollicitudo, suppressed. A memorandum to that effect had been well received by the competent Commission of the

Congregation of Sacred Rites, and they had agreed to suppress the de-

cree. But, after the incidents that occurred in  (the exile of Father de Santi), everything had been questioned once again. Father de Santi met

with greater success in , thanks to the effective assistance of Msgr.

Carlo Respighi. While Respighi was seeing to it that a report reached

Cardinal Mazzella, Prefect of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, and the

competent Commission, Father de Santi had Cardinal Richard, the

. Ch. H. Villetard, J. K. Huysmans, Souvenirs et quelques lettres, in Le Lutrin (Geneva), , p. .. In , Dom Mocquereau made a Gregorian tour of the south of France (Bayonne, Dax) in January–February, then went to Montpellier in December. He went to the north (Minor Seminary at Arras, and the Abbey of Wisques) in November .

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 175

Archbishop of Paris who was in Rome at that time,80 speak with the

Prefect of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, as well, and with the Pope

himself. All these moves were well received, and, in fact, in March , the pages of the new edition of the Decreta authentica S. R. C. no longer list the decree of April ,  (Father de Santi, March , ).

The time seemed to be at hand for rendering obsolete the other de-

crees that had been handed down in support of the Ratisbon edition, by

taking the opportunity of the imminent end of the privilege granted to

that edition. Father de Santi and Msgr. Respighi specifically wanted to

have the decree of , Quod Sanctus Augustinus (cf. supra, No. ), suppressed. But that was impossible, out of respect for the Cardinal who

had signed that decree, who was still living.81 Thus, even though he was still threatened by another period of exile, Father de Santi did not lose confidence: “a change in circumstances could grant us victory from one

moment to the next,” he said to Dom Mocquereau at the time (March

, ).

Father de Santi even hoped to obtain a favorable response regarding

the chant of the manuscripts (cf. March , ), not a direct approval of the work of Solesmes, but a response that would be an indirect approval of its editions. He said: “Our idea is to recommend printing of

the melodies at the Vatican Press after a comparison specie tenus et honoris causa of the text of Solesmes with the manuscripts of Rome.” Nevertheless, he noted sadly that not all people were moved by the beauty

of the ancient melodies. He said that it was essential to point out quite clearly the errors in the decree of  (Father de Santi, March , , cf. March , ).

. Perosi’s Actions (–)

On May , , however, a piece of news reached Solesmes that

was bound to bring joy and exultation. A telegram signed Baron Kan-

zler read: “Alleluia. This morning, opening of the American Council

. It was Dom Janssens who spoke to Cardinal Richard about the matter, at Father de Santi’s request.

. For his part Dom Janssens wanted to have the decree of  suppressed. He only managed to have it modified, through the suppression of anything that derived from the decree of

 (letter of March , ).

176 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

(this was a council of American bishops). Sistine Choir under the direc-

tion of Perosi inaugurates Gregorian melodies.”

Two letters from Father de Santi followed, back to back, speaking of

his consolation and satisfaction, after so much suffering on his part for the success of the Gregorian cause. This consolation was felt all the

more deeply because at the same time, the representative of Pustet was

mopping up after a stunning reversal of fortune in Rome itself. Having

gone there to give a series of conferences on Ratisbon chant to the

American bishops, he drew twelve out of forty of them on the first day,

only two on the second day, and that was all.l.l.l. He had suffered a previous setback in March. The Society of St. Gregory, which had been for-

bidden to sing the Gregorian melodies in , had invited the French

Seminary that year, which sang the Mass in pure Gregorian chant on

the occasion of their patronal feast day, March  (May  and May ,

).82

On December , , Father de Santi had informed Dom Moc-

quereau of the appointment of Perosi to the Sistine position, following

the huge success of his oratorio on the Resurrection of Christ, and

from that early date, Father de Santi told him that Perosi had shown

“the firm desire to work with all his strength toward the complete and

imminent triumph of Solesmes,” a claim to which the maestro had tak-

en care to append his own signature ( Revue du Chant Grégorien , p.

). Father de Santi then added, however, that he had not believed that it would be possible to introduce the Gregorian melodies at the Sistine

Chapel from the very first day that Perosi became its director. Someone

other than Perosi would have introduced the reform gradually, but he,

with his sovereign independence, wanted to strike a great blow right

away, declaring that he would rather resign if he could not have his way.

There was great resistance among the singers, who immediately com-

plained, “But here, this is Father de Santi’s chant!” They did not know

that the two Gregorian pieces sung on the feast of the Holy Trinity, the Introit and the Alleluia, had been transcribed into modern notation by

. The Musica Sacra of Ghent ( Le Plain-chant grégorien à Rome, June–July , p. ) mentions another ceremony at which the French Seminary drew attention for its perfect performance of the Gregorian melodies, on Sunday, May , when the Society of Sacred Archaeology celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of the discovery of the Basilica of St. Petronilla. They sang the Rosa vernans, taken from a th-century manuscript, which had been recently published by Dom Mocquereau.

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 177

Father de Santi himself, from the Vatican manuscripts, so that the name

of Solesmes was not even mentioned (Father de Santi, May  and May

, ).

Protests reached even the Pope’s ears, accusing Perosi of having un-

approved chant performed, thereby setting a bad example. Documents

in hand, it was easy to show that the two Gregorian pieces that had

been sung were found in the manuscripts of the Vatican and the Sistine.

The Pope’s majordomo, upon whom he had called, concluded that in

any case, the Sistine Chapel should not take direction from anyone, but

rather on the contrary, it should establish officially what should be considered authentic sacred music (Father de Santi, May , ).

Father de Santi’s idea was that the Gregorian melodies had already

been approved for centuries and needed no further approbation, merely

a statement asserting that they were the legitimate chant of the Church

(and moreover, there was no possibility of obtaining anything more, as

long as the Pustet privilege stood). Father de Santi had even drawn up a Dubium 83 that could be submitted to the Congregation of Sacred Rites for purposes of obtaining an authentic statement along these lines. Perosi was working along the same lines. Even though he had already ob-

tained assurances from the Congregation of Sacred Rites that the

Pustet privilege would not be renewed, he did not feel reassured, and

wanted to obtain the answer desired by all the friends of Gregorian

chant from the Pope himself (May  and June , ). Moreover, since

the representative of Pustet saw his position threatened, he himself was suggesting that their edition be corrected. The Holy Father would have

agreed to that, but only on condition that the new edition be submitted

once more for approval by the Congregation of Sacred Rites.

Therefore, Father de Santi concluded, “these are serious times, and a

momentous explosion may occur at any time.” Thus, with his friends

Msgr. Carlo Respighi, the Baron Kanzler, and Perosi, he was on con-

stant alert (Father de Santi, May , and June , ).

. On July , Father de Santi wrote to Dom Mocquereau: “As for the request, rest assured that it will not be presented until we know for sure that the response will be what we want. So far, nothing has been done and it is better to wait for more favorable circumstances.” Here is the wording of the Dubium: Quæritur an probandus sit venerabilis cantus gregorianus quem ex veteris Ecclesiæ universæ codicibus Schola Solesmensis diligenter transcripsit additis ex earundem melodiarum more novis officiis? Resp.: Talem venerabilem cantum ab Ecclesia jamdiu receptum atque Romanis Pontificibus summis laudibus exornatum legitimum semper fuisse et nunc esse, ideoque nulla nova approbatione indi-gere (De Santi, June , ).

178 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

Perosi still had a battle on his hands with the singers at the Sistine

Chapel (on June  he had them perform a few more pieces of Gregori-

an chant), despite the fact that he was supported by the Pope himself,

who was threatening to disband the recalcitrant Pontifical Choir. Father de Santi was still exposed to the adverse mentality of his opponents.

They have a grudge against me, and Father General has told me that, once again, I have been accused before the Pope as the author of the suppression of the decree of , but that the matter could not be proven. ( July , , cf.

June , )84

Despite all this, the ancient Gregorian melodies were continuing to

forge a path, slowly, into the very heart of the city of Rome. After the Vatican Seminary, the Salesians and the English Benedictine nuns, the

Réparatrices and the Dames du Sacré-Coeur also began to study Grego-

rian chant. They were followed by the Collegio Pio Latino-Americano,

whose Rector had taken the advice of Father de Santi after the confer-

ences by the Pustet representative, which displeased everyone.85 On Jan-

uary , , Father de Santi wrote:

This morning, the young men of the South American College inaugurated the Gregorian melodies. They sang very well for this, their first time, but everything will go even better from now on, because they have a strong will and great enthusiasm for our chant. (Cf. June  and Christmas, )

The Germanicum also wanted “to be done with Pustet” (Father de San-

ti, May  and November , ; August , ).86

It was to meet the needs of the schools, colleges and boarding

schools that Father de Santi had the idea of printing a Gregorian Vade mecum in modern notation,87 which would include an extract from the

. “During this time at Rome, serious opposition began against Perosi. There was a lot of talk about the Gregorian melodies performed at the Sistine Chapel, and they were trying to pin it on me. Reverend Father General warned me that my enemies were spying on me constantly, trying to catch me in some wrongdoing” (de Santi, August , ).

. Returning to this episode, on February ,  Father de Santi wrote: “The students were so dissatisfied with the Haberl readings that they opted for Solesmes. Now, they sing their Gregorian chant Mass every Sunday, and I am pleased with their performance. You are well aware that at this school, we have the elite clergy of Latin America. So it is a great victory for Solesmes to have won over these good students” (to the Abbé H. Villetard).

. In another place, Father de Santi said that the “Ladies of the Roman patrician class wanted to establish a Gregorian schola so that they themselves could sing on the feasts of their Catholic association” (May , ).

. Father de Santi had to argue against Pothier about the benefit of these transcriptions of FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 179

Kyriale and other melodies that can be used most often. He entrusted publication of the book to Solesmes (Father de Santi, June , ).

. The Paléographie Musicale in 

Still, the Paléographie Musicale continued its scientific research, comparing the intrinsic value of the two competing editions, the neo-

Medicean and the Benedictine. That was the purpose for which it had

been founded.

Volume VI (–) presented a transcription onto lines of the

Ambrosian Antiphonal (British Museum, cod. addit.  ), published in phototype in Volume V. This was, you will recall, the oldest known

manuscript in which the tradition of the Milanese chant was preserved.

Yet at the same time, Dom Mocquereau began a new “monumental” se-

ries of the Paléographie Musicale (Series II), the volumes of which would not come out in fascicles, but all at once. The first volume in that series was a tenth-century Antiphonale Officii monastici, written by the Blessed Hartker, monk of St. Gall (nos. – of the Library of St. Gall). It

came out in , preceded by a brief Preface by Dom Mocquereau,

and a notice on the Antiphonal (pp. –), and on the Tonale restored to its original order (pp. –). The manuscript itself ran to  pages. You will also recall that Dom Mocquereau had made an extremely faithful

copy of this manuscript, to which he attributed great significance be-

cause of its wealth of rhythmic indications and expressive nuances.

Msgr. Rousseau wrote:88

The Paléographie Musicale had taken on such significance among the scientific works of that time that at the Second Congress of Christian Archaeology, held in April  at Rome, the illustrious historian Rev. Father Grisar deemed it a duty of justice to intervene in order to acknowledge the success of the paleographers at Solesmes, and to bring them to the attention of modern scholars.

Gregorian chant into modern notation. The square notation, which there was no discussion of eliminating, was, in fact, a stumbling block to the spread of the traditional melodies, and Father de Santi stressed the significance of the successes already achieved thanks to these transcriptions (de Santi, January , ).

. L’École Grégorienne de Solesmes, Desclée , pp. –. Cited in Atti del II Congresso internazionale di Archeologia cristiana tenuto in Roma nell’aprile . Dissertazioni lette o presentate e reso-conto di tutte le sedute. Rome, Spithöver , pp. – and –. Cf. Musica Sacra (Toulouse), December , p. .

180 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

Since he himself was unable to attend the meeting, he asked the secretary to submit the following resolution for the approval of the th Session: “Considering the special significance of the archaeological study of Gregorian chant in understanding the influence of ancient Latin and Greek music on the music of the Middle Ages, the Congress highly recommends studies such as those of the Benedictines of Solesmes, in their very valuable Paléographie Musicale, and further recommends the practical study of Gregorian chant.”

It seems that such a proposal, written up in such laudatory terms for scholars whose work was beyond question, should have been accepted unanimously with gratitude, particularly by the members of the Benedictine family. It was, in effect, the placement of the Paléographie Musicale on the agenda. “Reverend Father Janssens thinks that the resolution must be worded in a more general manner, without placing so much emphasis on the Paléographie Musicale, since everyone knows that this work is the most remarkable and interesting on the subject, and the best known by those devoted to musical researches.”

“Father Amelli, the chairman, agreed with Dom Janssens, noting in turn

how widely known was the work of Solesmes. By contrast, others felt that Father Grisar’s resolution had to be accepted in its entirety. Father Morin, Mr.

Blumenstihl and others wanted mention to be made of the very significant work of the Solesmes Paléographie. Baron Kanzler showed that this would be the most suitable solution, and suggested merely that some expressions be modified. Others expressed the wish that mention be made of the studies on the ancient music of the Hebrews.

“The Chairman recommended that the resolutions be studied by a commit-

tee, to include Dom Janssens and Baron Kanzler. At the following day’s meeting, the corrections and modifications that may seem suitable would be suggested and debated.l.l.l.”

“At the opening of the meeting the next day, April , , Chairman Dom Ambrogio Amelli recalled the debate of the previous day regarding the resolutions proposed by Father Grisar, and submitted a new wording written by the Committee and fully accepted by Father Grisar himself, and by the General Chairmanship of the Congress: ‘ On the study of the relationship between ancient music and the liturgy of the Middle Ages. The Second Congress of Christian Archaeology, in light of the singular significance of the archaeological study of Gregorian chant in order to understand the influence of ancient Hebraic, Greek and Roman music on the music of the Middle Ages, highly recommends these studies.’”

“Baron Kanzler commented briefly on the very great importance of the

publication of the Paléographie Musicale of Solesmes, as an aid for the science of the archaeology of music, and provided numerous testimonies.”

It has been necessary to quote in extenso both the resolution proposed by Fa-FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 181

ther Grisar and the debate that it engendered, in order to indicate the considerable position assumed very early on by the Paléographie Musicale in scientific work, and also to note the high regard in which it was held by the best critics in contemporary science.89

In October , Dom Mocquereau went to England. He gave cours-

es in chant at the monastery of Farnborough and at the seminary near-

by. Dom Cabrol, former Prior of Solesmes, was governing the

monastery founded and entrusted to Solesmes in  by the Empress

Eugénie. It housed the tomb of Napoleon III. For Dom Mocquereau,

this was an opportunity to visit the British Museum, with its vast collection of manuscripts. Other circumstances that could not be foreseen at

the time were to bring Dom Mocquereau and his brethren at Solesmes

to England—for a twenty-year stay.

. Msgr. Respighi vs. Msgr. Haberl (–)

While Dom Mocquereau was preparing for the future by publishing

the authentic sources of Gregorian chant, Msgr. Respighi was attacking

the poor Medicean edition on historical grounds, using documents dis-

covered by Father de Santi in  (cf. Father de Santi, November ,

; cf. No. ), and was overturning the theory that Palestrina was the author of the Medicean edition. On November , , Father de Santi

informed Dom Mocquereau that Respighi had published the documents

of Fernando de Las Infantas in the Ciudad de Dios, 90 in Madrid (October

), and that the article was also going to be published in Rome.91

Msgr. Respighi argued against Msgr. Haberl, a defender of Palestri-

na’s authorship,92 first that, although Palestrina had received a commission from the Pope to revise the Gradual, the renowned musician, as a

. According to a letter from Father de Santi to Dom Mocquereau dated April , , it was Cardinal Parocchi who caused praise for the Paléographie Musicale to be suppressed, at the request of Cardinal Aloysi Masella. Masella also maintained that the decree Quod Sanctus Augustinus contained errors, and that it had been snatched away from him.

. This article was published without the knowledge of Father de Santi.—Cf. November ,

: “Msgr. Respighi has published the documents of Fernando de Las Infantas in the Ciudad de Dios. I knew absolutely nothing about this, and I was more than a bit surprised when I saw the publication of that wonderful article.”

. Giovanni Pier Luigi da Palestrina e l’emendazione del Gradual Romano, Rome, Desclée, n. d.

. In his brochure entitled Jean Pierluigi Palestrina et le Graduel romain officiel de l’édition médicéenne (French translation in ), he affirmed that Palestrina was the author of the 182 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

result of the pressing claims of Don Fernando de Las Infantas to Grego-

ry XIII, stopped his work of correction around ; secondly, that it

was impossible to prove historically that the Palestrina manuscript was

the same thing as the Medicean edition, and therefore that it was unfair to use the name Palestrina in defense of that type of plainchant.93

As has been said before, following the discovery of the letter from

Don Fernando de Las Infantas, Father de Santi turned to Dom Janssens

since he could not publish it himself. Dom Janssens, in turn, ap-

proached Dom Molitor from the Benedictine Abbey of Beuron. Msgr.

Respighi had used the letter in his memorandum on suppressing the de-

cree of April , . The reason that Msgr. Respighi managed to pub-

lish the letter first, without Father de Santi’s knowledge,94 was that time was of the essence. As Respighi saw it, the time was right for revealing the truth about the origins of the Medicean edition. Yet because Dom

Molitor added new elements to the debate, things that he had found on

his own since Dom Janssens told him of Father de Santi’s discovery (Fa-

ther de Santi, August , ), Father de Santi told Dom Mocquereau,

and Msgr. Respighi published a new article on January , :

[Msgr. Respighi’s] pamphlet has caused quite a stir here, and Haberl’s authority has been sharply attacked. Now, the Roemische Quartalschrift (Dom Molitor’s article) is publishing documents not found by Msgr. Respighi, i.e. the letter from Don Fernando to the king, the king’s response to Don Fernando, the letter from the king to the ambassador and to the Pope. The issue is quite clear.

Msgr. Respighi will respond to Msgr. Haberl, and his new pamphlet will be published.95

Msgr. Respighi’s pamphlet was published, a new study on this most

interesting topic.96 According to a contemporary report, the author in-

tensified his arguments:

Medicean edition, an edition of plainchant done in  by order of Paul V, and reproduced by the Pustet publishers of Ratisbon.

. A. Martin, Palestrina et l’édition médicéenne, in the Revue du Chant Grégorien, March , pp. –; April , pp. –.

. Cf. Note , and Venice , n.d. (Letter from Father de Santi).

. Cf. Revue du Chant Grégorien , p. , note . On August , , Father de Santi wrote,

“Msgr. Respighi has finished his work, and in a few days it will be put before the public. He has sent me a few printed sheets, and it seems to me that his demonstration is obvious, and that Haberl has definitively been beaten.” Msgr. Respighi, for his part, kept Dom Mocquereau abreast of his work.

. Nuovo studio su Giovanni Pier Luigi da Palestrina e l’emendazione del Graduale Romano (Rome, FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 183

Msgr. Respighi has valiantly and happily declared himself an opponent of the German doctor. Since he discovered valuable documents in the Vatican Library, he felt that it was his duty to clarify matters concerning the origins of the editio medicea attributed to Palestrina by Haberl. He has proven that: () the correction of the Roman Gradual that Palestrina began under Gregory XIII was abandoned by order of that Pope, as Palestrina himself said; () there is absolutely no proof that the master’s manuscript, in this interrupted state of affairs, was ever brought to the Medici printing house; () even if it were proven that the Medici printing house did receive the manuscript, it must nonetheless be agreed that Palestrina had nothing to do with getting it there.97

The Ratisbon Musica Sacra denounced the source of the threat

against the official edition:

The stronghold of these adversaries of the choral books of Rome is called Solesmes, as opposed to Ratisbon. From Solesmes, a new branch of the Benedictine Order is acting through the spoken and written word on behalf of the

“pure traditional chant of St. Gregory, without alteration.l.l.”. The attacks have begun, and we take up the fight under the protection of authority, in the interests of sacred art and with the weapons of science, while not turning a blind eye to the work done toward reviving and fostering Church music in Germany.98

Dom Molitor collected all the documents related to this issue in a

two-volume work published in  and  ( Die nachtridentinische

Choralreform, Leipzig).

. Liberating Words ()

All this work was even more opportune, in that there was still talk of

renewing the privilege of the Ratisbon edition ( June  and August ,

). At Christmas, Father de Santi went so far as to say that there had been talk of imposing the neo-Medicean edition on the Diocese of

Rome, and of having it acknowledged as containing the authentic chant

of the Church.

Desclée ,  pp.). Cf. “Palestrina et l’édition médicéenne,” Revue du Chant Grégorien, August

, pp. –.

. Henri de Surrel, “La question du chant grégorien et la S. Congrégation des Rites,” Revue du Chant Grégorien, December , p. .

. Signed by Msgr. Haberl, a member of the Pontifical Commission for the revision of choir books.

184 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

Happily on January ,  (and Father de Santi notified Dom Moc-

quereau of this at once), the Pope had spoken some liberating words at

the request of the Cardinal Vicar, saying:

Tell the Rectors of the Colleges and all those who are involved that they should set their minds at rest, and that they should sing and cause to be sung what they feel is best and most suitable. There will be no new decrees. We must take another path than the one we have followed so far, and We Ourselves shall think in these terms.

Our Roman friends had gone all out to obtain this response, or at

least to pave the way for it. On December , , Father de Santi had

sent a memorandum to Cardinal Ferratta, now Prefect of the Congre-

gation of Sacred Rites,99 in which the errors into which that Congre-

gation had been led were exposed. This arrival of the memorandum

was timely, because the decision to impose the Ratisbon edition on the

Diocese of Rome had already been made, although it had not yet been

implemented. Dom Janssens wrote to the Cardinal on December . Fi-

nally, Msgr. Carlo Respighi was working, as well, keeping Cardinal

Oreglia and Cardinal Rampolla well informed. Cardinal Rampolla ap-

proached Cardinal Ferratta and the Cardinal Vicar personally, asking

him “to favor freedom in all things, and not to make any decision in this area.”

In various settings, other cardinals showed their support for the

effort to return to tradition, especially following publication of an article that Father de Santi was wrongly suspected of writing, or at least of inspiring.100 Cardinal Vivès, for example, protector of the Latin-American College, supported the actions of the Rector of that College, who

was accused of not following the decrees in force and of setting a bad

example. The same thing had been done with regard to the Superior of

the French Seminary.

It was following these actions that the Cardinal Vicar felt that it was

his duty to mention them to the Pope, and that he obtained the liberat-

ing words mentioned above. At the time, Father de Santi wrote: “It is incredible how much effort Msgr. Carlo Respighi has devoted to these

matters. Solesmes and the Gregorian cause must be forever grateful to

him. We must also admire Providence, which stirs men to action as

. Father de Santi had announced his appointment on October , .

. Osservatore Cattolico, December –.

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 185

needs arise.”101 Father de Santi did not speak of himself, but his correspondence attests to the role that he, too, played in the fight for the ancient melodies of St. Gregory ( January , ).

. The Memorandum Requested of Solesmes ()

Msgr. Respighi had another project in mind at that point, one that he

shared with Dom Mocquereau on January , . In his opinion, a new

age was beginning, the dawn of the triumph of the Gregorian cause

was breaking thanks to the devoted efforts of the intrepid defenders of

the ancient Gregorian melodies. He wrote: “In all your prayers, as a

debt of gratitude, recommend to the Lord the three great Cardinals

Oreglia, Rampolla, and the Cardinal Vicar, and don’t forget Perosi, Kan-

zler, Father de Santi, etc.”

The favorable intentions of the Pope were now widely known, and

the horizon, which appeared so dark and stormy at Christmas, suddenly

cleared. The Pope wanted to resolve the Gregorian question in keeping

with the constant tradition of the Roman Church and with the de-

mands of art and science. Msgr. Respighi pointed out one further rea-

son for having confidence:

The Cardinal Vicar has just appointed a Commission on Sacred Music in

Rome, with the approval of the Holy Father. The Commission will include

Capocci, Parisotti, Kanzler, Mattoni, and Mancini. This will be very useful, indirectly, for Gregorian chant: they are all in favor of Solesmes.102

Consequently Msgr. Respighi asked that a short but complete mem-

orandum be prepared at Solesmes as soon as possible “because we must

strike while the iron is hot.” The memorandum was to include all the

theoretical and practical studies published in support of the Gregorian

restoration. He also requested a catalogue of all of Solesmes’ publica-

tions on this issue, thus placing “at the service of the Holy Father and of the Holy See the results of lengthy studies done to discover the true

cantus Ecclesiae Romanae.”

. On August , , Father de Santi had written, “He is our faithful friend, the one who led the fight for abolition of the decree of .”

. “Musique et plain-chant à Rome,” Revue du Chant Grégorien, February , pp. –.—

Father de Santi told Dom Mocquereau the news on February , .—The Cardinal-Vicar mentioned here is Cardinal Pietro Respighi, uncle of Msgr. Carlo Respighi.

186 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

Msgr. Respighi wanted major emphasis to be placed “on the truth of

the Roman tradition,” on the Cantus Ecclesiae Romanae. He also wanted the melodies of the Pontificale Romanum prepared at Solesmes to be mentioned.

It was at Msgr. Respighi’s instigation103 that Father de Santi had asked Solesmes, on July , , to have the melodies of the Pontificale Romanum, which was about to be reprinted, in readiness. This was the former Roman edition, a copy of which the Pope was in the habit of giv-

ing to new bishops.104 Obviously, there was fear that advantage might

be taken of the reprinting of this old edition in order to insert the

chants from the German edition. Dom Mocquereau was quick to assent

to this proposal, and on August , , he assured Father de Santi that everything would be ready.

In Msgr. Respighi’s opinion, Leo XIII, being the protector of the arts

and sciences, would necessarily appreciate the honor of this work by

the sons of St. Benedict, and the action planned could be vital in ad-

vancing and resolving the Gregorian question. In his view, Cardinal

Rampolla was the perfect intermediary to present the memorandum to

the Holy Father.105

The work was done quickly at Solesmes because as early as February

, , Msgr. Respighi had read and annotated it. Besides, the Memo-

randum corresponded perfectly to the desire of both Msgr. Respighi

and Father de Santi, who were predicting a positive outcome of the

effort. Msgr. Respighi hoped only that the decree of  would not be

discussed too explicitly, recalling that there was a time when the traditional melodies were prohibited. He then recommended to Dom Moc-

quereau that he approach Cardinal Satolli, the Prefect of Studies, who

was very supportive of the cause, in order to have the Memorandum

reach the Pope, or at least to request his support in his role as Prefect of

. “Msgr. Respighi (and this must remain a secret between us) is responsible for correcting some rubrics in the Pontificale Romanum. He is deliberately slowing the work down to stall for time, hoping for some change that might help us out” (de Santi, January , ).

. The Roman edition of the Pontificale (called the camerale edition) used melodies different from those in the Ratisbon edition, melodies that continued the ancient tradition fairly well. It was important to keep the edition that was in preparation from following the lead of the German edition in this regard. We know that some of these melodies in the Roman edition come from the repertory known as “Old Roman.” Dom Gatard went to the British Museum in  at the behest of Dom Mocquereau, to study this aspect of the editions of the Pontificale there.

. At the same time, Msgr. Respighi advised the monks at Beuron to write to the Pope and to Cardinal Rampolla.

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 187

Studies. Finally, Msgr. Respighi closed with a long and detailed list of the churches, colleges, and institutes in Rome where the Benedictine

editions were used as the basis for the chant.

Cardinal Satolli agreed to present the Memorandum, and greetings

from Solesmes, to the Pope. The Cardinal readily acknowledged that

the Congregation of Sacred Studies could intervene toto jure in a matter involving scientific studies and reports. In reporting this news to

Solesmes, Msgr. Respighi said once more that the fight was not over,

and that their adversaries were still strong, but that they should take

confidence from the Pope’s firm and resolute statements to the Cardi-

nal Vicar on January , , statements that had just been repeated to Cardinal Svampa, the Archbishop of Bologna. The day after the feast of

St. Gregory, the Pope had told Cardinal Svampa (who had broached the

issue of Gregorian chant with the Pope at the request of Msgr.

Respighi) that he wished “to resolve the matter worthily, taking into account the studies that have been done, and appoint a commission of

true specialists for this purpose.” The Pope thus confirmed what he had

said to the Cardinal Vicar two months earlier.

It was Msgr. Respighi who gave copies of the Memorandum printed

at Solesmes and intended for distribution, as well as the volumes of the Paléographie Musicale, to Cardinal Satolli, who was “well disposed to do all that was within his power in support of the holy cause.” He had lov-ingly prepared the tributes intended for the Pope:

I have taken the liberty of having a white box made for the Memorandum intended for His Holiness, a strong black box for the Hartker volume, and three cases done in black cloth to put all the other books together into three sets, in other words: () The books of the Roman Rite, () The books of the Monastic Rite, and () Extracts, the Liber Usualis, etc. I had the soft-cover books bound in black cloth. They will be ready tomorrow evening, and I will bring them to His Eminence, who will attend the Holy Father’s audience Saturday morning at

:. Let us hope that His Holiness will receive the offering favorably, and that he will say a word in favor of the Gregorian work done by the Benedictines.

May Your Reverence pray for this lofty goal, and ask for prayers for this intention. (Respighi, Vigil of the Feast of St. Benedict, )105bis

The Memorandum was one of the last works published by the Im-

primerie Saint-Pierre de Solesmes before the exodus of the monks.

bis. Our friends Dom Janssens and Dom Perosi applauded Msgr. Respighi’s project wholeheartedly (Respighi, Vigil of the Feast of St. Benedict, ).

188 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

Signed by the Abbot of Solesmes, but actually written by Dom Moc-

quereau, it was entitled: To His Holiness Leo XIII. A Memorandum on the Studies by the Benedictines of Solesmes on the Restoration of the Liturgical Melodies of the Roman Church.— Imprimerie St.-Pierre de Solesmes, n.d.,

 pages. It was divided as follows: Initial Work, Initial Publications

(Dom Pothier):

A. Scientific Section: The Paléographie Musicale

. The photocopied manuscripts (the seven volumes that have

appeared to date).

. The explanatory text in the Paléographie Musicale:

. Reading and deciphering the neumatic notations;

. Classifying the neumatic notations of Europe. Certain

foundations are laid for the science of the Paléographie Musicale.

. Refutation of an objection drawn from the variety of neumatic

scripts versus the agreement among the manuscripts.

. Study of the melody itself, its laws, its speech rhythm, its

procedures, its beauty.

. Comparison of this beautiful Roman melody with the

Medicean Ratisbon edition.

. The Ambrosian liturgy.

B. Practical Section (a total of  first editions).

Books for the practice of teaching.

Worldwide movement in favor of the Roman tradition.

Appendix (other publications: Propers of dioceses, etc.,  in all).

Cardinal Satolli gave the Memorandum and the Solesmes works on

the chant to Leo XIII on March . Msgr. Respighi wrote to Dom Moc-

quereau about it immediately:

This morning, His Eminence Cardinal Satolli gave the Memorandum and the

books to the Holy Father. I do not yet know the details of their meeting. I saw His Eminence, who was returning from the meeting by car. His Eminence had the car brought to a stop, and he told me that the Holy Father welcomed the offering and the Memorandum with “great goodness and benevolence.” He appeared to be quite pleased, and he inquired specifically about the project of the Pontificale, approving it in substance. For my part, I know nothing more, but it seems to me that it was an immense success.

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 189

On March , Msgr. Respighi wrote once again providing further de-

tails:

I visited Cardinal Satolli once again. He gave me a few more details about his meeting the day before yesterday. The Holy Father is well disposed in support of our cause. He accepted the Memorandum with pleasure, and approved of

the idea of printing the Pontificale with the restored melodies. On this matter, however, His Holiness reserved the right to speak with the Cardinal Vicar to make use of the Roman Commission, exactly as we had foreseen.106

At that point, Msgr. Respighi recommended sending the Memoran-

dum to Cardinal Rampolla, who was “very knowledgeable in archaeol-

ogy and history,” and to Cardinals Oreglia and Respighi. Msgr. Respighi

said that this would guarantee the protection and assistance of four cardinals. Nevertheless, he cautioned that the strictest possible silence be maintained to avoid compromising everything.

The Memorandum was sent to other prelates, too, as confirmed by

Father de Santi:

In Rome, only Cardinal Oreglia, the Cardinal Vicar, Cardinal Rampolla, and a few prelates who are interested in us received the Memorandum, which was entrusted to their discretion. In a few days, I will easily arrange to have a copy reach Cardinal Parocchi, Cardinal Gotti, Cardinal Vivès, and a few other cardinals. In this way, no noise will be made, and we will not have sounded the alarm in the enemy camp. This gives us greater hopes for a happy outcome.

Any action or word whatsoever from the Holy Father, at this moment, would be extremely valuable,—a simple word of praise in favor of Solesmes, at this moment, would carry great weight. (Father de Santi, April , )

. The Plan for an International Commission ()

We have already noted that the Cardinal Vicar had appointed a Ro-

man Commission on sacred music for the Diocese of Rome, the estab-

lishment of which was a terrible blow for the adversaries of traditional chant. Msgr. Respighi was nursing another project along at the moment, that of an international commission. He had already asked Dom

Mocquereau for a list of musicians from all countries who, in his judg-

. On April , Father de Santi wrote, once more, “The Holy Father’s outlook remains unchanged, and today I learned from a highly-placed source how pleased he was to receive the books and the Memorandum.”

190 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

ment, would be capable of taking part in this Commission (Respighi,

February , ). Now the prelate’s hopes were taking shape. He was

hoping, in fact, that the Pope, who was interested in the project, would charge the Roman Commission with presenting names for the International Commission. In any event, any matter related to Gregorian chant

would be submitted to the Roman Commission, at least in its capacity

as an advisory body (Respighi, March , ).

Yet Father de Santi was even more explicit in a letter dated March ,

. Regarding the Gregorian question, “the Pope wishes to make use

of the Roman Commission established by the Cardinal Vicar.” In this

way, they could hope to see the melodies of the Pontificale Romanum 107

approved. Nevertheless, he added, the Commission is not competent:

They must be artists, and the purpose of the Roman Commission should be to appoint these men, to examine their work and the evidence that they provide in order to be approved. I believe that the monks of Solesmes are these artists par excellence, and that it will be necessary for Your Reverence to come to Rome for a while, in order to collate the manuscripts once again.

Writing on March , , Father de Santi continued in the same vein:

When he came to Rome a few days ago, Cardinal Svampa thanked the Holy Father for his statements on the Gregorian question. Once again, the Holy Father confirmed everything. When the Cardinal added that it would be appropriate for me to write on this subject in order to educate the public about the terms of the matter, the Holy Father said that this was his desire, as well, and that he had spoken of the matter with the Superiors of Civiltà Cattolica. I have no illusions about this; to the contrary, I think that absolutely nothing will come of it. Nevertheless, I must remain ready.

It is clear that despite the happiness that recent successes had brought him (“I share ex toto corde in your domestic joy, which is also a joy shared by all your friends”), Father de Santi felt that he had to be prudent. He was not counting much on being freed from the threats that weighed

against him.108

. On April , Father de Santi wrote as follows on this matter: “Let us hope that the new Pontificale will become a reality.l.l.l. It seems to me that the printing of a Pontificale at the Vatican, with the Solesmes melodies, is a matter of such importance that it is well worth a trip to Rome by Your Reverence.”

. One cardinal (Cardinal Ferratta) who had previously favored the Ratisbon edition was now thinking along the same lines as the Pope, and was speaking of full “freedom” for all, while continuing to proclaim the inalienable rights of Pustet (de Santi, April , ).

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 191

Furthermore, the traditional melodies continued to take root pretty

much all over, and even in Rome itself:

The day before yesterday, I went again to hear the Schola at the South American College. I was quite pleased: now everyone has been won over, and the students are spreading the word in America by sending copies of the Liber Usualis as presents to their friends. That is why they are asking for so many. The curious thing is that through a contract that they have with Pustet, they send their books to Pustet to be bound; consequently, the Solesmes books go there, and return very well bound, indeed. Another piece of news: in the upcoming Holy Week triduum, the Basilica of St. Peter has entrusted the Gregorian chant to the Vatican Seminarians,109 who, of course, will sing using the Solesmes books.

Furthermore, after Easter, a Schola of  children or youths will be founded at the Basilica of St. Peter, under the direction of our professor Msgr. Antonio Rella. In this way, our chant will certainly make its way into St. Peter’s. A similar Schola is being founded at St. John Lateran, and as we know, Capocci, the director, is on our side.

. The Brief Nos Quidem to the Abbot of Solesmes ()

As we have already seen, Father de Santi said that “any action or

word whatsoever from the Holy Father, at this moment, would be ex-

tremely valuable,—a simple word of praise in favor of Solesmes, at this

moment , would carry great weight” April , ). In fact, both Father de Santi and Msgr. Respighi had an ardent desire for a document favoring the Gregorian cause, in response to the Memorandum and the trib-

utes from Solesmes. After all, that was the goal they had pursued in suggesting this approach to Dom Mocquereau.

The Pope demonstrated his satisfaction right away. Thus the idea of

a Brief addressed to the Abbot of Solesmes occurred to him. Msgr.

Volpini was assigned to write the Brief, but in order to do so, he turned to Msgr. Respighi who, of course, consulted Father de Santi. On April

, , Father de Santi sent Dom Mocquereau a draft of the document

that he was planning: “I am including here a draft of the Pontifical Brief that I have composed with great love, in keeping with the feelings expressed by the Holy Father to Msgr. Volpini.”

. De Santi, March , ; cf. March .

192 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

Leo XIII willed that the praises to be bestowed upon the labors of

Solesmes would not, on the one hand, constitute a direct and formal ap-

proval, and on the other hand would not directly disparage the work of

the Congregation of Sacred Rites. Yet Father de Santi had managed to

insert enough praise into the text to give the document the importance

that he expected it to have. He dwelt on the Roman origin of the traditional melodies, on the conservation of those melodies in the manu-

scripts, on the encouragement already given by the Pope to the work of

Dom Pothier110 (mentioning, too, that Dom Guéranger had been his in-

spiration), and on the practical nature, not merely the scientific nature, of the Benedictine editions which had revived traditional performance

and were spreading everywhere, including in the Eternal City and at the

Vatican Seminary.

Msgr. Respighi transformed Father de Santi’s text before sending it to

Msgr. Volpini. Father de Santi had certain regrets about the changes,

since he had written the document with the greatest possible care, mak-

ing certain not to compromise the authority of the Pope in any way.111

Nevertheless, Msgr. Respighi’s intention was not to diminish the impor-

tance of the document, because he said that the text he had sent, after

touching it up, to Msgr. Volpini was “very flattering to Solesmes.”112

Might he have judged Father de Santi’s text insufficiently prudent?

Nonetheless, on May  Msgr. Respighi wrote: “Everything nearly

went up in smoke last week. There was an intervention that was hostile

to us.” Perhaps the Nuncio to Paris, Msgr. Lorenzelli who was then in

Rome, had heatedly defended Pustet’s cause. Yet Msgr. Respighi con-

cluded:

The Holy Father, and this comes as a consolation, did not change how he feels about Solesmes, it’s just that he feared Cardinal Aloysi [Masella] and the other adversaries. Yet these days the horizon is clearing once again, and the Holy Father has once again returned to his initial idea. So he will draw up a Brief, but perhaps a very vague one, though still useful.

. This refers to the Brief of March , , addressed to Dom Pothier when the Liber Gradualis was published.

. For this reason Father de Santi complained of being left out, to a certain extent (cf. April

, ), but there were fears of compromising everything by placing him too much in evidence.

. Moneta-Caglio notes that the Pope had to overcome Msgr. Volpini’s fears ( Musica Sacra,

, p. ).

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 193

In closing, Msgr. Respighi urged Dom Mocquereau to be patient:

“Everything moves very slowly here in Rome.” He said that this slow-

ness should be expected in this case, in particular, given the importance of the document they were hoping for (May , ).

The Brief was submitted for the Pope’s signature on May , a Satur-

day, noted Dom Mocquereau. Msgr. Respighi said, “No one told me of

any reservations whatsoever made by His Holiness.” He added that it

had been impossible to make mention of Dom Pothier, solely because

of the demands of the Curia. He said that the Brief was critically im-

portant despite its vague nature, because it praised the practice of the Benedictine editions (which eliminated the weight of the Counter-Brief

of May , , addressed to Dom Pothier),113 and constituted indirect

approbation regarding the use of these editions in the liturgy. He noted that under the present circumstances, one could not have hoped for

anything more.114 Finally, Msgr. Respighi concluded, even though its

form is vague, the Brief would be exceptionally important, taken to-

gether with the “importance of the timing of its publication, since no sooner has the Pustet privilege expired than the Pope, saying nothing in support of Ratisbon, is turning rather toward Solesmes, with words of

praise” (Respighi, May , ).

Father de Santi, for his part, expressed his satisfaction with the “new

ideas and statements, which are most timely and effective,” that were

included in the Brief, although he continued to regret that his own,

more explicit draft was not used. In Civiltà Cattolica, he wrote enthusiastic commentary on the pontifical document, which solved an apparent-

ly inextricable and thorny problem. It praised not only the purely scientific and theoretical work in support of the restoration of the traditional melodies preserved in the manuscripts, but also the use of the melodies

at long last restored in the liturgy, and even the benefits of the method of performance that cast into sharp relief the beauty and loveliness of

these original melodies, as well as their value as prayer. Above all, it placed emphasis on the encouragement and freedom proclaimed in

support of similar work (sollerter et libere). All in all, the document showed the way to be followed in the future in this area: the way of sci-

. This counter-brief had restricted the practical implications of an earlier brief addressed to Dom Pothier on March , , following the publication of the Liber Gradualis (Part , No. ).

. “We could have wished for more, but in Rome, everyone is accustomed to proceeding pi-ano” (Respighi, May , ).

194 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

ence and art, of history and tradition.115 In his letter, Father de Santi also added that Msgr. Respighi had heard from a reliable source that

“His Holiness was speaking with evident satisfaction about the Brief

that had been issued and that, as a result, our adversaries can no longer make their hostile insinuations” (Father de Santi, May , ).

Nevertheless, Father de Santi was still hesitant to have his name men-

tioned, despite the sollerter et libere, and it was through the good offices of Dom Janssens (Msgr. Respighi had taken the appropriate steps in this

regard since he knew he would be away from Rome) that the Brief was

communicated to the press, as soon as Solesmes had acknowledged re-

ceiving the document sent to it. The Brief was sent to Germania in Berlin, and to the Voce della Verità, which published it on Wednesday, May , while several copies had been sent to Berlin, Salzburg, Beuron,

and to close friends on the evening of the th.

Msgr. Respighi expressed his satisfaction with even greater enthusi-

asm on June , from Monte Cassino, where he was staying:

Deo gratias! The Brief reached me at Benevento, where I had gone to visit some friends, who are themselves Gregorian enthusiasts. They were most pleased with it. I examined the Brief very attentively. I find it significant and excellent.

The first reasons of exceptional importance come from the importance of the historical moment and the resolute manner in which the Holy Father desired that the Brief be issued, without worrying about the past, or any recrimina-tions from Cardinal Aloysi [Masella], from the S.C.R., etc. We must also recall that five months ago, there was talk of imposing the Medicean edition in Rome. Let us also recall the large number of cardinals who exerted their influence in this happy outcome (of the matter): Oreglia, Rampolla, Satolli, the Cardinal Vicar, Svampa, Sarto, Parocchi, and so many others who did not, as these cardinals did, take direct action, but were with them in the communion of ideas. I will not list all the illustrious individuals, musicians, Italian and foreign artists, Catholic and non-Catholics, etc. The Brief was favored with a quasi-official promulgation in Friday’s Osservatore Romano, copies of which will be sent to Your Reverence.

“The Brief is perfect,” continued Msgr. Respighi, who produced a de-

tailed analysis of it. Let us consider his comments on the word constan-

. Civiltà Cattolica, , vol. , pp. – (cf. Revue du Chant Grégorien, , p. ). The article is unsigned, as usual. Note, however, that although Father de Santi was unable to write about the sacred chant, “nonetheless,” he himself said, “a few brief bibliographies are tolerated, and I take advantage of that to spread the word as best I can in support of our chant” (to Abbé H. Villetard, February , ).

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 195

ter, praise for perseverance in work despite contradictions and consequences: “so we were not rebels;”—approval of the use of the Benedic-

tine editions, which the Counter-Brief of  suppressed.

Here is the text of this document, which should be considered to

have been the charter of the Gregorian restoration until Saint Pius X.116 At Solesmes, the Brief was read in Chapter, and at the French Seminary, in

the refectory. Perosi was there, and witnessed the applause that greeted the reading (Chronicle).

To Our dear Son, Dom Paul Delatte, of the Order of St. Benedict, Abbey of Solesmes, Leo XIII, Pope

Dear Son, greetings and Apostolic Benediction.

We know indeed, and We have praised elsewhere the enlightened efforts

you have devoted to the science of those sacred chants whose origin is attributed by tradition to St. Gregory the Great.

In like manner We cannot fail to express approbation of the unremitting toil which you have so painstakingly and unceasingly dedicated to research and to publication of ancient monuments in this field. We have before us the various fruits of your labors in the many volumes which you have graciously presented to Us on different occasions and which, as We have learned, have already received widespread notice and which are even, in some places, in daily use.

Every undertaking which aims toward explaining and propagating the science of plainchant, which is the ever-faithful subsidiary of the sacred rites, is worthy of high praise not only for the spirit and the energy expended, but for the benefit which necessarily results for divine worship. For it was to make clear the meaning of the words in the first place, that the Gregorian melodies were composed with perfect skill and taste. Provided only that they are sung artfully, there is in those melodies a great power, at once gentle and solemn, to enter easily into the hearts of the hearers and to arouse in them the movements of prayer and of salutary thoughts. Hence it is fitting that all, in both the secular clergy and the religious, who feel disposed toward the science or the art of ecclesiastical chant, apply themselves to it skillfully and freely (sollerter et libere), each according to his own ability. Their labors, as well as your own up to the present, can exercise a beneficial influence on the issue, always presuming, of course, that the precept of fraternal charity be observed, along with that of respectful obedience to Holy Church.

As a pledge of divine graces and in testimony of Our benevolence, We willingly grant to you and to your brethren the Apostolic Benediction.

. Msgr. Moneta-Caglio points out the various comments made in the press on the Brief 196 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

Given at Rome, from St. Peter’s, May , , in the twenty-fourth year of Our Pontificate.

Leo XIII, Pope. mm

. First Draft of the Vatican Edition ()

The supportive attitude of Leo XIII concerning traditional Gregorian

chant and the possible despoilment of the property of religious congre-

gations in France had already caught the attention of one publisher in

Paris, whose representative was in Rome when the Brief to the Abbot

of Solesmes appeared. Here is what Father de Santi wrote about it to

Dom Mocquereau on May , :

Another piece of news: for about a month now, a certain Mr. Etienne Védie has been here in Rome; he is handling a major edition of Gregorian books that the Poussielgue publishing company is planning to bring out. At first, he had some very unusual ideas; he was thinking of having all the principal manuscripts photographed, and of beginning the whole effort all over again, as though nothing had been done so far. Quickly he adopted a far wiser attitude, acknowledging that it would be absurd to proceed without Solesmes as the basis. Yet he added that there is some antagonism between Dom Pothier and

Solesmes, and that he would side with Dom Pothier rather than with Solesmes.

Finally, he recognized that although there may be divergent opinions, they cannot be very substantial, and he said that Poussielgue would reach an agreement with Solesmes for the new Paris edition. He says that he has the support of sixteen dioceses already, and that he expects sixty to support him in all.

If the Holy See is thinking of publishing an edition at the Vatican Press, he is offering to cover all costs, not in exchange for a monopoly or privilege, but to be the first to republish the Vatican Edition, the bulk of which would be done in Paris and, for the sake of appearances only, would be published with the Vatican frontispiece. Our triumvirs117 and I have used our influence with this man—who seems to be a loyal individual, besides—to get him to agree not to do anything without Solesmes. It will then be up to Solesmes to deal with Poussielgue. I thought it a good idea to bring all this to your attention, although I would ask Your Reverence, naturally, to be discreet as to the source of this information.

Nos quidem, Musica Sacra , p. .—The original text appears in Romita, Jus Musicæ Liturgicæ,

, p. .

. Msgr. Respighi, Kanzler, and Perosi.

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 197

Védie submitted his request to Cardinal Rampolla, who spoke of it

with the Pope. The Pope welcomed the idea, and forwarded the request

to Cardinal Ferratta, Prefect of the Congregation of Sacred Rites (Fa-

ther de Santi, June ), where a thousand objections were raised. The

traditional chant is hard to perform because it is very long; besides, the Gregorianists are far from reaching any mutual agreement, and the

Ratisbon edition can be corrected; finally, authority wishes to remain

free to publish an official edition whenever it might deem appropriate

(Father de Santi, June ).

On June , Father de Santi wrote:

Everyone is still convinced that the Prefect of Sacred Rites is powerless to object, given the Brief Nos quidem [the opening words of the Brief to the Abbot of Solesmes] and the firm desire of the Holy Father to follow the course He has set. So Mr. Védie enjoys great protection, and it does seem that he will manage to secure an even more explicit statement of freedom. Mainly, he is insisting that the Holy See have the Vatican Press begin an edition of liturgical books, seeking (as I wrote to you) to obtain preference for publishing ordinary editions, especially if the Holy See accepts the proposal of the Poussielgue publishing company, which is prepared to pay for the Roman edition. Mr. Védie has also said, in explicit terms in his Memorandum, that he wishes to proceed in joint agreement with the Benedictines of Solesmes. It would not have been possible to prevent Mr. Védie from acting here, and he is happy that he did not work independent of our influence.

In an audience with the Pope, Poussielgue’s agent explained his proj-

ect directly, and insisted that the freedom conceded to Solesmes be

granted to everyone. The Pope responded () that for the time being, he

had no plans to begin an edition of the chant, () that he had already

presented his position on Gregorian chant in the Brief addressed to

Solesmes, and () that the freedom in question applied to all, but that, for certain reasons, he did not deem it necessary to come out with a

new statement (Father de Santi, June , ).—Védie was not very sat-

isfied, and said so out loud; for a moment, Father de Santi feared that

the situation may have been worsened. But now he was assured that

Védie would reach an agreement with Solesmes. “Poussielgue stated

emphatically that a new edition would be done under the direction of

Dom Pothier and the Benedictines of Solesmes. And he wants me to be

on the Steering Committee” (Father de Santi, July , ).

After two months of insistence and proposals, Védie did manage to

198 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

obtain something, in the form of a rescript that established () the suppression of the Pustet privilege, and () the recognition of the editions legitimately in use. Here is a translation of the rescript: 118

July , 

To Mr. Charles Poussielgue, Paris.

In response to the request that you presented through Mr. Étienne Védie regarding a new edition of Gregorian chant, the Congregation of Sacred Rites has declared that since the privilege granted to Herr Pustet of Ratisbon regarding the Medicean edition has expired, there is no objection on the part of the Congregation to printers, provided that they observe the customary rules, issuing new editions of the Medicean or of other editions legitimately in use in accordance with the declarations issued on this subject by the Holy See.

This is the response that the Congregation of Sacred Rites can make at this time to your request, as it would to any similar request presented to it either by the printers of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, or by others.

With sentiments of highest esteem, I profess myself to be your devoted servant,

† D. Panici, Archbishop of Laodicea

Secretary of the Congregation of Sacred Rites

At the last minute, Védie had obtained a slight change in favor of the

Benedictine editions. The first version of the rescript allowed publishers to publish new editions of the Medicean or other notations in use according to the previous statements of the Holy See, phrasing that re-

ferred to the Brief sent to Dom Delatte. The final version was more

explicit, and spoke of other notations that were legitimately in use according to statements issued on this matter by the Holy See, i.e. only

the notations of Solesmes, so far.

On July , , Father de Santi wrote:

The definitive text, therefore is as follows: or of other editions legitimately in use in accordance with the declarations issued on this subject by the Holy See. He (Védie) was unable to obtain anything more, but Cardinal Ferratta visited the ambassador, assuring him that these words implied the legitimacy of the Solesmes editions, and the power to print them; and finally, that reasons relating only to the Curia had prevented mentioning the Brief expressly in the document. They

. Tribune S. Gervais, Sept.–Oct. , p. .— Revue du Chant Grégorien, August , p. .—

See the Italian in F. Romita, Jus Musicæ Liturgicæ, , p. .

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 199

only wanted to take a first step by removing the privilege of the Ratisbon books, placing them henceforth at the same level as the others. Later, open and explicit approval can be granted to the traditional chant.

On the same day (Respighi, July , ), Msgr. Respighi concluded:

This, then, is a reversal of everything that has been done so laboriously in 

years.l.l.l. Thanks to his activities, Mr. Védie has certainly achieved good results. He will go to Solesmes! In fact, he will have to act in perfect accord with the Benedictines. Oh, if only all publishers could come to such an understanding with Solesmes! The matter would then be resolved.

Father de Santi was hoping that Poussielgue would reach an agree-

ment promptly with Solesmes, because he saw in such a move the un-

hoped-for means, immediately following the liberating Brief from Leo

XIII, to expand yet further the traditional melodies printed in the Benedictine editions. On July , , he wrote:

In his memoranda submitted to the Vatican and to the Congregation, he

(Védie) always spoke of Solesmes with high esteem, telling everyone that the edition that Poussielgue wants to publish will be the Solesmes edition with any corrections or changes that might be made by mutual agreement by Dom

Pothier and Solesmes. It was in this manner, and also on this condition, that we came to his assistance, and promised to do so in the future. So please keep me informed of everything, while keeping everything that I have told you on this matter to yourself.

Mr. Védie went to Solesmes in August . He proposed that the

Abbey take Poussielgue as its publisher, and work out an arrangement

with him regarding a complete edition of all the books of plainchant.

The idea was received even more favorably because the Imprimerie

Saint-Pierre had never been an adequate instrument of propaganda,

and besides, the departure of the Benedictines had already been decided

upon, pursuant to the laws on Associations.

The Poussielgue project was immediately disclosed by the press as

follows:

Relying on the freedom already officially indicated by pontifical acts and now reconfirmed, as of today Mr. C. Poussielgue is undertaking the publication of a major collection of Church chants in the Gregorian tradition, in concert with the Benedictines. In order to push the scientific and artistic perfection of these books as far as possible, while retaining their essentially practical nature, he has just founded an international commission of competent scholars and artists 200 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

under the chairmanship of Dom Pothier, Abbot of Saint-Wandrille, the restorer of the Gregorian melodies, and of Dom Mocquereau, the Benedictine scholar at Solesmes, director of the Paléographie Musicale. (Tribune de S. Gervais, VII, p. )

Cooperation with Solesmes was, therefore, presented in this notice

as something already achieved. This hasty statement was to harm the

negotiations to a certain extent. The idea for the international commis-

sion certainly came from Father de Santi, and especially from Msgr.

Respighi, who had already planned for one shortly after the Roman

Commission on Sacred Music was established (see No. ). In fact, there

can be little doubt that they were the ones who got Poussielgue to ac-

cept the idea, along with the notion of working with Solesmes. The fol-

lowing letter may provide additional proof of this, as well.

Father de Santi was listening closely. On August , he wrote to Dom

Mocquereau:

I would like to believe that any problems related to the Poussielgue matter have been smoothed out to your mutual satisfaction by now. The letter of invitation sent to the members of the Commission seems very well done, to me, and under the direction of Your Reverence and of Dom Pothier, everything will go smoothly. The international commission could appear necessary if the plan to produce a Vatican edition had been carried out, for the honor of the Holy See.

But even in that case, the Commission would have had to decide whether to use the Solesmes edition as the basis for the Vatican Edition. No doubt, the answer would have been entirely favorable and the changes or corrections to be made would have been quite secondary, the very same ones that the Benedictines themselves would make in their reprints. This has always been my way of thinking, and so it was that I presented these ideas to Mr. Védie. Since the Holy See has not agreed to produce the edition, there remained this idea of a commission, but now its task is easier. Nevertheless, let the first questions that will be posed to the members of the Commission be asked. It is appropriate to obtain full approval from the Commission on behalf of the Benedictine edition, as it stands, and then to proceed promptly with a reprinting, making only those corrections deemed necessary for further improvement of the [musical]

instruction. With regard to the idea of shortening the verses of the Graduals, and Alleluias, it seems that Mr. Védie did not express himself well, or that he was misunderstood. He wrote to me that he had simply wanted to say what I myself had said; but I never spoke of abbreviating anything, but I did say that the melodies must remain as they are and that singers who do not know them or cannot sing them could omit them, replacing them with the organ, or performing the psalms in another manner. We hope that everything will proceed FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 201

with complete understanding on both sides and to the full satisfaction of the Benedictines at Solesmes.

The laws on Associations passed by the French legislature on July ,

, imperiled the freedom and very existence of religious congrega-

tions. In an unsigned article, L’examen de conscience d’un religieux, an article of great dignity and nobility, the Abbot of Solesmes, Dom Delatte,

expressed his point of view in the face of the persecutory laws, and

chose exile for himself and his monks. The initial departures for the estate at Appuldurcombe,119 on the Isle of Wight (England) took place in

August, and the Divine Office was last celebrated at the abbey church of Solesmes on September , . Dom Mocquereau left Solesmes on

August . A few days earlier, on August , Dom Pothier had come to

discuss Poussielgue’s plans with Dom Delatte (Chronicles).

For Father de Santi, the fate of Solesmes was of critical interest in

resolving the Gregorian question. Therefore, he and Msgr. Respighi

wished to be “reassured on the new position” resulting from the depar-

ture of the monks and their exile in England. On October , ,

Msgr. Respighi wrote: “Poussielgue has invited me, and a few others, to

join the Commission for the new edition. But Perosi, Kanzler, and I

have not yet responded. We are awaiting your instructions.”

A month later, on November , , Msgr. Respighi shared some of

his fears with Dom Mocquereau:

I believe it useful to bring the following point to your attention. I know that Védie and Poussielgue are putting forward the name and the authority of Dom Pothier. I wrote to Dom Pothier about this, and, in a very interesting letter, he replied, word for word, that he conditionally approves the decision of Solesmes. I believe it necessary to send you Dom Pothier’s letter, requesting that you return it to me as soon as possible. It seems to me that Pécoul is fan-ning the flames.

Finally, in the same letter, Msgr. Respighi spoke once more of the Pontifical, and asked whether someone from Solesmes might come to Rome

to review the melodies.

This letter of Dom Pothier (to Msgr. Respighi, October , ) read

as follows:

. In , the monks took up residence at Quarr Abbey, which they restored, also on the Isle of Wight. Dom Paul Bellot had built a monastery and a magnificent church there.

202 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

With regard to the matter initiated by Mr. Védie in the name of Mr.

Poussielgue, I must say that I was informed rather late. It was after his long so-journ at Rome, and a visit to Solesmes, that Mr. Védie came to St. Wandrille to bring me up to date on the negotiations at Rome and Solesmes, and to ask for my cooperation. I promised him my support conditionally, i.e. after he had made firm arrangements with Solesmes and signed a formal agreement. So far everything has been verbal. But at this juncture, Solesmes is transferring its Imprimerie Saint-Pierre to Desclée. What will be the consequences of this sudden transfer, done hastily before the dispersal of the community? I have no idea. All I know is that there are discussions now underway between Solesmes and the Poussielgue publishing house, which plans to pursue the work, as announced with the approval of Solesmes and a real, if unsigned, understanding.119bis Dom Pothier’s letter alludes to the sale (although the matter was still

at the negotiation stage) of the Abbey’s press to the Desclée company in Tournai. Some explanation is needed to understand this move by

Solesmes. The fact of transferring the press to a foreign publishing company that had already published the Mélodies Grégoriennes and the Liber Gradualis explains the choice. Perhaps they were hoping to escape more easily from the rapacious grasp of the liquidator of the religious congregations. But there was something else. In August , at the same

time the Poussielgue project was disclosed in the press, a brochure was

published with the title Le Chant Grégorien, signed with the pseudonym a Gallo-Roman. The brochure was, in fact, the work of A. Pécoul, a former postulant at Solesmes who had become its furious adversary. Fa-

ther de Santi had already pointed out that Pécoul was in Rome, where

he was scheming.120 Msgr. Respighi referred to him in the previous pas-

sage. In this brochure, which was published by Poussielgue, the name

of Solesmes was never mentioned, not even in regard to the Brief of

Leo XIII. The alert had been sounded at the Abbey, and there is no

doubt that the involvement of the author of the brochure in the affairs

of Poussielgue changed the course of events.

Furthermore, Solesmes considered itself the sole proprietor of the

chant editions, on various grounds.121 The initiative had come from

Dom Guéranger; his successor had pursued the work tenaciously: the

bis. Pothier’s first reaction was more animated (Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra , p. ).

. De Santi, June  and July , .

. This information, and the information that follows, is taken from a memorandum by Dom Noetinger, the Abbey Cellerar.

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 203

cost of the work had been paid by the Abbey and by it alone. The work

was the fruit of the collaboration of several monks. Finally, monastic

law recognized that the profits for the monks’ work belong to the

monastery and not to the monks themselves. But Poussielgue, advised

by Pécoul, was opposing, in practice, the interests of Solesmes and

those of Dom Pothier, who claimed to have acquired the copyright

to the Solesmes chant editions. In this way, the Paris-based publish-

er could claim to have acquired ownership of the Benedictine edi-

tions, the monks of Solesmes and Dom Pothier being reduced to the

role of merely cooperating in the work. Indeed, Dom Pothier wasted

no time in signing a secret agreement with Poussielgue, on November

, .

In a letter dated February , , sent to the Abbot of Solesmes,

Dom Pothier explained his intentions by saying that he believed he was

authorized to sign the agreement because, in the eyes of the law, he

thought he was the lawful owner. He added:

This made it seem to me that not only was I allowed, but I was truly obligated to accept the arrangement being offered by the publisher, while observing, of course, the reservations imposed by canon law and the rules of religious congregations, limitations that were drawn up in writing and deposited separately.

These are the current circumstances, which enable me to save all or part of the inventory of the Imprimerie Saint-Pierre, which imposes on me the duty to find the means to do so. I have been assured that these means are the arrangement I mentioned above. The grounds have been tested, they assure me, and claims based upon them will be accepted.122

Since the Imprimerie Saint-Pierre had been closed, on the other

hand, and it was no longer possible to prevent the publications from ap-

pearing, the Abbot of Solesmes contacted M. Desclée, who had already

published Dom Pothier’s Les Mélodies Grégoriennes in  and the Liber Gradualis in , ultimately signing an agreement with him (in April

).123 But it was agreed with Mr. Desclée that if Mr. Poussielgue were to prove more understanding, he would be given preference. Mr. Desclée immediately entered into discussions with him. As a result, on No-

vember , , Dom Mocquereau replied to Msgr. Respighi that al-

. Cf. Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra, p. , note . Letter in the same vein from Dom Pothier to Msgr. Respighi, December , .

. First to continue publication of the Paléographie Musicale, and then, somewhat later, to publish the chant books of Solesmes.

204 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

though the sale of the Press certainly changed the question, Solesmes

was not refusing to deal with Mr. Poussielgue:

It is clear that the transfer of our press to Mr. Desclée has changed our relationship with the Poussielgue company completely. The agreement made with Mr.

Desclée no longer allows us to make any deals with Mr. Poussielgue without the involvement of Mr. Desclée. We have been aware of the details of this agreement at Appuldurcombe for a few days now. Therefore, if Mr. Poussielgue intends to implement his plans, he must come to an agreement not only with us, but with Mr. Desclée, as well. This is the general tenor of what we will write to Mr. Poussielgue. If the two companies manage to reach an understanding, then fine; we will not stand in the way of that. But no matter what, it must remain clearly understood that under no circumstances may the agreement mention a third party as co-proprietor of the publications. The Abbot of Solesmes, like his predecessors, intends to remain the sole proprietor of the liturgical publications already produced, and of those yet to come. He reserves the right to assign the work as he sees fit. It is easy to appreciate the fairness and wisdom of this decision: it avoids the countless problems that would arise among monasteries were it not followed. We find it utterly repugnant to deal with Poussielgue for the simple reason that Pécoul.......is involved in this matter.

The negotiations between Solesmes-Desclée and Poussielgue

dragged on until late in , without resolution. Poussielgue, a Paris-

based publisher, maintained a relationship with Pécoul, who was in con-

tact with Ménage, the liquidator of the religious congregations. It is curious to note that the conclusions reached by the liquidator concerning

the Benedictines’ literary proprietorship coincided precisely with the

termination of negotiations between Poussielgue and Desclée. The liq-

uidator filed suit against Desclée, whose claims regarding the monastery Press—which was included in the liquidation—were rejected.124

There is no reason to dwell further on this affair. Our purpose was

simply to point out the reasons for the failure of negotiations with

Solesmes. Yet it is also important to retain this idea of an international commission presided over by Dom Pothier, because it is an idea that

was to resurface in  with the Vatican Commission.

Our Roman friends were deeply saddened by the failure of the dis-

cussions between Solesmes and Poussielgue, for they had been hoping

for a quick solution of the matter of the chant books, immediately fol-

. The sale of the press to Mr. Desclée was dated September  and , . The sale was recorded at Sablé on October , cf. Dom L. Guilloreau, La Stamperia di S. Pietro a Solesmes, in Rassegna Gregoriana, , col. –.

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 205

lowing the Brief to the Abbot of Solesmes and the failure to renew the

Pustet privilege. They had no reason to believe that such an occasion

would come their way again any time soon.

In addition, in a draft letter to Dom Mocquereau that is undated, was

never sent, and certainly dates from before the letter of November ,

 cited above, Msgr. Respighi wrote:

I have been assured, and I can assure Your Reverence, in modo riservato, that the Poussielgue affair has recently been emphasized at the Congregation of Sacred Rites, in order to prevent the Pope from speaking more clearly in support of Solesmes.

In fact, there had been a great deal of talk about the project, and there was even talk of a truce between Ratisbon and Solesmes (Msgr. Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra, , pp. , , and ).

The Brief to Dom Delatte had other immediate and effective results.

At Fribourg, Dr. Peter Wagner immediately conceived the idea of estab-

lishing a Gregorian Academy, for which he sought and received the

Apostolic Blessing, through the good offices of Cardinal Satolli, Prefect of the Congregation of Studies. In the letter that Cardinal Satolli sent to Wagner on June , , there is explicit mention of the Brief Nos quidem (to Dom Delatte), as a succinct indication of the Pope’s thinking with regard to this matter. The Academy of Fribourg opened in November , and at the same time, in Rome, Father Hartmann of the

Friars Minor was launching a School of Sacred Music, under the patron-

age of Cardinal Vicar Pietro Respighi. Msgr. Carlo Respighi and Father

de Santi were counting heavily on this school, but unfortunately, it did not survive for long.125

. The Rhythmic Synthesis of Dom Mocquereau—

Volume VII ()

Since October , the fascicles of Volume VII of the Paléographie

Musicale had been publishing the eleventh-century Antiphonale Tonale Missarum, Codex H.  from the library of the École de Médecine in Montpellier. The volume began with a brief Notice (pp. –) on this

. Civiltà Cattolica, , vol. , pp. –: Scuola Romana di Musica Sacra; — Musica Sacra, Toulouse, October , pp. , ;— Revue du Chant Grégorien, , pp. –.

206 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

bilingual manuscript, in which the sung pieces are grouped by mode

and are notated in neumes accompanied by alphabetic notation of the

pitches. From the time the series began to appear, Dom Mocquereau

had been asked to publish this manuscript, but he had wanted to place

greater emphasis on manuscripts for liturgical use, rather than a

“school” manuscript.

The manuscript was accompanied by a long treatise entitled Du rôle

et de la place de l’accent tonique latin dans le rythme grégorien. This essay was the fruit of many years of effort. Dom Mocquereau may well have

had the intuition for his rhythmic synthesis as early on as  (cf. No.

). In any event, his studies of the Latin tonic accent and the cursus published in the Paléographie Musicale revealed to him the secrets of the structure of the Gregorian melodies, the spiritual nature of the Latin

accent, and the preeminence of musical rhythm over the rhythm of the

words.126

In , at the beginning of his Petit Traité de Psalmodie, Dom Mocquereau had announced the publication of a practical method of Gre-

gorian chant. But this practical method was to be preceded by a treatise that would be a broad inquiry and a great synthesis of Gregorian

rhythm. This was the subject of Volume VII, the study accompanying

the phototype publication of the Montpellier manuscript. That study

was divided into the following sections:

L’accent tonique et les compositeurs de musique religieuse (pp. –

).

L’accent tonique latin dans l’enseignement de l’École de Solesmes

(pp. –).

Le rythme et le mot latin (pp. –).

Le membre de phrase et le mot latin (pp. –).

La période (pp. –).

Chironomie du mouvement rythmique (pp. –).

Le rythme et l’harmonie (pp. –).

Vue d’ensemble sur le plan de ce volume (pp. –).

Appendices (pp. –).

Tables.

. For his discussion of this issue, see La Psalmodie romaine et l’accent tonique latin (Rodez,

) and in L’Art grégorien, son but, ses procédés, ses caractères ().

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 207

The rhythmic synthesis of Dom Mocquereau is well known. Indeed,

to discuss it here would be to stray from our subject. Let us merely note that for Dom Mocquereau, Gregorian rhythm is no longer the rhythm

of speech, but musical rhythm, depending more on the melody than on

the text. In this sense, he was fully aware that he was in line with his predecessors, whose teachings he was merely perfecting. For him,

rhythm was still free, not subject to measures, combining at will binary and ternary elements; yet the rhythm is also precise, because it is made up of precise values, as are the elementary rhythms and compound

rhythms. Rhythm, according to Dom Mocquereau, is also emancipated

from intensity, and rhythmic footfalls often come to rest on the soft final syllables of words with the light and lively Latin tonic accent.127

In practical terms, the first rhythmic indications appeared in , in

a small volume published by Dom Mocquereau with the Schola Canto-

rum press. It contained a selection of Gregorian chants and medieval

music taken from the books of Dom Pothier and transcribed into mod-

ern notation by Dom Mocquereau. The rhythm was transcribed in this

work by means of a complicated system of points placed above the

melodies. Later, Dom Mocquereau published various books of Gregori-

an chant in modern notation, and he simplified his system of rhythmic

notation: only the ictus were marked, by a point placed above the musi-

cal staff, a form of writing that he also used for modern notation until the appearance of the Vatican Edition.

The notation using points within the musical staff in square notation

appeared in ,128 with the Missae Propriae Ordinis Minorum Sancti Francisci Cappuc. (Solesmes), where we also find the oriscus and the quarter bar. Vertical episemas attached to the notes129 and horizontal

episemas appear in  in various publications from the monastery

Press or from the Biton Press.130 In , we find, for the first time, a Preface addressing the binary and ternary groups and subgroups, as an

introduction to a Kyriale (Solesmes, ). In addition, at the front of the

. Dom Mocquereau expanded on his teachings in a more didactic format in the Nombre Musical Grégorien (I,  and II, ). But the first chapters were published as early as  in Church Music (Philadelphia) under the title Gregorian Rhythm. A Theoretical and Practical Course (–) (cf. infra, No.  and note bis).

.As well as in , in a Sequence from an Office of St. Hilary of Poitiers.

. It was later, following the decree of February , , that Dom Mocquereau detached the ictus from the note.

. Chants des Offices extraits du Paroissien noté de Solesmes et des Variae Preces.......(Ordinary of the Mass, hymns, etc.). Biton, .

208 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

Manuel de la Messe et des Offices extrait du Paroissien Romain et des Variæ Preces de Solesmes, published by Desclée in , a foreword explained the reason for this change of publisher, the exile of the monks in England, and the sale of the monastery Press to Mr. Desclée.

The most significant of these books was the Paroissien Romain published by Desclée in late . This was a new edition of the Paroissien and of the Liber Usualis of , with the same format (in-) and the same layout (texts and chants of the Mass and the Office for all Sundays and double feasts). The book bore the Imprimatur of the Master of the

Sacred Palace, dated October ,  (and soon it was also to bear the

Imprimatur of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, dated February ,

). The rhythmic indications and the expressive signs taken from the

St. Gall manuscripts were used much more extensively in these publica-

tions than in previous works, since the rhythm was marked throughout

these books according to the principles advanced by Dom Mocquereau.

The musical writing was perfected: the neumes were transcribed with

greater accuracy, and they contained new neumes, as well (the oriscus and the salicus), the bars of the notation were distributed more wisely, and the quarter bar replaced the half bar at the incises. In addition, the melodies themselves had been revised and corrected in part. We say “in

part” because the comparative tables that Dom Mocquereau had drawn

up for this purpose were generally limited to the study of formulas:

more than a hundred, however, were revised in accordance with some

twenty manuscripts, which made it possible to provide various im-

provements in the details of melodies restored by Dom Pothier in the

Liber Gradualis and the Antiphonal. 131 There had been a precedent for this revision of the melodies in the Officium et Missae Nativitatis D.N.J.C.

juxta Missale et Breviarium Romanum (Desclée, , No. ,  pp.). It is easy to discern the reason: the government of the French Republic had

taken possession of the Solesmes press, and of the entire stockpile of

books legitimately sold to Messrs. Desclée. The old Benedictine edi-

tions would have to be cleared of added marks if they wanted to begin

publishing them again.131bis The Paroissien Romain was a great success,

. Cf. C. Gaborit, Le Nouveau Manuel grégorien, in Tribune de S. Gervais , p. .

bis. Here is how Dom Mocquereau explained this matter to Msgr. Respighi on April ,

: “The legal proceedings between Ménage and the Desclée firm will begin soon. To save the chant of Solesmes, it has become necessary to provide a demonstration, even a public demonstration, by which I mean in the newspapers, of the new works, and of the new research done on the manuscripts in order to perfect our old editions, and thereby, to make it possible for us to FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 209

and went through five editions in  and . The Latin-language edi-

tions of the work, published under the title Liber Usualis, were the most widely distributed of them all.

Once the Manuel de la Messe et des Offices was approved, Father de Santi and Msgr. Respighi told Dom Mocquereau of their surprise at

these changes. According to them, the introduction of rhythmic indica-

tions into the Solesmes books could only result in difficulties for the

hoped-for approval by the Congregation of Sacred Rites. In fact, there

was no such difficulty, as the editions of Solesmes were approved by

that Congregation on February , .

However, Dom Mocquereau received a veritable indictment from Fa-

ther de Santi in late November , to which he responded point by

point on November . The lack of books, he wrote, cannot be attrib-

uted to Solesmes, which was required to go into exile and was deprived

of its press. The signs for rhythmic punctuation indisputably make the

performance of the chant easier and, in general, they have been well re-

ceived. Besides, the episemas do not deform the Gregorian writing, but,

on the contrary, they perfect it

in the manner of the points, dashes, boldface dashes, and countless romanian letters in the oldest manuscripts. Thus, far from leading us astray from the ancient tradition, we are taking steps that draw us ever closer to it.l.l.l. Nothing is easier to prove than the fact that the main reason for the decadence and ruin of the chant of Holy Mother Church was the inadequacy of ecclesiastical notation to express rhythm. It was inadequate from the tonal perspective, as well .l.l.

So I believe, Father, that in order to prevent decline and to assure unity, it is necessary to establish now a rhythmic tradition that is as close as possible to that of the ancient masterpieces.

Dom Mocquereau concluded by announcing the revision of the musi-

cal notation of the preceding Solesmes editions, which was to be yet an-

other source of discontent among our friends in Rome.

In passing, Dom Mocquereau had also criticized the accompani-

ments of Giulio Bas, advocated by Father de Santi.

The accent that is always struck, the accent that always coincides with the chord on the down pulse of the rhythm, in a word the “metric principle” with all its attendant harshness, there is the great error of the moderns when it escape the greed of that sad person and of those who are pushing him from behind the scenes”

(Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra, , p. ).

210 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

comes to the rhythm. Dom Pothier pointed that out a long time ago. Read

carefully his article on the Ave maris stella (Revue du Chant Grégorien, January ,

, p. ); the matter cannot be stated better or more accurately. I adopt this theory in its entirety, and I taught it already in , in my lecture on L’Art Gré-

gorien. Daily practice confirms us in these principles. Dom Gatard teaches exactly the same thing at Westminster Cathedral.

This is of enormous importance in coming to understand all the beauty, all the suppleness, I would say the spirituality of the Gregorian rhythm. Many musicians, I know, do not even have the slightest inkling about the theory of the freedom of the accent, the theory of pure rhythm; they find that scandalous, but a great many others, broader-minded, more welcoming, accept it fully. One of them—and I could list many others as well—M. Laloy, editor-in-chief of the Revue d’Histoire et de Critique Musicale in Paris, whom I saw at Solesmes and to whom I explained our entire theory of rhythm, wrote to me not long ago:

“Your study [on accent and rhythm] seems quite incontrovertible.l.l.l. I would be happy to make whatever modest contribution I could to this work where science and musical feeling will find equal consideration, and from which art will emerge freer and more alive. ”

In a memorandum sent to Bas on January , , Dom Moc-

quereau wrote, with regard to the accompaniment of Gregorian

chant:

The role of the accompaniment, relative to the rhythm, is to follow the rhythm of the Gregorian melody. The accompaniment must proceed at the same pace as the melody, rest where the melody itself pauses. The ordinary place of the chords, therefore, is entirely indicated in the rhythmic alighting places. But given the infinite suppleness, the movement, the soaring flight, the spirituality of the Gregorian rhythm, accompaniment is always a threat to it; it is akin to clothing the melody in heavy armor. The lighter, the more subtle it is, the better. No accompaniment would be best of all. In all our major renditions, we have always eliminated accompaniment.

. The Rassegna Gregoriana (–)

As early as , there had been talk of establishing a journal of Gre-

gorian chant for Italy. The original idea for this journal seems to have come from Father de Santi, the first to conceive of the project. On

June , , he told Dom Mocquereau that he wanted the Italian Bene-

dictines to publish a review along the lines of the Grenoble-based Revue FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 211

du Chant Grégorien, founded in  by Father Vincent-Martin.132 But on November , , it was Msgr. Respighi who stated that he, as well as

Perosi, had decided to publish a Gregorian journal, and he had asked

Dom Mocquereau to agree to work on it. On February , , it was

once again Father de Santi who stated that he had always wanted a Gre-

gorian journal to be published in Italy, but, he added, who should be entrusted with publishing it, since he himself was still condemned to si-

lence? A letter from Msgr. Respighi dated May , , sheds little light on this matter. In that letter, he asked for cooperation from Solesmes,

and spoke of the project they had going with Father de Santi and him-

self:

We are in the process of putting together a Rivista Romana di Canto gregoriano, but the journal needs the cooperation of Solesmes. Therefore, please let me know if it would be possible for Solesmes to make a contribution to the journal, through an agreement of some kind, and a few articles .l.l. at least six per year. The Revue Romaine would be the coup de grâce (ictus gratiae) for Ratisbon.

Similarly, a letter from Father de Santi dated May  adds little in the way of clarification. In the letter, he states that, an understanding with Desclée having been reached, the journal would be published starting

July , , and he added, “We are counting heavily on support from

Solesmes”—the “we” referring to Msgr. Respighi and himself. This re-

quest for cooperation was repeated more urgently on June , :

Desclée has already started the new publication of the Rassegna Gregoriana, a journal that I have always wanted so very much. Here we are in mid June, and almost no one is doing anything .l.l. It seems to me that such a journal in Rome can be of extraordinary helpfulness to the Gregorian cause, and that everyone must work hard to support this publication and to maintain its scientific character, without neglecting practice, as well.

The good Jesuit, always so prudent, continued: “Remember that I can-

not do any writing. I can provide them some assistance in an indirect

way.l.l.l. It is critical for Solesmes to help us .l.l.” ( June , ).

In this letter, and in another dated June , , we find evidence that the initiative for the proposal for a journal comes from Father de Santi, who had always been so desirous of it, and who finally found someone

who could take over management of the journal in his place. On June

. In December , he had already written to Dom Mocquereau about this journal: “Give me some information, if you can, about the Gregorian journal” (December , ).

212 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

, , he wrote: “Msgr. Respighi is taking charge of the Rassegna, and he tells me that he would be delighted to accept your work on the

Psalmody of the Mass and the Responses.”132bis On July , , Father

de Santi spoke of “Msgr. Respighi’s Rassegna, which cannot be published yet because the Right Rev. Dom Pothier has not sent the articles

he promised, and because of other problems as well.l.l.l. The journal

will be called Gregorius.l.l.l.” In November and December ,133 it was Msgr. Respighi who finally announced the imminent publication of the

Rassegna Gregoriana (the title they kept), the first issue of which dates from January . Father de Santi remained quite interested in the project. On March , , he complained that the Rassegna had few subscribers, and he was still asking for Solesmes’ cooperation for articles on the liturgy.

In fact, Solesmes contributed significantly to the editing of the jour-

nal. Not only did Dom Mocquereau (starting in ) write some ten ar-

ticles on Gregorian paleography, along with Dom G. Beyssac, but Dom

Cagin and Dom Pierre de Puniet made other contributions, as well, on

liturgical matters. Soon, in , Solesmes became involved in editing

the bibliography.

The first issue of the Rassegna appeared in January . The first article was the  Brief from Leo XIII to Dom Delatte, the “Charter of

the Gregorian Restoration” as our Roman friends called it. On March

, the feast of St. Gregory the Great, the first three issues were presented to the Pope, with a letter signed by the main contributors in Rome.

But none of the articles on chant were signed by Father de Santi, even

though he wrote to Dom Mocquereau, on July , that the full burden

of producing the journal fell to him: corrections, translations, and articles that Msgr. Respighi signed. “Since I am not yet free,” he wrote, “I must do my work as though in hiding.l.l.”. The issue was that his Superior General did not want him to be involved in chant matters (a point

about which Father de Santi often complained to Dom Mocquereau),134

bis. Nonetheless, on July ,  Father de Santi was still thinking of Father Hartmann for the position of Director of the Journal—which would have been the publication of his School of Sacred Music in Rome (Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra , p. , no. , from a letter of De Santi to Casimiri).—On the cooperation of Dom Mocquereau in the Rassegna, cf. Études Grégoriennes II, , pp. –.

. November  and December .

. Cf. June , , and August , .—On June , , he said to Father Villetard: “The soul of the new journal is Msgr. Respighi. I fan the flames from behind; that must suffice for now.”

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 213

which made the Pope’s good disposition where he was concerned

rather pointless (cf. November  and December , ).

. A Time for Waiting—Congress of Bruges ()

One year after the memorable date when Leo XIII had opened a new

path for traditional Gregorian chant by pronouncing the liberating

words that had been so long awaited, Msgr. Respighi told Dom Moc-

quereau that the Pope had decided to have the in-folio edition of the

Pontificale Romanum printed at the Vatican Press. Msgr. Respighi added, As for the chant section, the Holy Father has entrusted that to the Benedictine priests. I am to notify you of this in the name of the Cardinal Vicar. I would ask you to pass word of this along to Reverend Father Abbot, confidentially.

After giving various details, Msgr. Respighi concluded by saying that the issue was of great importance, for this might well prove to be a precedent that could be invoked in support of other editions ( January ,

). He also passed along the request, through Father de Santi, that

the chants proper to the Consecration of Churches be prepared first of

all.135 The Abbot hastily agreed to the cooperation requested of

Solesmes, with regard to liturgy and music alike, for both of these ele-

ments had been foreseen by Msgr. Respighi, while pointing out that

preparation of the chants had been entrusted by him to Dom Pothier in

July  (Dom Mocquereau, January , ).

Another anniversary came around in May , that of the Brief to

Dom Delatte. Our friends in Rome, who were always prepared to seize

any occasion that came along to clarify and shore up the situation re-

garding the Gregorian cause, made this date into an occasion. Indeed,

Msgr. Respighi took it upon himself to send a letter of thanks to the

Pope, as did Dr. Wagner and Dom Horn on behalf of the Rassegna, the Académie Grégorienne in Fribourg, and the Rundschau founded in .

So he asked the Abbot of Solesmes to write to the Holy Father, as well

(Respighi, May , ).

The time for action seemed all the more propitious to him as the

struggle continued and the sollerter et libere of Leo XIII still remained a

. The volume appeared in , under the title Ritus consecrationis Ecclesiae juxta Pontificale Romanum (Desclée ). Dom Delatte entrusted the work of preparing this edition to Dom Pothier, whom he also had prepare the Monastic Responsory (Dom Mocquereau, January , ).

214 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

dead letter, and he recommended that Cardinal Rampolla be brought in

to intervene in that regard (May , ).

On August , , he notified Dom Mocquereau that the Congrega-

tion of Sacred Rites seemed to wish to readdress the Gregorian ques-

tion, and that there were grounds to fear that all might be lost. Then he asked, once more, to do something to make the situation clearer and

more solidly established:

All I could send to the Pope was a brief memorandum that was well received. I wrote a strongly worded letter to the Cardinal Secretary of State, but I can do a little more. It has been suggested to me in high places, as well, that I ask our friends to act. I begin by asking you to explain to Father Abbot the difficulty of the moment, and the need for us to get moving, as well. I believe that Reverend Father Abbot could write to Cardinal Rampolla and to His Eminence Satolli, and to the Pope himself, in whatever terms he thinks most fitting.

At the same time, Msgr. Respighi was writing to Dom Pothier. Then,

on August , he sent the following note to Dom Mocquereau:

As a follow-up to today’s letter, let me add that I know that the Congregation of Sacred Rites will take up this matter in an extraordinary session, sometime shortly after the th, without questioning any of us. I give you this news in the strictest confidence, so that you may alert Father Abbot.

At that time, from August –, , the Musical Workshop of the

Schola Cantorum of Charles Bordes was being held at Bruges. The oc-

casion was a great success for the cause of traditional Gregorian chant

and for sacred music worthy of the name. There were four hundred

delegates from eight countries in attendance.

Father H. Villetard represented the Rassegna Gregoriana at the meeting, and Dom Gatard went on behalf of Solesmes. Father Villetard

made a presentation about the new Italian journal, and summarized the

situation in support of traditional Gregorian chant in Italy, particularly in Rome. Msgr. Respighi had warned him of the intentions of the Congregation of Sacred Rites in favor of Pustet and, while counseling him

to adopt a prudent stance, suggested that the Congress pass a tribute to Leo XIII in gratitude for “the new path opened by the Brief to the Abbot of Solesmes, in total harmony with science and art.” Cardinal Ram-

polla responded to it with equal prudence. Professor Wagner repeated

Msgr. Respighi’s request, and on August , he wrote to Charles Bordes:

FATHER DE SANTI AND MONSIGNOR RESPIGHI 215

I have just learned that the Ratisbon supporters in Rome are growing active again, and that a new act of the Congregation of Sacred Rites is threatening us.

I ask you to send a strongly worded protest to Cardinal Rampolla against any new favor [with regard to] the Ratisbon books, in the name of scholarship and Christian art, signed by the Congress itself, or if that should prove impossible, by you, as Director of the Chanteurs de Saint-Gervais and of the Schola Cantorum; by M. Tinel as Director of the École Belge de Musique Sacrée, and by all our friends. This matter is most urgent. Videatis, consules!

During one of the meetings, the following telegram was read aloud.

The telegram had been sent from Padua and was signed by several no-

table Italian figures in music and Gregorian chant, including Father de

Santi, Msgr. L. Bottazzo, and Msgr. Casimiri: “We proclaim our support

of this music Congress, applauding the triumph of the Gregorian

cause.”

A few days later, on August , , Msgr. Respighi wrote:

The Pope is still immutably attached to the Brief to Solesmes and to the position created through it for the traditional melodies. In this spirit, His Eminence Cardinal Rampolla responded aloud and in writing, and this when the Congregation of Sacred Rites is threatening to adopt a new pro-Ratisbon position. (To Casimiri, quoted by Msgr. Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra, , p. , No. .)136

Finally, on December , Father de Santi sent more reassuring news:

You were aware of the forming of the Liturgical Commission, recently set up by Cardinal Ferratta for the Congregation of Sacred Rites. This is a serious matter, one destined to do great good. They have already met once, and Father Ehrle came away from it very pleased. The Commission is authorized to consult other scholars, according to the needs and special competence of each.

They talked about the Pontifical, as being the most pressing matter. And so the thinking is that the other liturgical books, as well, will be subjected to a new revision, and that the infamous “typical” editions of Pustet will ultimately fall by the wayside as chant books.

In the midst of these conjectures, Father de Santi continued to regret

the fact that no understanding was reached with Poussielgue, all the

. On the Congress of Bruges: H. Villetard, Personal files— Revue du Chant Grégorien

–, pp. , —(French translation of the Rassegna Gregoriana, , col. ff).—To gain some idea of the displeasure among the partisans of Ratisbon occasioned by the success of the Congress, see the report of it published in the Courrier de Saint Grégoire, of Liège (A. Dirven, Le Congrès de Bruges), August , pp. –.

216 PRELIMINARIES UNDER LEO XIII

more so in that Cardinal Ferratta had committed himself to a certain

extent to approve its editions (Respighi, April , ).

On April , , Dom Mocquereau was chosen by his abbot as

claustral prior of Solesmes in exile at Appuldurcombe, a position he re-

tained until June , . The following year he had to return to France for health reasons, from early June until mid August. It was at Dax,

where he was being treated, that he completed an article written for the Tribune de Saint-Gervais. 137 In this long study entitled À travers les manuscrits, étude sur une cadence des traits du VIIIe mode (signed at Dax, July ,

), he wished

to give all the friends of Gregorian chant an example of the procedures that we use in correcting our books. These procedures are slow and very laborious, but they lead us to results that are as accurate as they are solid, that are an even greater delight for the artist and the monk desirous of the beauty of the divine office as for the archaeologist and the paleographer.

We include this sentence here, for it truly reveals the profound piety of Dom Mocquereau. In the same journal, Dom Mocquereau published

his Préface du Manuel de la Messe et de l’Office 138 that was intended for the editions in modern notation; he justified the use of that notation in this preface. In truth, Father de Santi had used it first in his initial Gregorian performances in Rome, in order to facilitate the task of the chanters

who had little experience with the square notation.

We must also point out the publication entitled Officium Majoris Hebdomadae juxta Missale et Breviarium Romanum (Desclée , No. ), a revised and corrected edition with rhythmic indications. We have already seen that these changes in the melody and rhythm were not to

the liking of our Roman friends. The year  was spent in discussions

between Father de Santi and Dom Mocquereau, as witnessed by the

correspondence received from Rome. Nonetheless, Father de Santi was

quick to recognize the legitimacy of these melodic changes, and the

usefulness of these rhythmic indications. On this latter point, Father de Santi wrote in December : “I personally recommend the punctuated Gregorian edition warmly, because I believe that it is very useful for the seminarians” (December , ).

. Tribune de Saint-Gervais , pp. , , .

. Tribune de Saint-Gervais , p. ; , p. .

B ■ T H E WO R K O F S T. P I U S X

III ■ T H E N E W L E G I S L AT I O N O F P I U S X

It was St. Pius X, elected Pope in August , who brought the Gre-

gorian restoration movement to its fulfillment. We will see the assis-

tance provided to Pius X by Father de Santi, with regard to both the

wording of the motu proprio of November , , and that of April ,

, and the establishment of the Vatican Commission responsible for

reforming the liturgical books of Gregorian chant. Yet, although the

honor for this restoration is justly due to this great Pope, it is equally just to point out those who promoted that movement.139

. The Initial Thought of Pius X

On August , , Cardinal Sarto was elected Pope. Msgr. Carlo

Respighi and Father de Santi immediately shared their joy and their

hopes with Dom Mocquereau.

As early as August , Msgr. Respighi obtained a blessing for the

Rassegna Gregoriana and a word of encouragement in favor of musical reform in general. But in the view of Father de Santi, who was then

away from Rome, Msgr. Respighi had lost the opportunity to obtain an

immediate public declaration in favor of traditional Gregorian chant

(Father de Santi, September , ).

It was on September , during an audience, that Msgr. Respighi

sought a blessing for those who were involved in the cause of Gregorian

chant and spoke to the Pope of his friends from Solesmes and of Dom

Pothier. In addition to the text of the Brief Nos quidem of Leo XIII to

. The letters of Msgr. Respighi and Father de Santi are addressed to Dom Mocquereau unless otherwise indicated.

219

220 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

Dom Delatte, he gave the Pope the Memorandum of the Abbot of

Solesmes to Leo XIII on the work of the Paléographie Musicale, a memorandum with which Pius X was unfamiliar. In this regard, the Pope ex-

pressed his desire to see published the chant manuscripts of the church-

es of Italy.

On September , , immediately after this audience, Msgr.

Respighi wrote to Dom Mocquereau:

I have just this moment returned from the audience that His Holiness Pius IX [ sic] consented to grant to me. I have not written to you earlier about our new Pope, nor about the matter of the manuscripts sent to the Rassegna, because nothing truly significant is contained in them about Gregorian chant.

Given the situation in Rome, it was timely to obtain immediately a word from His Holiness on the subject of musical reform; I was waiting for the right moment to speak with His Holiness in person about Gregorian chant, and the audience this evening focused on this topic alone.

His Holiness was very agreeable and we spoke of this important subject for about a half an hour. Before all else, I asked for a blessing on those who are interested in Gregorian chant, and I added, by name, for the monks of Solesmes, for the Very Reverend Abbot Delatte, the Very Reverend Abbot Dom Pothier, Dom Mocquereau, Dom Cabrol, Dom Cagin, Leclerc, etc. His Holiness, with a great deal of consideration, told me to pass along [this blessing] to their Reverences.

Still speaking of Gregorian chant and the work at Solesmes, His Holiness talked about conservation of the manuscripts in the churches of Italy, of the usefulness of publishing them, etc. I took the liberty of offering His Holiness a copy, which had been given to me, of the Memorandum presented by the Very Reverend Father Abbot to Leo XIII, a memorandum with which His Holiness

was unfamiliar, and which he accepted with great interest. Then we spoke of the Brief Nos quidem, a copy of which I also left with him, although His Holiness was already thoroughly familiar with it.

It was especially pleasant for me, on the first occasion I had to speak quietly with His Holiness, to remind him of the monks of Solesmes and to make myself, as it were, the interpreter of their feelings with respect to His Holiness. He is certainly a good friend of our cause. Long live Pius X.

The Pope was even more explicit with Father de Santi in his audience

on September : Pius X did not want there to be any monopoly on the

part of any publisher, which would mean a return to the same difficul-

ties as in the past. He did want the major Churches that had preserved

their manuscripts to restore their ancient melodies. Although those

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 221

melodies, said the Pope, may differ a little from each other from church to church, they still present the traditional chant substantially the same everywhere (Father de Santi, October ).

Pius X repeated these very clear statements to the publisher Pustet of

Ratisbon on October . Once again, the Pope said that he did not want

to favor any one publisher over another, and he invited Pustet to publish the melodies drawn from the German manuscripts. Later he advisedly

added that Leo XIII had opened a new path in this area, in his Brief Nos quidem to the Abbot of Solesmes, a point that he repeated once again in December to Cardinal Fischer, for the benefit of the Cäcilien-Verein association, and to Msgr. Lans, president of the Dutch Society of St. Grego-

ry the Great.140 Traditional Gregorian chant, in fact, possesses truth and art, two qualities that are indispensable for sacred chant: therefore, it is this chant that must be restored. Thus, on that same day, October ,

the Pope congratulated Count Lefebvre, an associate of the publisher

Desclée, on his cooperation with Solesmes. Here is a translation of the

letter from Father de Santi to Dom Mocquereau on October , ,

which relates these facts [the full text appears in Appendix IV].

We have also been told that the publication of the Liber Usualis has now been completed. God be praised that, finally, we have been able to overcome the difficulties regarding the books, and that we will be able to satisfy so many friends who are asking for them. We also hope that Desclée will deliver them long before Christmas .l.l.

The way things stand, and thus the future, are now clear. Since the Pope knows this issue and judges it for himself, he will reveal his thinking himself, without having others suggesting it to him. At the audience I had with him on September , the Holy Father told Msgr. Respighi and me that he does not want a monopoly on liturgical books to pass to another. It was his opinion that the principal Churches, which have good manuscripts, should publish them in manual editions, thereby reviving the ancient melodies everywhere. He said

. Cf. F. Romita, Jus Musicae Liturgicae, pp.  and ;—cf. Rassegna Gregoriana, col.  and

.—The Pope expressed his desire that the Cäcilien-Verein association submit joyfully to the instructions that the Holy See was about to give with regard to religious music. The same exhortation was made to J. A. Lans, president of the Cecilian Association of Holland. That association did not make public the letter that the Pope sent to it until several months after it was sent. Msgr.

Haberl published the letter sent to Cardinal Fischer, Archbishop of Cologne, immediately, but without any commentary. Rather, in a circular letter, Haberl decried the banning of the Medicean edition. Finally, he edified everyone through his obedience to the instructions of the Holy See (E. Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra , p. ).

222 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

that they would differ slightly from each other in some small parts of the melody, but after all, we would then have the traditional chant in each country.

Last Sunday, the Holy Father received Count Lefebvre and congratulated

him; he is pleased with the chant editions that he prepared with the assistance of Your Reverence and the Benedictine Fathers. He added that it would be a good idea to publish the choir books in folio editions, as well, because, he said, these folio books are used in many cathedral or collegial churches, and because the canons would be grudging in their adjustment to the manual editions.

The same day the Holy Father also received Mr. Pustet of Ratisbon. The

statement of His Holiness was very clear. He declared that he had no preferences for anyone, and any publisher would be equally favored by him. But he added: “In the Gregorian chant the Holy Father Pope Leo XIII has opened a new horizon, has traced a new path, and this is the road that should be maintained. In the chant of the Church, we must search out truth and art. These two qualities are found only in the ancient traditional chant, and this chant must now be restored. Then he urged Pustet to publish books of traditional chant himself, taking the melodies, if he so pleased, from the manuscripts of Churches of Germany.

I heard these things that very evening from Msgr. Bressan, and they were in keeping with the information we had received about that audience from others. If the Pope’s advice is followed, competition among publishers will not be far behind.l.l.l.

Shortly after the audience granted to Father de Santi, the Pope even

told the Archbishop of Westminster that he wished to see the Benedic-

tine editions adopted everywhere. The archbishop told the Rector of

the Seminary of Wonersh:

I have seen the Holy Father on the subject of the Cathedral of Westminster, and he said to me that he was happy to know that the chant of Solesmes had been adopted there, and that he wished to see it adopted universally, and that it will no longer be necessary to hold to the Ratisbon edition. I believe that you would do well yourselves to prepare to change to the books of Solesmes. It is clearly the desire of the Holy Father that all do it. (From the copy of Dom Gatard, November , )141

Father de Santi’s statement in the Rassegna Gregoriana, therefore, seems a bit exaggerated:

. The Wonersh Seminary adopted the Solesmes books at Christmas,  ( Revue du Chant Grégorien , p. ).

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 223

(Haberl) has informed us that the Holy Father invited Mr. Pustet, the pontifical typographer, to prepare an edition of the Gregorian chant himself in conformity with the manuscripts, and he has told us that he is persuaded that the Holy Father now personally prefers the Solesmes edition. We believe that we can state with great reassurance that this second piece of information is not quite accurate. The Holy Father is above any question of publishers or editions. He wishes, and we can now say this openly, he desires the traditional chant of the Church to be restored, independently of any particular edition.142

. Preparation of the Motu Proprio of November , 

In November , Father de Santi was deeply involved in prepara-

tion of the pontifical document that was to set the reform of sacred

music in motion. After having received various individuals interested in musical reform in audiences, specifically Father de Santi and Msgr. Carlo Respighi,143 the Pope had given the order, on October , the same

day on which he received Pustet and Count Lefebvre, to prepare the

necessary studies that would serve as the basis for a document on the

subject for the Diocese of Rome:

The order was given to the Cardinal Vicar, Msgr. Pietro Respighi, who left the matter up to his nephew, Msgr. Carlo Respighi. It was at that point that Father de Santi entered the picture, suggesting that the instruction on sacred music contained in the votum of  be used for this purpose, and that it should be turned into a pontifical document affecting the Church as a whole.144

Here is Father de Santi’s account of how it all happened:

In early November, the Cardinal Vicar wanted to publish a circular letter on sacred music, to advocate the observance of the ecclesiastical directives that were already known. When Msgr. Respighi showed me the galley proofs, it was my opinion that something more could be done. I knew of the existence of, and was quite familiar with, the votum that Cardinal Sarto had sent to the Congregation of Sacred Rites in . The Pastoral Letter of  had already come

. Rassegna Gregoriana, December , col. . Emphasis added. See also Father de Santi’s letter of January , cf. infra.

. And others, such as Camille Bellaigue, who recounts the audience granted to him by Pius X upon his elevation to the Sovereign Pontificate ( Pie X et Rome, Librairie Nationale , p.

). . Romita, La preformazione del “motu proprio” di S. Pio X sulla musica sacra (con documenti inediti), Rome , p. .

 . Saint Pius X

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 225

from that votum. Why not base a pontifical motu proprio on it, as well? I made the suggestion to the Holy Father immediately, and he deigned to approve it, and charged me with putting the document together. There was no need to go search out the votum; I had a copy of it in my papers. The work was quickly done: all I needed to do was add the directives concerning Gregorian chant.

(Father de Santi to Dom Mocquereau, January , ; full text in Appendix IV.) In fact, Father de Santi was extremely familiar with the votum submitted by Cardinal Sarto to the Congregation of Sacred Rites in ,

and which had already inspired the Pastoral Letter on sacred music from the patriarch of Venice in . Father de Santi was the one who drafted it, in circumstances we have already discussed, partly with the help of

his friends from Solesmes.145 Nonetheless, the motu proprio uses only one part of the votum of : . Instruction on sacred music, fifteen pages, with an indication of the sources used. It is this last part only that was integrated into the motu proprio as the Instruction that it promulgates for the entire Latin Church. Both documents use the same main headings, subheadings, and text.146 Father de Santi had to update the pontifical document to reflect the intentions that Pius X had just manifested

with regard to Gregorian chant. That is why the motu proprio states: the Gregorian chant that the Church “has jealously preserved for many centuries in its liturgical manuscripts” and that “recent work has so happily restored in its integrity and purity” (i.e. the work by Dom Pothier and

Dom Mocquereau) has always been considered “as the most perfect

model of sacred music”; therefore, it is necessary “that it be restored

widely in the offices of worship.” Nonetheless, the motu proprio does show evidence of the approval of Pius X, and there are corrections

made in his hand.147

Father de Santi also prepared the letter sent by the Pope to the Cardi-

nal Vicar of Rome, the letter that Pius X had initially intended, dated

December , . This letter demanded that the traditional Gregorian

chant be reestablished and studied in Rome itself, from where it would

spread throughout Christianity. This letter again praised “Gregorian

chant restored in such a satisfactory way to its early purity, as it was handed down by the Fathers and is found in the codices of the various

churches.” In his letter of January , , Father de Santi states:

. Cf. Nos.  and , and Appendix III.

. Romita, La preformazione, pp. – gives the text of the votum.

. Romita, p. , note.

226 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

The Letter to the Cardinal Vicar was also drawn up according to ideas suggested by the Pope, and everything was then ready by early December. Publication was delayed because of the Christmas holidays so that the poor choirmasters would not be caught unawares. They could not possibly have responded in

such a short time. I also prepared the draft of the Sacred Rites decree .l.l. and now the Holy Father has it, and I hope that there will not be any impediment to publishing it. (Full text in Appendix IV.)

The decree that Father de Santi mentions was published on January ,

, promulgating the motu proprio for the entire Latin Church, and marking the end of the incorrect, altered, or truncated editions.

. The New Solesmes Edition—A Request of Father de Santi

In Rome, the issue of practical chant books was posed immediately.

This was inevitable. That is why Father de Santi had written to Dom

Mocquereau on November  to complain about delays in publishing

the new Liber Usualis that was then being prepared.148

But there were good reasons to explain, and even justify, the slow-

ness of the work. On December , Dom Mocquereau wrote:

The Liber Usualis has been finished for a long time now. I would like you to let it be known in your circles, and even publicly, that in such a serious undertaking, it is our duty to advance with sure footing. The greater the confidence the Holy Father places in us, the more we must respond by doubling our efforts and our attentiveness in our research.l.l.l. I assure you that we are not wasting a single minute. There are at least twelve of us monks assigned to this work. Transcriptions, photographs, comparative tables, correcting proofs, rubrics, Propers. etc.

Everything is moving ahead at the same time. Father Germain Morin, who visited our work area and saw our organization and method, in order to write an article, did not hide his astonishment and his admiration. But all this takes time, and your good friendship must help us to win over those who are impatient. (See Plate : by way of example, an extract from the comparative tables prepared at Solesmes.)

At the same time, moreover, the Cellarer of Solesmes wrote a letter

to Desclée that gives an excellent picture of how the work was consid-

ered with such detachment:

. Desclée had just published the Paroissien Romain, but Father de Santi was awaiting the Latin edition impatiently. Cf. No. .

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 227

.l.l. It is sufficient for the Holy Father to express his desire to adopt our chant generally for us to modify the old editions completely, and for us to lay out an entirely new program and work load. First, this is not the chant of Solesmes, but Gregorian chant, restored, it is true, by the School of Solesmes, but it is still the chant of the Church, and not our own. It is not a question of monopolizing it, but of spreading it around. It would be shameful to make money with the approval of the Sovereign Pontiff, and to use it to create a commercial monopoly.l.l.l.”

But on December , , on the eve of the publication of the liber-

ating motu proprio, signed on November  and then delayed, as we saw above, to spare choirmasters great confusion at Christmas, Father de

Santi decided to write to the Abbot of Solesmes himself. After announc-

ing, in confidence, the impending publication of the pontifical docu-

ment, which would form a Code of sacred music and would be a very

serious document in support of the return to tradition,149 and also after mentioning the letter to the Cardinal Vicar and the decrees imposing

the reform, he came to the issue of practical books. Where, in fact, can the books we need be found, books that everyone would soon be demanding to replace the editions that would be condemned from then

on? Moreover, the Pope found that the editions of the Liber Usualis from Solesmes were too small. Father de Santi begged Dom Delatte (sup-plichiamo vivamente) to enjoin Dom Mocquereau to produce books in a larger format, like the format of the Liber Gradualis of , and without rhythmic markings, which were invaluable for performance but still too

controversial.

Finally, Father de Santi insisted that Dom Mocquereau must accept

these conditions, otherwise those who did not want to adopt the tradi-

tional Gregorian chant and did not want to change their habits would

be given a reason for obtaining their books in another manner. It was

necessary, he continued, for Solesmes to engage itself on this point, so that he himself could give the Pope the assurance that the various demands could be met, demands that were sure to come for books of the

sort that the Pope desired.

. Dom Mocquereau had already been alerted by Bas, who wrote to him on November :

“We are on the verge of receiving a new document from the Pope regarding liturgical chant, and our cause in particular. I have been assured that this will be a definitive statement” (letter written in French). But it does not seem that Dom Mocquereau paid much attention to it; his focus was entirely on the printing of the new editions at that point.

228 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

In a letter addressed to Dom Mocquereau himself, a few days later

on December , Father de Santi repeated his pressing demand concern-

ing the typical editions, and this at a time when the pontifical document had been published:

The Holy Father complained to Haberl that the current Solesmes editions are too small in terms of the notes and the text. We implore the Fathers of

Solesmes, and I have already written about this matter to the Abbot, to get to work immediately on typical editions of Gregorian chant, in the manner of the Liber Gradualis, without dots and without rhythmic indications.

Here is a translation of the letter from Father de Santi to Dom Delat-

te, dated December ,  (full text in Appendix IV):

Most Reverend Father,

Please accept my wishes for the approaching Christmas feast. I write to

bring you some news which doubtless will be most consoling to yourself and all your monks. Truth to tell, this news is not yet to be made public, but I trust myself to your discretion, since public documents will not confirm it.

During the Christmas holidays, the Holy Father will publish a solemn motu proprio on the restoration of sacred music. In it is taken, at last, the final step in favor of Gregorian chant according to the manuscripts, which is expressed each time the chant is mentioned. This motu proprio is given the force of law, as to a juridical code of sacred music, which is why the affirmations made regarding Gregorian chant take on an extraordinary significance.

The Holy Father communicates the new document with a very beautiful

letter to the Cardinal Vicar of Rome in which he enjoins in paternal yet strong terms the observance of his regulations in all the churches and basilicas of Rome. The conclusion is directed to the colleges and seminaries of Rome, and praises Gregorian chant splendidly, recalling its happy restoration through the labors of illustrious personages who have served the cause of sacred art long and well. At the end, he imposes upon all the institutions at Rome the study of traditional Gregorian chant, expressing a desire that just as in the past this chant had been spread from Rome throughout the Church, so too the young

students educated in the seminaries and colleges of Rome might in their turn go back from Rome to their dioceses. As you see, Father Abbot, the change is total and profound, the return to tradition solemnly affirmed by the Supreme Pontiff in a most weighty document. The formal revocation of the decrees of the Congregation of Rites is a self-evident conclusion and we have requested the Holy Father to add such a declaration to the documents; all the more because in order to avoid an avalanche of requests to the Sacred Congregation it seems necessary to state that the Ratisbon editions can be maintained, in those THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 229

places where they are being used donec quam primum fieri poterit— until the earliest possible moment that the traditional chant replaces them.

However, I cannot deny to you that the question of the books is exceedingly important. If a cathedral or collegiate church wishes to introduce the traditional chant, where does one find the texts? The small books we have at present are completely unsatisfactory for great churches, although most useful for seminaries and colleges. In addition the Holy Father complained to Dr. Haberl that these books are rather poorly printed in type which is too small, and he advised Herr Pustet to print the chant in larger type. We earnestly beg you, Father Abbot, to restrain the efforts of the excellent Dom Mocquereau and to order that work be started at once on larger books with larger type, as the Liber Gradualis was originally. The rhythmic signs are certainly excellent for instructional purposes, but since they also present at the very least an occasion for doubt, we earnestly entreat you and beg that for now, in the typical edition of the chant books, such signs be omitted. Otherwise you will never obtain ecclesiastical approval and indeed will furnish a reason for taking other measures if the monks of Solesmes do not agree. It is absolutely necessary that we receive this promise from Solesmes in order thus to assure the Holy Father that we shall have as soon as possible the typical edition of the chant books as he desires them, and in order to reply to the requests which the various dioceses might make as to which books they should buy. I entreat you with the greatest insistence that in the decisions which are taken regarding the chant, you hear also the view of Rome and not leave us in the lurch, ignorant of your undertakings. You will pardon the liberty we are taking, but believe that nothing else motivates us except the desire to see the triumph of a cause for which so much has been endured.

Unfortunately, we do not have a verbatim copy of the response sent

by Dom Delatte, but the contents of his response can be established on

the basis of other letters from Solesmes.

On the one hand, Dom Noetinger, Cellarer of Solesmes, confirms

that Dom Delatte responded in the sense indicated by Father de Santi: a

medium-size format for the edition, as the Pope desired, and an edition

without the rhythmic indications, in conformity with the wishes of Fa-

ther de Santi (letter of December ,  to Mr. Desclée); at the same

time, Dom Noetinger announces that the Antiphonal was far along, and that most of the work on the Gradual had already been completed, editions that included all the chants of the Office and of the Mass (not just those of Sundays and feasts):

230 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

We are preparing large-format editions as the Holy Father wishes, and editions without the rhythmic indications, to please Father de Santi. Work will have to be organized at Tournai to ensure that the Antiphonal and the Gradual do not languish. Here, work on the first of them is far along, and work on the second will not be long.l.l.l. The Abbot responded to Father de Santi in the terms indicated above.l.l.l.

On the other hand, Dom Delatte himself, following Dom Moc-

quereau, pointed out that the preparation of this edition would take

effort and time. In late December, he wrote:

The movement is so sudden that the definitive editions will not be able to be completed at once. From a private undertaking, our work has become a work of the Church. And, while we pursue our work with a critical eye and maturity, we are being hounded and pressed.l.l.l. I just wrote two letters to two great pontiffs of the Centenary [no doubt Msgr. Carlo Respighi and Father de Santi]

urging them to be patient, pointing out to them how unwise it would be to provide the universal Church with an ill-conceived work under the title traditional chant, a work whose inconsistency with the manuscripts would easily be discerned by the critics.150

As soon as he heard Dom Delatte’s response, Father de Santi in-

formed the Pope immediately, and just as promptly, he expressed his joy

and confidence to Dom Mocquereau:

The one thing that worried all of us was the matter of the books. It is undeniable that books with dots alone are not enough, and at a time of such radical change it seemed absolutely necessary to avoid any discussion of uncertain or doubtful points. But we trust the monks of Solesmes and we have given assurance of it to the Holy Father as well, and for now we are satisfied with the statements of Father Abbot. And so the twelve monks working on the books should set to work and give us as quickly as possible the books of medium size, without rhythmic signs. For my part, I recommend as strongly as possible the Gregorian edition with dots, because I believe it most useful in seminaries etc. I only have a few reservations about certain subdivisions which in my view could also be indicated in some other fashion, except of course where it is clear that the manuscripts have it that way, or that mutual comparison of the different melodies requires it. (Father de Santi, January , . Full text in Appendix IV.) It is clear from the facts we have just presented that Father de Santi

was counting on Solesmes to realize in practice the reform that the

. Letter quoted by Dom A. Savaton, Dom Paul Delatte, Abbé de Solesmes, Plon , p. .

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 231

motu proprio, which had not yet been published, would promulgate. His urgency in turning to Solesmes, and directly to Dom Delatte,—and his

insistence that the books should appear as Pius X, and he himself, want-

ed them—and his promptness in keeping the Pope up to date on the

steps he was taking are adequate proof of this.

Moreover, a few days later he made the following statement in Civiltà Cattolica:

The Holy Father did not designate any particular edition of traditional Gregorian chant, and some have deduced from this that before the traditional chant is introduced, we must wait for a new, official edition to be approved by the supreme authority; we believe that we can state that such an edition is out of the question, at least for now, and that it is probable that no such edition will ever appear. In the meanwhile, we have the Benedictine edition, already praised and approved by Leo XIII in the Brief Nos quidem, and which fulfills the intentions of the motu proprio rather well. If, subsequently, others should be able to provide editions of equal or greater value, those editions will be most welcome.151

Nevertheless, although the Pope was kept up to date on Father de

Santi’s exchanges of letters with Solesmes, this was not an official, or even unofficial, measure,152 but rather a completely personal approach

by Father de Santi to Dom Delatte. Moreover, we must conclude that

by typical edition, Father de Santi understood not an official edition, but one that would give the last word from Solesmes regarding the restoration of the melodies, and that would prevail over the other editions, giv-en its scientific value and its adoption in Rome itself. Msgr. Moneta-

Caglio thus writes quite correctly:

Father de Santi did not understand this as an official edition, but he wanted a work that would be the definitive word of Solesmes regarding the Gregorian reconstruction, and which could be taken as the most authorized expression of that School. According to his predictions, this edition should ultimately have prevailed over all the other editions solely on account of its internal virtues and of the fact that it would be adopted in Rome as a sort of textus receptus.l.l.l.—

. I nuovi documenti pontifici sulla restaurazione della musica sacra, in Civiltà Cattolica , January, vol. , pp. –, note on page  (unsigned article).

. Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra, , pp. –. The author arrives at this conclusion on the basis of other texts by Father de Santi which appeared in the Rassegna Gregoriana, December

, col.  (quoted above); February , col. ; March , col. , and May–June , col.

.—In an article in the Revue Grégorienne (, p. ), we spoke of an unofficial measure, for the reasons outlined above, but we concur with the view of Msgr. Moneta-Caglio.

232 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

The tactic adopted was, therefore, to put off the notion of a Vatican edition and to let things evolve on their own, favoring in the meantime the Benedictine edition, which was the one that enjoyed the right of priority— melior est conditio possidentis—and that belonged canonically to the monastery of Solesmes. If it was the true traditional chant that people wanted, they would necessarily have to end up there.153

We have already seen that Father de Santi did not accept the rhyth-

mic theory of Dom Mocquereau. And that is why he was asking

Solesmes to prepare editions without the rhythmic indications, which

he could offer to the various churches that would ask for it in order to implement the motu proprio. Nonetheless, as we have also seen, he thought that these rhythmic indications were quite useful in practice.

Thus he wanted the chant fascicle that was planned for the celebrations

of the Centenary of the death of St. Gregory the Great to appear in a

double edition: one without rhythmic indications, and another one

with the rhythmic indications for use by the singers (Father de Santi,

December , ). As for the melodic improvements that Dom Moc-

quereau was introducing in the Liber Usualis, and which were not to Father de Santi’s liking initially, because, in his view, they could do harm to the unity of the chant at a moment that was particularly critical, they no longer drew any objection, and in fact, the fascicle for the feasts of St. Gregory the Great (Office and Mass) drew all its melodies from the

new Liber Usualis. 154

. Publication of the Motu Proprio

The motu proprio on sacred music appeared in the closing days of December , for the reasons already outlined above. A Circular Letter from the Cardinal Vicar, dated December , announced the pontifical

documents to the various interested parties in the Diocese of Rome. At

the same time, it announced that the Roman Commission on Sacred

Music, established in , was charged with overseeing the implemen-

tation of the new discipline. There followed the names of the members

of the Commission: Perosi, Capocci, Mancini, Kanzler, Parisotti, Rella,

. Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra, , pp.  and .

. Cf. No. .

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 233

and Mattoni. Finally, it was noted that Perosi and Rella were specifically responsible for Gregorian chant in the seminaries, colleges, and ecclesiastical institutes of Rome.155

Father de Santi, who had just told the Abbot of Solesmes about the

pontifical document in confidence, immediately wrote to Dom Moc-

quereau. At the same time, he told Dom Mocquereau of his attempt to

introduce the name of Solesmes into the pontifical document:

At present the pontifical documents will bring some joy to the bitter exile of the good Fathers of Solesmes. Worthily and much sooner than one could have reasonably expected, the Lord has crowned your learned labors. And all of us congratulate you from the very depths of our heart. An explicit mention of Solesmes or at least of the Benedictine order may perhaps have been desirable.

We had made that request to the Holy Father, since he had deigned to entrust the revision of the document to a few of us who therefore met together with Father Janssens on the Aventine. But His Holiness replied that it was not needful, that there would be no dearth of opportunity for him to show his pleasure at the work of the Benedictines, but that in documents of this type it was necessary to avoid any personal reference, also in order that there would not be the slightest chance of claiming that the Pope showed any preference for particular publishers. Perhaps it will be good to have Rev. Father Abbot write a letter of thanks to the Holy Father in his name and on behalf of the monks. (Letter of December ,  to Dom Mocquereau. Full text in Appendix IV.)

Father de Santi presented the motu proprio in Civiltà Cattolica in January .156 He dwelt on a few points in particular: the earlier Venice Letter of Cardinal Sarto ();—the importance of the pontifical document that was without precedent, and was presented as a Legal code of sacred music, an initial application of Pius X’s program instaurare omnia in Christo; —the part relating to Gregorian chant defined as the chant proper to the Roman Church, possessing to the highest degree the qualities of sacred music, of which it is considered the perfect model, and

which must serve as a rule for judging other compositions permitted in

divine worship. This chant, Father de Santi continued, has just been re-

stored to the state in which it is found in the manuscripts, thanks to the work of Dom Pothier and Dom Mocquereau in the Paléographie Musicale. Father de Santi then quickly retraced the history of the Medicean

. Cf. Rassegna Gregoriana , col. –.

. (De Santi), I nuovi documenti, pp. – (unsigned). Text of the Motu Proprio in Romita, pp. ff.

234 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

edition, whose enormities and errors had been indicated through the

recent work of Solesmes.

Finally, we must point out that the decree of January , , pre-

pared by Father de Santi and Msgr. Carlo Respighi157 to promulgate the

motu proprio throughout the Latin Church and to condemn the use of incorrect editions, caused some commotion in the Ratisbon camp and,

of course, in Germany particularly. The prospect of the eventual adop-

tion of an edition printed in France or in Belgium roused their fears,

and Msgr. Haberl immediately began to campaign in favor of a new

official edition. As early as January , , he wrote, in fact, a Circular to all the presidents of the diocesan Caecilian Societies, “asking that it be considered opportune to take steps in Rome in favor of soliciting an

official edition.”158

. Dom Pothier’s Project

The situation changed when Dom Pothier intervened, and we must

note immediately that Dom Pothier was quite unaware of the steps that

Father de Santi was taking with Solesmes.

Dom Lucien David, a monk of Saint-Wandrille who was then a stu-

dent at St. Anselm, the Benedictine college in Rome, wrote to Father de

Santi in early January , asking him for an interview, unbeknownst to the Abbot-Primate and the Rector of St. Anselm—who, as we will soon

see, had their own plans for a Gregorian edition ( Journal of Dom Noetinger, Cellarer of Solesmes, December , ).159 At that first

meeting, which took place on January , Dom David merely sounded

out the terrain with regard to the possibility of making a Gregorian edition in Rome, and Father de Santi shared with him his objections con-

cerning the last edition of Solesmes, the Liber Usualis with the rhythmic indications ( Journal of Father de Santi, published in Appendix IV, January , ).

A few days later, on January , Pécoul, the adversary of Solesmes

whom we already encountered in  during the first project of

Poussielgue (see supra, No. ), wrote to Father de Santi suggesting that

. Cf. Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra , p. , note .

. Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra , p. .

. This is a note made following a conversation with Father de Santi in December .

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 235

he should prepare a typical edition, printed at the Vatican Polyglot

Press, which publishers would have to reproduce. Then he suggested

that Solesmes not be informed, and announced the arrival in Rome of

Dom Pothier (Pécoul, January , ).

Dom Pothier first sent a letter to the Pope. Seizing the occasion of

his gift to the Pope of his Cantus Mariales, 160 Dom Pothier placed himself at the Pope’s disposal for any purpose the Pope should see fit. That much is clear from the response of Pius X, in the form of a Brief 161 dated February , , a response which contains, in fact, nothing but a

general acceptance of Dom Pothier’s offer of service. Father de Santi

was informed of Dom Pothier’s letter by the Pope himself, at his audi-

ence of January , during which the matter of Dom Delatte’s letter of

December  and of musical reform was raised once again. In his Journal on January , Father de Santi refers, in fact, either to the response of Dom Delatte to his letter of December  or to the letter that he had

asked Dom Delatte to send to the Pope, following the publication of

the motu proprio of November .

Instructed by the events of , Father de Santi understood immedi-

ately what was going to happen. He wrote the following note on Febru-

ary : “Dom Pothier will come to Rome to create an edition opposed to

the Solesmes edition.” The next day, on February , Dom David con-

firmed to Father de Santi that Dom Pothier would soon arrive in Rome,

and told him of Dom Pothier’s plan to create the edition himself (Fa-

ther de Santi Journal, February ).

Why this opposition from Dom Pothier? We have seen that he was

opposed to establishing the Paléographie Musicale, and the reasons for his stance (cf. No. , above). In , several years after his departure from Solesmes for Ligugé and Saint-Wandrille, he had reached an agreement

with Poussielgue, during the first project for a Vatican edition, and had pressed claims to his alleged rights to the Solesmes chant editions (cf.

No. , above). Suffice to it say, once again, that according to monastic

. Offices of the Revue du Chant Grégorien, Grenoble.

. The Brief is found in Revue du Chant Grégorien , p. , and in Rassegna Gregoriana

, col. .—The passage to which we allude here is as follows: “As for the assurance that you give us that you will always provide, in support of this cause, the assistance of your activities, we accept this good disposition with paternal eagerness .l.l.” The author of the commentary in the Revue du Chant Grégorien (Professor Amédée Gastoué) is wrong, therefore, in saying that Dom Pothier was called to Rome in February .

236 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

legislation, and as long as Dom Pothier was at Solesmes, the fruits of

his work belonged rightly to his monastery of profession, which, more-

over, had taken the initiative in the Gregorian restoration, and was paying all the expenses for it. In these circumstances, Dom Pothier seems

indeed to have been advised by Pécoul, who was no friend of Solesmes,

and it was because of Pécoul that the  project failed. Dom Pothier,

still being advised by Pécoul (see the letter in note ), continued to have the same attitude with respect to Solesmes in spring , as we

shall see. But it does not seem possible that Dom Mocquereau’s theory

of rhythm could, by itself, explain this attitude on the part of the Abbot of Saint-Wandrille, as has too often been asserted. Besides, as we shall see, Dom Mocquereau never dreamed of imposing his rhythmic indications on the Vatican Edition: the discussions and differences of opinion within the Vatican Commission related only to the melodic restitution of Gregorian chant. In any event, it was long before the publication of volume VII of the Paléographie Musicale (), in which Dom Mocquereau first presented his rhythmic principles, and the publication of the Liber Usualis (), that Dom Pothier had become detached from his

monastery of profession. His opposition does seem to stem from a

number of concerns that have nothing to do with music, but are strictly

monastic in nature (cf. Dom A. Savaton, Dom Paul Delatte, Plon , pp.

–).

The day after his arrival in Rome, Dom Pothier went to visit Father

de Santi, on February , and in fact suggested preparing a Vatican edi-

tion under his own direction (de Santi Journal, February ). Dom Pothier was accompanied by a representative of Poussielgue, and there was

a discussion of Poussielgue’s project that had failed in , but which could be revived with the assistance of the Vatican press, with the

Poussielgue company “having either to take on responsibility for every-

thing, or provide photographs for the Vatican press” ( Journal of Dom Noetinger, December , ). Father de Santi imposed one condition:

Nothing could be done without Solesmes, and the Abbey’s copyright

would be respected.

A report by Father de Santi in  at the request of Dom Moc-

quereau confirms this information, and provides other interesting infor-

mation, as well.

The letter, dated November , , presents the situation as it

stood in February  (we provide the reference to the Journal of FaTHE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 237

ther de Santi along with the letter, the full text of which appears in Appendix IV):

.l.l. Regarding the events of  there is not much to say beyond that which I have already indicated. Dom Pothier came to Rome without being invited by anyone, but on his own initiative with the intention of proposing to the Holy See an edition under the auspices of the Pope, to appear, if desired, at the expense of the Poussielgue firm at Rome or at Paris, as desired, with the understanding that Poussielgue would publish the edition first, and later other publishers would be permitted to reproduce it. Therefore he came accompanied by an agent of that company. Basically, they wanted to repeat the proposals already made by Védie in . I laid down the explicit condition that the Benedictines of Solesmes would have to take part in the editorial work, and Dom Pothier agreed. Furthermore, I discouraged presentation of the proposal to the Holy Father before knowing Signor Scotti’s opinion on it. It seemed to me that by eliminating the difficulties which could have arisen on the part of subordinates, one might more certainly achieve one’s purpose. And so I spoke with Signor Scotti and he excluded most definitely any interference of Poussielgue, saying that he was ready to publish the edition himself and proposing his plan to separate the publishers from the question of expenses in the manner as it had been done before. (The agent of Poussielgue departed Rome as soon as he learned of Scotti’s decision.) However, he did raise two questions: ownership of the notation and copyright of the melodies [cf. de Santi Journal, February ].

Dom Pothier said it was unnecessary to worry about the first point; as to the second he declared his readiness to turn over to the Holy See all the rights which he might have had to his labors, adding that certain difficulties might perhaps arise with the French Government, which at that time had confiscated the Solesmes editions. He also added that in order to move ahead without hindrance it would be good to have a statement of renunciation from Solesmes as well for that which was their contribution. At that time I wrote to Pécoul to ask the terms in which the property matters stood at Paris. I had had no connection with Pécoul at all, but after the publication of the Motu proprio on sacred music he had written me a letter of congratulation, and Dom Pothier told me that he was able to do a great deal to prevent government interference with an edition which one might wish to publish at Rome. I pointed out that Dom

Pothier, although he had advised also contacting Solesmes for the transfer of their property rights, he did not however put the matter as absolutely necessary, at least for the greater part of the work already done. Matters having been settled thus, on the evening of Monday, February , I reported on all of this to the Holy Father, formally proposing the preparation of a Vatican edition with the cooperation of Dom Pothier and the Benedictines of Solesmes. The Holy Father welcomed the proposal with great pleasure and lavishly praised the plan 238 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

of Scotti regarding expenses [cf. de Santi Journal, February  and , and April

]. In the meantime Pécoul began to bombard me with letters, which re-

mained unanswered. Dom Pothier presented a written declaration transferring to the Holy See all his literary rights and on the evening of March , Scotti came to me to say that the Holy Father had ordered that a letter be written to the Benedictines of Solesmes inviting them also to transfer their portion of the copyrights, and to collaborate in the edition [cf. de Santi Journal, March , , and ]. Dom Pothier came to Rome with another monk of his abbey whose

name I do not recall. I do remember that he and Dom David spoke to me continually of honoraria which one would have to pay, and of percentages on the edition, be they in compensation for Dom Pothier’s work, or to assist the catastrophic financial state of the abbey. Scotti’s proposal to publish the edition in a way that would not cost the Holy See a penny was not at all to their liking. I spoke of this with the Holy Father, and the Holy Father told me that he could not pay anything, but if it were necessary, that he would gladly meet the expenses which Dom Pothier had to incur because of his stay at Rome. I think that the original idea of Dom Pothier was to strike a bargain with Poussielgue, putting the Holy See in the middle in order to avoid upsetting Solesmes. But the scheme failed in part.161bis As far as the guidelines for producing the edition were concerned, it was originally proposed to make a good edition based on the earlier one. But when the monks of Solesmes demonstrated that the copyright was theirs and the Holy Father recognized the need to give them some compensation of honor in return for the transfer of rights by officially declaring them editors of the Vatican Edition, we thought in terms of a criterion more strictly scientific, such as had been proposed in the Motu proprio. [We will return to this last sentence later.]

. Initial Decisions

On February , Father de Santi submitted the proposal for a Vatican

edition to the Pope, to be done with the cooperation of Dom Pothier

and the Benedictines of Solesmes. No mention was made of forming a

special commission responsible for revising the musical text. However,

on March , the Pope confirmed the authority of the Commission for

the revision of the chant books of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, by

naming new members, specifically Dom Pothier, Dom Janssens, Father

de Santi, Msgr. Carlo Respighi, and Baron Kanzler. This was the Liturgi-

bis. Cf. the letter from Pécoul cited in note .

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 239

cal Commission established in  by Cardinal Ferratta (cf. supra, No.

), which was different from the Roman Commission for Sacred Mu-

sic, which was diocesan and not attached to the Congregation of Sacred

Rites.162 At the time, Father de Santi adds, the only intent was to “produce a good edition based on the earlier ones.”

The Pope was very pleased with the proposal submitted to him by

Father de Santi (de Santi Journal, February ). So was Father de Santi, certainly, for both he and Msgr. Respighi had abandoned the  project with great regret. In November , once again Mr. Desclée sent

word of this to Dom Mocquereau. He wrote,

In Rome, Father de Santi does not appear to have completely abandoned Poussielgue’s initial idea, i.e. to have the new editions prepared in Rome itself, by a committee working on the information from Solesmes. (November , )163

Msgr. Moneta-Caglio has published a reflection by Father de Santi that

leaves absolutely no doubt on this point. In fact, Father de Santi wrote to Msgr. Respighi on August , , immediately after the arrival of Pius X, an arrival that wakened his hopes: “Then, when all of us will be in

Rome, we must attempt to abolish the decrees and, if possible, to print

the melodies at the Vatican.” The intervention of Dom Pothier, there-

fore, provided an opportunity for Father de Santi to return to this plan.

. An Invitation for Solesmes

Father de Santi wrote to Dom Mocquereau on February . Without

mentioning Dom Pothier, Poussielgue, or the audience of February ,

he merely implied that the Holy See was preparing to reach a decision

about the Gregorian editions. The Pope had given the order to inform

. Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra, , p. , cites the Journal of Father de Santi: “March . I received the decree appointing me to the Commission for the revision of the Gregorian books.

From the phrasing they use and from the notice in the Osservatore Romano, it does not seem that the old Commission has been suppressed.”—Here is the note from the Osservatore Romano, on March : “The Holy Father has graciously deigned to order, by letter of the Secretary of State, that the following persons shall also be members of the Commission for the revision of the books of choral chant, which is assigned to the Congregation of Sacred Rites: Dom Joseph Pothier, O.S.B., Abbot, Dom Laurent Janssens O.S.B., Rector of St. Anselm’s College, Father Angelo de Santi, S.J., Msgr. Carlo Respighi, Choirmaster Father Lorenzo Perosi, and Baron Rudolf Kanzler.” Cf. No. , and Tribune de Saint-Gervais, , pp. –.

. Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra, , p. .

240 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

the representatives of Pustet and of Desclée “not to make any decisions

about future editions of the traditional chant, and to await word from

the Pope.” For the moment, and especially in writing, Father de Santi

did not want to say any more, but in closing his letter, he did hint more clearly that something was in the works, and he insisted that Dom Mocquereau should come to Rome. He wrote:

Several matters of the greatest importance are slowly developing to maturity, and as soon as I am able to say something, I shall not neglect to inform you at once. For the moment my lips are sealed. But everything comes down from

higher up and all will surely turn out satisfactorily. I ask you to keep this information to yourself, even if it be so sibylline. Come to Rome quickly. Maestro Perosi had even given me the news that you had already arived; I called San Anselmo at once and was disappointed. (Full text in Appendix IV)

Dom Mocquereau did not pay much attention to Father de Santi’s

sibylline words, for he did not reply until March , to say that he was

hoping the Abbot would not allow him to attend the Congress in honor

of the Thirteenth Centenary of the death of St. Gregory the Great.

Coming immediately after the motu proprio of the previous November

, this Congress was of singular importance, and it was to be expected

that the issue of Gregorian chant and sacred music would be addressed

there. But, as we now know, it was for an entirely different reason that Father de Santi was so ardent in his desire for Dom Mocquereau to

come to Rome. Thus, on March , he renewed his invitation. For his

part, Bas was forceful in his insistence that Dom Mocquereau should

come to Rome where, he said, the situation was grave and the presence

of Solesmes necessary.164

At Appuldurcombe, the first refuge of Solesmes in England, Dom

Delatte immediately understood that it was in the best interest of the

Abbey to be in attendance at the Congress and not to be absent if there

was a question of preparing an edition in Rome itself. Thus he decided

to send Dom Mocquereau and Dom Cagin, the Abbey’s knowledgeable

liturgist, and for practical reasons Dom Noetinger, the Cellarer, whose

presence was rendered all the more essential in that Pustet had just

done some typographic test runs of the Solesmes Liber Gradualis (de Santi, February ).

. Letter of March , ; Father Holly wrote along the same lines on February  and as early as January .

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 241

. Letter from Msgr. Bressan to Dom Delatte

In inviting Dom Mocquereau to Rome, Father de Santi was thus pur-

suing the project of a Gregorian edition. In fact, if this project were really to come to fruition, using the Benedictine editions, one preliminary question had to be settled, namely the copyright held by the Abbey of

Solesmes. This issue had been a stumbling block in , and the matter

was made all the more delicate now since the property of the Abbey

had been confiscated after the departure of the religious into exile. Before all else, therefore, there had to be contact with Solesmes. This was an issue that Scotti, the pontifical publisher, understood immediately

even as he rejected any possible collaboration with Poussielgue (de San-

ti Journal, February , and letter of November , ).

Scotti spoke of the matter directly with the Pope on March , and it

was through Scotti that the Pope charged Father de Santi with prepar-

ing the letter sent to the Abbot of Solesmes. By the next day, March , the letter was ready and Father de Santi submitted it to the Pope. It was sent immediately with the signature of Msgr. Bressan, private secretary

of Pius X (de Santi Journal, March , , and ). The letter arrived at Appuldurcombe after the three monks of Solesmes had already left for

Rome.

Here is a translation of the letter (the full text appears in Appendix

IV):

Right Rev. Father!

His Holiness has arrived at the decision to publish at the Vatican Press the edition of liturgical books containing the chant of the Roman Church. This edition, produced under the auspices of the Holy See, will not have restricted copyright but any publisher will be permitted to reprint it as may please him best. The edition will be limited to the typical books alone, such as the Liber Gradualis, the Liber Antiphonarius, the Pontificale, the Ritual, etc.

At the same time His Holiness has deigned to entrust to the Rt. Rev. Father Joseph Pothier O.S.B. of the Solesmes congregation, presently Abbot of Saint-Wandrille, the honorable task of furnishing the text of the Gregorian melodies and of directing the editorial labors which, prior to being approved by His Holiness, will be diligently examined by persons regarded as more competent in this material, with final revision by the Liturgical Commission for the publication of Gregorian chant books recently established by the same Holy Father.

Rev. Father Pothier, grateful for the honor conferred upon him, has re-

242 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

nounced in favor of the Holy See, by a formal declaration and for the sole purpose of the aforementioned edition, all rights and every copyright which he might have in the melodies copied by him from the ancient manuscripts, or adapted, or newly composed, such as have already been published in the

Solesmes edition.

But the Holy Father in his very special predilection for the illustrious order of St. Benedict, recognizing with deep satisfaction the indefatigable labors performed by Benedictine monks in the restoration of the genuine Gregorian

melodies, in particular by the religious of the above-mentioned abbey of Solesmes, has deigned to order that also in future the editing of the Gregorian liturgical books as well as the composition of any new melodies which may occur in eventual new offices, be always reserved to the Benedictine order and in particular to the monks of Solesmes.

His Holiness does not doubt in the least that you and the monks of your

monastery will only receive with gratitude this act of sovereign benevolence, remembering well how Your Reverence, writing in  to his predecessor Pope Leo XIII of holy memory, placed at the disposition of the Holy See all of your efforts so that they might serve in their way for the greater glory of God and for the good of the Church.

In communicating to Your Reverence these sovereign resolutions, I have the high honor by the express wish of His Holiness, to invite Your Reverence and the monks subject to you to collaborate diligently and skillfully in the work desired, under the guidance and direction of the Rt. Rev. Abbot of Saint-Wandrille and in accord with the norms indicated above, which will in due time be made public by means of a special pontifical act.

I take this occasion to present to you, Father Abbot, my sentiments of most profound esteem and I sign myself as the most humble servant of Your Reverence

Giovanni Bressan

Private Chamberlain to His Holiness

Thus the Pope was asking the monks of Solesmes to work with

Dom Pothier on editing the planned edition, and was inviting them to

transfer the Abbey’s copyright on the chant books used as the basis of

the Vatican Edition to the Holy See. The letter from Msgr. Bressan not-

ed the gesture of Dom Pothier, who had transferred in writing, on

March , the rights he wrongly believed he held for the Solesmes edi-

tions to the Holy See. Along the same lines, the letter recalled that in

, in the memorandum requested by Father de Santi and submitted

to Leo XIII, the Abbot of Solesmes had already placed at the feet of the Sovereign Pontiff all the previous work of the Abbey in this area. The

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 243

wording, you will recall, was suggested by Msgr. Respighi,165 but as

Dom Noetinger writes, “the offer was never accepted and made final”

(cf. de Santi letter of November , , supra, and the Memorandum of Dom Noetinger).

Thus in mid March, although no firm decision had yet been made—

as we shall soon see—the project was nonetheless taking shape with in-

creasing clarity. It is clear from the letter of Msgr. Bressan that the edition would be subject not only to the Liturgical Commission of the

Congregation of Sacred Rites, but also to examination of competent in-

dividuals.

. The Project of the Abbot-Primate

Neither the letter of Father de Santi quoted above nor the letter of

Msgr. Bressan make reference to a proposal of the Right Rev. Father Ab-

bot-Primate of the Benedictine Order.166 Father de Santi was informed

of this proposal by Dom Pothier on his second visit, on February :

Dom Pothier is back. He says that the Abbot-Primate wishes to take the matter of the chant in hand himself, in order to ensure its future ties to the Benedictine Order. With that, Dom Pothier remains bound and the situation changes.

The proposal must be made to the Pope in another manner. ( Journal, February

, in the Appendix)

Dom Hildebrand de Hemptinne did want to handle the planned edi-

tion, as soon as Dom Pothier spoke of it to him (for it seems that his

only knowledge of the project came from Dom Pothier). He believed

that through the mediation of the Benedictine Order, traditional Gre-

gorian chant would spread more easily throughout the entire Church.

Although this plan was quickly dropped, it is nonetheless true that Fa-

ther de Santi first had to take the project into account and speak to the Pope about it. Moreover, as we shall see, the Abbot-Primate was none

too keen on dropping his project.

. Cf. above, No. . Here is the wording: In closing, Holy Father, the sons of Dom Guéranger place at your feet all the scientific and practical work that they have undertaken for the restoration of the liturgical melodies of the Roman Church, the object of their love and veneration, praying Your Holiness to dispose of it as Your Holiness sees fit for the greater glory of God.

. The Abbot-Primate at the time was Dom Hildebrand de Hemptinne, in residence at St.

Anselm College. At his side was Dom Janssens, rector of St. Anselm and a fervent Gregorianist.

244 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

As soon as he learned that Dom Mocquereau had left for Rome, on

March , Dom de Hemptinne wrote to the Abbot of Solesmes from

Maredsous, where he was staying at the time, to inform him of his proj-

ect. Taking advantage of the difference that existed between Dom Poth-

ier and Dom Mocquereau, he wrote:

Very Reverend Father Abbot,

The reform of the liturgical chant undertaken with such ardent zeal by the Sovereign Pontiff now places extraordinary importance on the work in this area begun and brought to a satisfactory conclusion by the Congregation of France.

One might even be tempted to believe, at certain moments, that the rapidity of the change that has been accomplished not only offers all the advantages of a great victory, but also involves all the inconveniences of a conquest that remains to be organized.

Living in Rome, at the very heart of this evolution, I am well aware of the advantages obtained and the dangers to be avoided, and that is why I am writing to Your Reverence, in order to bring you further up to date than you already are on this situation.

Traditional chant has triumphed, and it is beyond dispute that your editions are the ones most in agreement with tradition. That is generally accepted.

The twofold question now posed, quite understandably, is whether the editions are in absolutely perfect agreement with tradition, and whether they will be accepted as official editions.

The Holy Father is, I believe, very devoted to your work, and I have reason to believe that He is taking into consideration the material advantages to which you are entitled on account of this work.

I personally feel great satisfaction, need I say, in seeing that our holy Order is being of use to the Holy Church, and I defend the glory of this work and the material rights won for your Congregation as part of our heritage. In order to succeed in safeguarding these advantages, it seems to me of great importance that the Congregation of France remain united, and that it remain closely united with all the rest of the Order.

The little controversies between Dom Pothier and Solesmes, unfortunately, have leaked out a bit, and they are greatly to be regretted, as I see it. Mr.

Poussielgue has already attempted to turn them to his own advantage, and I would not be the least bit surprised if certain individuals in Rome were viewing them as a means for turning the course of Solesmes into a different direction.

I will not enter into great detail, because the facts that I might present have already been explained to a great or lesser extent, but nevertheless, I believe that there is a general tendency toward diminishing the importance of

Solesmes in the movement of the future. I believe that it is necessary and fair for me to oppose this trend insofar as I am able.

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 245

I took energetic steps before my departure, and Dom Pothier has sent me a letter in which he promises not to transfer to anyone any copyright he may hold for the chant books without prior authorization from his Superiors. I have learned that Dom Mocquereau and another of your monks have left for Rome.

I will see them there at Easter. But until then, they should do whatever is possible to reach an understanding with Dom Pothier.

It seems to me that all Benedictines should come to an understanding about the path to be taken, so that the same editions are introduced in the majority of our monasteries. The Right Rev. Dom Pothier, your monks, Dom Laurent

Janssens, and Dom Hugues Gaisser could form the initial core of a Monastic Commission to which other members could be admitted, such as the Right

Reverend Procurator General of England, Dom Amelli, a representative of the Congregation of Subiaco, etc. Once all were agreed, this Commission would wield considerable influence on the course of things, all the more so in that, being an international body, it would not be exposed to objections from the various nationalities.

Please let me know, Reverend Father, if this project seems good to you. If necessary, you could mention it to your sons in Rome, but I believe that it would be better not to do anything in that regard until my return. The essential thing for now is to do everything possible to ensure a perfect harmony of viewpoints and actions between your representatives and Dom Pothier.

Moreover, I know that those in high places are well aware of the differences of opinion, and that the decision has been made to put an end to those differences. How much more preferable it would be, then, for us to put an end to them ourselves.166bis

Very truly yours, etc.

.l.l. Hildebrand, Abbot-Primate O.S.B.

Abbey of Maredsous, March , Feast of St. Gregory the Great, .

The composition of the Commission envisaged by the Abbot-Pri-

mate would not allay suspicions. The issue clearly was to prepare an

edition intended for the entire Church of the Roman rite, as were the

Solesmes editions (obviously the Benedictine Order uses the Roman

Gradual, and the other books of the monastic Divine Office contain all the chant pieces of the Roman Office, which is shorter).

The Abbot-Primate did not return to Rome until April . The next

day he scheduled a meeting with the envoys of Solesmes for April ,

bis. In this letter, the Abbot-Primate mentions Dom Pothier’s alleged copyright to the Solesmes editions of the chant, and other differences of opinion of a musical or monastic nature. See the discussion of this point in Nos.  and .

246 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

when he spoke with them at length about his project. On April , he

went to pay an extended personal visit to them himself. Soon word

came of the project that he was presenting to the Pope and to the Car-

dinal Secretary of State:

() The editing of the Vatican Edition should be done at St. Anselm, for which purpose the Primate would bring together individuals from the various Benedictine Congregations as he saw fit; () The publishers who wanted to reproduce this edition would have to seek permission to do so from the Abbot-Primate; () In exchange for that permission, the publishers would pay a fee to the Abbot-Primate. The monks of Solesmes would be compensated from these

fees. [Note from Rome.]

Dom de Hemptinne had won over Mr. Desclée of Tournai and his

compatriots to his project. They subsequently advised the monks of

Solesmes to reach an agreement with him. Nonetheless, the project was

most certainly rejected immediately by the Pope, as early as the audi-

ence of February , since we find no trace of it in the letter from Msgr.

Bressan to the Abbot of Solesmes. If the Abbot-Primate did not lose

hope of seeing his point of view triumph, this was no doubt because he

was not kept informed of the negotiations.

. Initial Difficulties

A word must also be said about an exchange of letters that was at the

origin of certain misunderstandings. Solesmes’ agreement to cooperate

unleashed the ill humor of Pécoul,167 whom Father de Santi had con-

sulted on the matter of the copyright of the Solesmes editions. Over the course of March and April, he wrote at least a dozen letters to Father de Santi, impassioned letters to which Father de Santi alluded above, and

which he gave to Dom Mocquereau in December .

In his letters to Father de Santi, Pécoul revealed a large-scale plan

worked out the previous January: to give the Poussielgue publishing

company exclusive rights for the Vatican typical edition for France

(March ); to create a Commission of competent and universally recog-

nized individuals charged with granting or refusing authorization to re-

produce the typical edition (March ); to place this Commission under

. Cf. No. .

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 247

the control of the Secretary of State, and not of the Congregation of

Sacred Rites (March ). Since the Solesmes editions had to be used as

the basis for the planned edition, Pécoul, given his relationship with the Minister of Cults and the Liquidator of the Religious Congregations,

would take responsibility for smoothing over the difficulties that might arise owing to the confiscation of the property of Solesmes [a significant letter from Pécoul168], particularly the Imprimerie Saint-Pierre

(March –, and March ).

In Pécoul’s plans, some ulterior motives concerning Solesmes are

quite obvious: exclusive rights for France, thereby excluding Solesmes

as a publisher; a Commission of competent and universally recognized

individuals .l.l. In addition, Pécoul specified that the Vatican Edition should be reproduced only exclusis aliis [to the exclusion of other editions] (March ), ne varietur [without any variation] (March ). He even threatened to stir up trouble if the editions of Desclée were to be declared typical. In other words, he was recommending that the work of the Abbey of Solesmes be used, while keeping the Abbey on the sidelines (March –).

But Father de Santi remained firm in his resolve to work with

Solesmes, and soon stopped answering such impassioned letters. Final-

ly, as soon as the motu proprio of April  was published, Pécoul wrote him a note full of scorn, as follows:

How is it that pure gold

Has changed into vile lead? (Racine)

Certified accurate: A. Pécoul.

We will come back to Mr. Pécoul; let us merely say at this point that

he was laying the groundwork to welcome Dom Mocquereau to Rome

. He suggested that the Pope separate the works of Dom Pothier from the property of the Congregation of France (March ): “Without the complications caused by the mystics [emphasis added] of Solesmes, everything would be easy: done in due time, the full and complete restitution to Dom Pothier of his copyright with regard to Solesmes, by a direct act of the Pope, would have settled everything. Today, that act would still simplify matters in more than one respect; but there must not be any further delay; the Cardinal Secretary of State would send a letter notifying the Abbot of Solesmes, along with the other decisions of the Holy Father concerning Dom Pothier and Dom Guerrin, his indispensable socius.—On account of all this procrastination, anything that is a work of Solesmes has been confiscated by the Government by virtue of the law on the Congregations, liturgical books just like all the others. I have had several meeting on this matter with the Director of Cults, Mr. Dumay, and the liquidator of the property of the Congregations, Mr. Mé-

nage, even with the attorney in charge of inventorying the property. I have not overlooked any-248 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

in his own special way. Pécoul was stirring up opinion against Dom

Mocquereau, and even went so far as to advise the Superior of the

French Seminary, where Dom Mocquereau had been so warmly wel-

comed in  and in , not to receive him. This explains why Dom

Mocquereau, the choir master of Solesmes, was put off at first when he

arrived at the French Seminary (letters from Rome, April , and from

Father Frey, March ). So, as in , Pécoul’s maneuvering did nothing

to simplify matters; to the contrary, they were the source of many mis-

understandings (cf. note ).

. The Actions of Father de Santi

The monks from Solesmes left a detailed journal of the conversa-

tions in which they engaged during their stay in Rome in March and

April , in the form of letters written every day by one or the other of them, and even by all three at once, on occasion. The object of these conversations was, on the one hand, to settle with Solesmes alone the

matter of the copyright to the Benedictine editions of Gregorian chant,

and, on the other hand, to prepare the motu proprio of April  regarding the Vatican Edition announced by Msgr. Bressan in his letter to the Abbot of Solesmes. The monks from Solesmes also speak, in their journal,

of the Congress of the Centenary of the Death of St. Gregory the

Great.

They visited Father de Santi on March , the day after their arrival in Rome. Father de Santi brought them up to date on everything. Thus,

they learned (since they had already left England when the letters from

Msgr. Bressan and the Abbot-Primate arrived there) that the Holy See

wanted to prepare an edition of Gregorian chant in Rome itself, an edi-

tion based on the previous Benedictine editions. Dom Mocquereau

then showed Father de Santi, using some comparative tables that he had

prepared, in which each melody was represented by some thirty manu-

scripts whose versions matched neume for neume in vertical columns,

that it was necessary to return to the manuscripts if serious work was to thing. I would have been able to come to some arrangement, but I had no authority to strike a deal” [emphasis added]. It is clear from these letters that Father de Santi was still corresponding with Pécoul in early April; on March , Pécoul wrote to ask for a draft that he had sent to Father de Santi: “rules of order aiming to prevent any recurrence of the abuses of the monopoly.”

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 249

be accomplished. Father de Santi noted in his journal that the reasons

advanced by Dom Mocquereau impressed him deeply ( Journal, March

), and that same evening, he wrote to Msgr. Bressan (Dom Cagin,

March ). On March , following another meeting with Dom Moc-

quereau, Father de Santi informed Dom Pothier, who was visiting him,

of the resulting change in the situation ( Journal, March ).

What was this change? Without doubt, Dom Mocquereau’s tables

definitively convinced Father de Santi that there was still room to im-

prove the previous Benedictine editions, particularly the edition of the Liber Gradualis done by Dom Pothier in , in terms of melody—for, as we shall see, the issue of rhythm was not open to discussion. As you

will recall, Father de Santi had criticized Dom Mocquereau for having

introduced melodic variations in the Liber Usualis of  (No. ), then came around to his point of view, but not very enthusiastically (No. , above). Dom Mocquereau’s tables were equally successful in winning

over Don Giovanni Mercati, Perosi, Don Molitor, and especially Wag-

ner (Dom Cagin, March , ,  and ; Dom Noetinger, April ). Wag-

ner was already vehemently opposed to Dom Mocquereau’s system of

rhythm. From this fact, we can conclude that there was no question, for

Dom Mocquereau, of proving the scientific value of his method for

rhythm, but of justifying his melodic restorations.

But there is more. Dom Mocquereau prepared a memorandum for

the Pope on this subject. The memorandum was presented to Father de

Santi, who revised it (Dom Noetinger, March  and ), and the monks

from Solesmes submitted the memorandum to Msgr. Bressan on March

 (Dom Cagin, March , cf. Dom Mocquereau, March , memoranda

of March  and ). Specifically, this memorandum stated:

Therefore, in a process that can be accomplished only with the aid of the manuscripts belonging to all the Churches and to all periods, we must extract from all these chants the true text; we must reconstitute the truly traditional reading through delicate and patient comparison. (March )

The memorandum added that Solesmes would gladly accept verifica-

tion of its work by a Commission.

From that point on, Father de Santi was thinking not just of having

Dom Mocquereau involved in editing the work, but of having him ap-

pointed as the man in charge of the editing process, under the oversight of a Commission. Thus, as of March , Dom Mocquereau noted that it

was to Solesmes alone that the Pope wished to entrust the task of edit-250 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

ing the chant books,—and he added that the Pope did not want to hear anything about the project of the Abbot-Primate (Dom Mocquereau,

March ).

Dom Gajard states that he was told by Dom Mocquereau ( Paléogra-

phie Musicale XIV, p. ) that Father de Santi first thought of appointing him as chairman of the editing Commission, and that Dom Mocquereau allegedly refused that duty in deference to Dom Pothier. We

have not found any trace of this fact in the files available to us, and we think that if Father de Santi did think of placing Dom Mocquereau at

the head of the Commission for a time, it could have taken place only at this point in time, namely when he made up his mind to entrust the editing of the Vatican Edition to Dom Mocquereau. But this was merely a

wish that was quickly dispelled, and by Dom Mocquereau himself, who

immediately realized, as did Father de Santi, that he could not be the

judge of his own work, and that Dom Pothier could not be cast aside.169

The memorandum prepared with Father de Santi’s assistance had

also addressed the delicate matter of copyright to the Benedictine edi-

tions that were to serve as the basis for the Vatican Edition. The issue was addressed again in a memorandum from Dom Noetinger, submitted to the Cardinal Secretary of State on March , in response to the

letter of Msgr. Bressan to the Abbot of Solesmes (Dom Noetinger, let-

ter of March , cf. Dom Cagin, March ). For his part, Dom Delatte

wrote a letter to the Pope “which filled Us with joy” (Brief to Dom De-

latte, May , ).170

On March  as well, Father de Santi read to the monks from

Solesmes the draft of a pontifical document on the Vatican Edition an-

nounced by Msgr. Bressan in his letter to Dom Delatte (Dom Cagin,

March ). This document entrusted editing of the Vatican Edition to

the Congregation of France, specifically to the Abbey of Solesmes; it

specified that the edition would not be made available in the commer-

cial market, but would simply be reserved for publishers, and that any

other edition based on the manuscripts could be approved; finally, the

composition of new offices that are not found in the manuscripts would

be entrusted to the Abbey of Solesmes (Dom Cagin, March  and ).

The very next day, March , Father de Santi submitted the draft to

the Pope (Dom Cagin, March ; Father de Santi Journal, March ) and

. Cf. Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra, , p. .

. Cf. No. .

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 251

told the Solesmes contingent about the audience. Dom Mocquereau

suggested that the document should contain an appeal to the Bishops

and Chapters who have manuscripts, in order to facilitate access to and

reproduction of the manuscripts.

Finally, on March , Father de Santi accompanied Dom Mocquereau

and his companions to the audience with the Pope (de Santi Journal, March ; Dom Cagin, March ). The Pope spoke in Latin, revisiting

the ideas already advanced by Father de Santi: He did not wish to favor

any one publisher;—he wanted Solesmes to be involved in editing the

work, as Father de Santi had suggested to him (if necessary, he said, a

monk could come to Rome for this purpose, a suggestion discarded by

Dom Mocquereau, and by Father de Santi who noted that the task of

the monks of Solesmes was to edit the chant books, which could be

done only at Solesmes where the requisite documentation was found);

—but the Pope still wanted an oversight Commission to be presided

over by Dom Pothier, a commission which, he thought, would be strict-

ly pro forma; —finally, the Congregation of Sacred Rites would not be involved, given prior experience in this area (March ), a solution sug-

gested to Father de Santi by Pécoul (March ).

Dom Noetinger, as Cellarer of the Abbey, asked what exactly the

Pope wanted, and acting as the representative of Dom Delatte,

Noetinger transferred all necessary rights to the Holy See so that the

edition might become a reality170bis (Dom Noetinger, March ).

Nevertheless, the donation of the Abbey of Solesmes could be ac-

complished only in total agreement with the Desclée publishing compa-

ny of Tournai, to which the Abbey, by contract, had leased its rights to the chant editions when the Monastery Press was despoiled. Received

by the Pope on March , Count Lefebvre, an associate of Mr. Desclée,

bis. Here is the precise wording of the deed signed by the three representatives of Solesmes: “Most Holy Father, March : The envoys of the Abbot of Solesmes have come to Rome to express to Your Holiness their devotion to the Holy See and to work in its name in carrying out the intentions of Your Holiness with regard to Gregorian chant. Having been informed that a Vatican edition is to be prepared under the auspices of and on order of Your Holiness, they are pleased to place at Your disposal the effort and work of Solesmes in any manner necessary for completion of this project, under the conditions that have been presented to them. They are hopeful that an accord may soon be reached between the Holy See and Messrs. Desclée and Lefebvre rendering this offer final. They place at the feet of Your Holiness this expression of feelings of profound respect and filial veneration, Holy Father, as the very humble and very obedi-ent sons of Your Holiness.”

252 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

joined in the generous gesture of the Abbot of Solesmes.171 The very

next day, March , the Pope revealed his determination to pursue this

project of an edition of the books of Gregorian chant, after consulta-

tion with the Cardinal Secretary of State. Father de Santi, who was present at the audience, acted as interpreter for Solesmes, and the Pope gave him the file of documents received to date on the matter of the planned

edition (Dom Cagin, March ).

The Chapter of Solesmes ratified the donation of Dom Delatte on

April 171bis (Dom Delatte, April ). But as early as April , Msgr. Bressan had written to the Abbot of Solesmes on behalf of the Pope to thank

him for his eagerness and generosity.172 Here is a translation of that letter (full text in Appendix IV):

Right Rev. Father!

His Holiness was profoundly moved by the piety and filial devotion, by the spirit of disinterestedness and no small sacrifice, as well as by the marvelous promptness with which Your Reverence accepted the invitation of His Holiness to collaborate in the preparation of a Vatican Edition containing the melodies of the Church and intended for the free use of all the churches throughout the world. The Holy Father has consequently ordered me to manifest his august pleasure to you, with the expression of his gratitude, whilst he wholeheartedly imparts to Your Reverence, to the monks of your monastery, and to their

labors, as also to the entire Congregation of France O.S.B. which Your Reverence so excellently governs, the Apostolic blessing. In fulfilling this pleasing and honorable task, kissing your hand I have the honor to repeat that I am

Your Reverence’s most humble servant

Giovanni Bressan

Private Chamberlain to His Holiness

. When they arrived in Rome, the monks from Solesmes learned that the Pope first wanted to entrust publication of the Vatican edition to Desclée, in order to show consideration for the publisher’s interests (Dom Noetinger, March ).

bis. Here is the wording of the minutes of the meeting of April , : “The Sovereign Pontiff having manifested His intention to have a typical edition made at Rome in conformity with the Gregorian traditions, Reverend Father Abbot has suggested to the Convent that the copyrights of Saint-Pierre de Solesmes for the chant books be released into the hands of His Holiness to the extent that this transfer may serve the designs of the Sovereign Pontiff. The votes being unanimous in the affirmative, the meeting was concluded.”

. Msgr. Bressan was similarly instructed to write to the Messrs. Desclée on April . The text of that letter is reprinted in A. Duclos, Sa Sainteté Pie X et la musique religieuse, Desclée , p.

.

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 253

The Abbot of Solesmes added even more to his sacrifice—and truly it

was a sacrifice, particularly at the time it was made, following closely upon the expulsions and at a time when the community of Solesmes had

not yet found a stable place of refuge; the Abbot did not wish to receive any compensation for the involvement asked of Solesmes. On March ,

he congratulated Dom Noetinger on having anticipated his thoughts by

refusing any form of financial assistance (Dom Delatte, March ). Lat-

er, in May, Dom Delatte again stated that he wanted to assume all costs

associated with research in the principal libraries of Europe, for which he was thanked profusely by Father de Santi (May ) and the Vatican

Commission itself in the name of the Pope (cf. infra, No. ).

It was at the audience of March  that Pius X granted Solesmes per-

mission to reproduce the Vatican Edition with the rhythmic indications

already used by Dom Mocquereau in the Liber Usualis of , which Father de Santi did not want to use as the official edition. This concession was not the subject of a written document, but it was tacitly understood, so to speak, in the document given to the Pope by Dom

Noetinger and his companions. In , when attacks against the rhyth-

mic editions became more virulent, Father de Santi, a negotiator pres-

ent at the audiences of March  and March , bore witness to what

had been agreed upon at that time:

I am prepared to swear on the Holy Gospels that it is true that the Benedictines placed this reservation on their donation; that the Holy Father acknowledged as much on two occasions (repetutamente), and that I was instructed by the Holy Father to give assurances on this matter in his name to the monks of Solesmes.

It is understandable, then, that efforts by the opponents of the rhyth-

mic editions to have those editions forbidden by the Holy See always

met with the resistance of Pius X.173

. See the comments of Dom Mocquereau on this matter ( Le décret du  février  de la S.

Congrégation des Rites et les signes rythmiques des Bénédictins de Solesmes, Desclée , pp.  and

).—Cf. F. M. Bauducco, Il Padre Angelo de Santi, s.j., e la questione dei “segni ritmici” dal  al , in Bolletino Ceciliano , pp. –.

Here is the original text by Father de Santi quoted above: “Io sono pronto a giurare sui Santi Vangeli che così è veramente che i Benedettini hanno messo questa riserva alla loro cessione, che il S. Padre l’ha repetutamente riconosciuta ed accettata e che io fui incaricato dal S. Padre di assi-curarne in suo nome i monaci di Solesmes” (February , ).

One often hears that the dissension that arose within the Vatican Commission derived from the rhythmic theory of Dom Mocquereau (for example, the article Solesmes in the dictionary Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Blume); this is not the case for, as we shall see, Dom Moc-254 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

Let us return now to the conclusion of Father de Santi’s letter to

Dom Mocquereau on November , , quoted above (see No. ). In

fact, at that time, Father de Santi did not indicate the initial reason that led him to entrust the editing of the Vatican Edition to Solesmes. In November , he wrote:

As far as the guidelines for producing the edition were concerned, it was originally proposed to make a good edition based on the earlier one. But when the monks of Solesmes demonstrated that the copyright was theirs and the Holy Father recognized the need to give them some compensation of honor in return for the transfer of rights by officially declaring them editors of the Vatican Edition, we thought in terms of a criterion more strictly scientific, such as had been proposed in the Motu proprio(of April , ). (Full text in Appendix IV.) Yet in Father de Santi’s Journal, written at the very time of the events, and in the correspondence of Solesmes, it is quite clear that it was the scientific evidence brought forth by Dom Mocquereau that convinced Father

de Santi to act as he did. On March , he wrote:

In the afternoon Dom Mocquereau, Dom Cagin, and Dom Noetinger come.

They are aware of some things and I have told them the rest. The reasons they advance in support of their edition are very weighty and I am impressed by them.

And again on March :

Dom Mocquereau comes bringing his comparative charts. In the afternoon

Dom Pothier comes and I tell him frankly my views on the changed situation.

(Appendix IV)

So Dom Mocquereau managed to convince Father de Santi that Dom

Pothier’s restoration of the melodies was still imperfect, and that it was quereau never intended to impose his rhythmic system on the Vatican Commission, something that he could not aspire to do in any event. In fact, Father de Santi did not want it used in an official edition (cf. supra, No. ). Further confirmation is provided below in No. , concerning a memorandum from Father Moissenet against the rhythmic editions of Solesmes, a memorandum that the Commission rejected because it was written at a time when the author could not have known of the intentions of the Holy See in this regard.—Finally, the minutes of the Vatican Commission prove that the debate focused on the melodic restoration itself, not on the question of rhythm (cf. infra, No. ). In his booklet on the Décret du  février , Dom Mocquereau wrote: “It [the Commission] did not have to debate or decide on the use or rejection for the Vatican edition of the Solesmes rhythmic indications which it could not use” (reference to the authorization allowed to Solesmes to publish rhythmic editions which Father de Santi did not want).

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 255

possible to proceed with greater scientific rigor. Consequently, Father

de Santi agreed that the editorship of the planned edition should be en-

trusted to him.

Shortly thereafter, on March , Father de Santi sent off the printed

draft copy of the motu proprio for the Vatican Edition (Dom Cagin, March ). On March , Father de Santi learned from the Pope himself

that he had made the decision to produce the edition in Rome (de Santi

Journal, March ). The printed draft will be analyzed in comparison with the final wording of the motu proprio (see No. , below).

. Final Discussions

At that point, Dom Mocquereau was invited to participate in the

preparations for the papal document. Msgr. Moneta-Caglio quoted Fa-

ther de Santi’s journal concerning the meeting of April , during which

there had been objections in the matter of the role assigned to Solesmes in the draft of the motu proprio.

April . Meeting of the Roman Commission to discuss the page proofs. We agree on the first three paragraphs. But when we get to the point of the editing by Solesmes we reach a deadlock for one reason or another. The gist of it is that Dom Pothier and Dom Janssens do not wish to be present because they are against Solesmes.

The Solesmes correspondence clearly indicates that the incriminat-

ing phrase of the motu proprio was what the Pope had wished (Dom Cagin, April –; Dom Noetinger, April ), and that after the meeting the

opponents wrote about it once again to Father de Santi173bis (Dom

Noetinger, April ) and Dom Pothier to the Pope himself (Dom Cagin,

April ). As for Father de Santi, after having explained everything per-

sonally to the Pope, he sent off a memo (Dom Cagin, April ; Dom

Noetinger, April –), in which he defended his point of view: the editorship to be confided to Solesmes with an oversight committee

presided over by Dom Pothier. At the same time, Father de Santi offered

a refutation of two other suggestions: Father Ehrle’s note, in which the

bis. The privileges accorded to Solesmes deserved to outweigh the protestations (Dom Pothier) and they proposed to have the editing done at Saint Anselm (Dom Janssens, according to a letter from Dom Noetinger dated April ).

256 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

writer proposed that the Commission being organized for the motu proprio should itself be responsible for editing the publication;—and the proposal by Dom Janssens that the editing should be done at Saint

Anselm on the basis of the Benedictine editions under the aegis of Dom

Pothier (Noetinger, April , , , and ) and not that of the Abbot Primate. The Messrs. Desclée, meanwhile, hoped that this last proposal

would be found acceptable. On April , in fact, they advised Solesmes to align themselves with the Abbot Primate, who shortly thereafter communicated his plan to the Cardinal Secretary of State. On the eve of

signing the motu proprio, the problem was still unresolved (de Santi Journal, April , , ; Dom Noetinger, April  and ; Dom Cagin, April

).

Father de Santi’s journal reflects the ill-humor of the pontifical pub-

lisher, who wished to bypass the Benedictines. Msgr. Bressan and Scotti

himself were, in fact, supportive of Father de Santi on April . Hence

the Solesmians thought it wise to make a protest to the Pope directly,

making it known that they had nothing whatsoever to do with the new

projects (Dom Noetinger, April ). Their request was communicated

to Father de Santi by Msgr. Bressan, who provided the necessary clarifi-

cations for Father de Santi, who then passed them along to the Pope on

April . The result confirmed the Pope’s resolution, which he indicated to Father de Santi on the same day, April  (cf. de Santi Journal, April ,

, and ; Dom Cagin, April ; and Dom Noetinger, April ). Howev-

er, on April , Baron Kanzler and Msgr. Respighi conferred with Father

de Santi and succeeded in letting the Pope know that they wished to see

to it that the editing of the Vatican Edition be confided to Solesmes

(Dom Noetinger, April ).

Father de Santi tried very hard to convince the Pope, doubtless still

hesitant, to adopt his point of view. He had thought of making a

recording of the chant sung by the students of the French Seminary

who had been rehearsed by Dom Mocquereau.174

In this way the Pope will be informed de visu by Father de Santi of the practical functioning, and would thus understand ex auditu what Gregorian chant sounds like at Solesmes under the direction of Dom Mocquereau.......(Dom Cagin, April )

. Dom Noetinger’s letter of April  reads as follows: “Today the Prior (Dom Mocquereau) went to conduct the Mass at the French Seminary. It went well and it so completely convinced THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 257

In fact, the Gramophone Company recorded the Centenary of St. Gre-

gory the Great under the direction of Msgr. Rella, Dom Pothier, Dom

Janssens, and Dom Mocquereau. This last performance included the Al-

leluia Fac nos innocuam, the Easter Introit, Gradual, and Sequence, plus the Introit Sacerdotes Dei.

On April , Father de Santi was received in an audience with Pius X

and charged with putting the final touches on the pontifical document

about the Vatican Edition. That is to say, this document was predated,

because it carries the official date of April , the Feast of St. Mark, Patron of Venice (de Santi Journal, April ). It was as Father de Santi had wanted, but with the following changes: the editing was no longer entrusted to the Benedictine Order (this was to bypass the proposal of the Abbot Primate), but to the O.S.B. Congregation of France, and to the

Solesmes monastery. The phrase concerning the supervision of the edi-

tion by the Abbot of Solesmes was suppressed, in order to satisfy the objections that had been made. The Pope deemed it needless to mention

this, since everything had to be done in proper hierarchic order within

the French Congregation. But he did retain the mention of the Abbey of

Solesmes, despite the opposition. On April , Dom Noetinger wrote:

Up to the last minute, even yesterday, our adversaries tried to erase the mention of the Solesmes monastery; they did not succeed in this, but they did succeed in suppressing the phrase: under the direction of the Right Reverend......

etc. The Pope considered the phrase inappropriate because everything must follow the hierarchical order to pass through the Congregation, and moreover, Father de Santi says that the Pope planned to send us a Brief in which whatever is lacking in the motu proprio will be completed .(Dom Noetinger, April ) The first draft read as follows (emphasis added to indicate the principal changes made in the final text):

In view of our special affection for the celebrated Benedictine Order, thankful with true satisfaction for the untiring efforts given by the Benedictine monks to the restoration of the Church’s authentic melodies, We wish that in the future also the editing of those segments of the liturgical books that contain the chant and the composition of new melodies which will be included in the new

Offices of the Roman Church, should always be reserved for the Benedictine Order the teachers and professors that at the dinner they gave him an ovation, and to give further impulse to the ovation, they confessed that it was because of Pécoul’s letters that they had refused to receive him” (Dom Cagin, April ).

258 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

and in particular for the Congregation and to the monastery of Solesmes under the direction and authority of the Right Reverend Fr. Abbot “pro tempore” Superior General of the above-mentioned congregation, as has been done in the past with regard to these monks.174bis

(The Appendix to the draft read: under the direction of the Right

Rev. Abbot of Solesmes, Superior General of that Congregation.) The

definitive text reads as follows:

Because of our special predilection for the Order of Saint Benedict, recognizing the work done by the Benedictine monks in the restoration of the genuine melodies of the Roman Church, particularly the work done by the Congregation of France and of the monastery of Solesmes, we wish that for this edition the editing of those parts that contain the chant, and the composition of the new melodies for the new offices of the Roman Church, should at all times be reserved for the Benedictine Order and in a special way for the Congregation and monastery of Solesmes.174ter

. The St. Gregory the Great Congress

We must go back in time to say a few words about the celebrations

accompanying the Thirteen Centenary of the death of St. Gregory the

Great.175 The celebrations were marked first by a Congress, from April

–, which was especially encouraged by the motu proprio on sacred music dated November , , and which brought together more than

 participants. From the moment of the opening session on April ,

bis. Per la specialissima Nostra predilezione verso l’inclito Ordine di S. Benedetto, riconoscendo con vera soddisfazione l’opera indefessa prestata dai monaci benedettini nella restaurazione delle genuine melodie della Chiesa romana, particolarmente poi dai religiosi della Congregazione e del monastero di Solesmes, vogliamo che anche in seguito, la redazione di quelle parti dei libri liturgici, che contengono il canto, e la composizione delle nuove melodie che occorressero per le nuove officiature della Chiesa romana, siano sempre riservate all’Ordine Benedettino ed in particolare alla Congregazione ed al monastero di Solesmes, sotto la guida e la dipendenza del Rev.mo Abbate Superiore Generale “pro tempore” della detta Congregazione, come presso quei monaci si è sempre in addietro praticato.

ter. Per la speciale Nostra predilezione verso l’Ordine si S. Benedetto riconoscendo l’opera prestata dai monaci benedettini nella restaurazione delle genuine melodie della Chiesa romana, particolarmente poi da quelli della Congregazione di Francia e del Monastero di Solesmes, vogliamo che per questa edizione, la redazione delle parti che contegono il canto, sia affidata in modo particolare ai monaci della Congregazione di Francia ed al Monastero di Solesmes.

. Rassegna Gregoriana , col. ff.— Revue du Chant Grégorien , pp. –.

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 259

Father de Santi and Dr. Peter Wagner paid tribute to Dom Pothier and

Dom Mocquereau (Dom Noetinger, April ). But even before that,

during one of the preparatory meetings on March , Dr. Wagner had

requested an ovation for Solesmes because of the work done by the

Abbey in restoring the traditional Gregorian chant in the domain

of practicality as well as in the domain of science (Dom Cagin, March

).

Dom Pothier and Dom Mocquereau addressed the delegates, Dom

Mocquereau on April , at the First General Meeting, and Dom Pothier

on April , at the Third General Meeting. Dom Mocquereau explained

the method followed at Solesmes in restoring a melody according to the

most rigid rules of paleography. Dom Pothier took for his topic Le chant grégorien est un art, emphasizing the artistic side of Gregorian chant.176

Consciously or not, each side took up differing positions even before

the creation of the Pontifical Commission that dealt with publication of the Gregorian chant books. In one segment of his lecture entitled Evolution in aesthetics and the Gregorian tradition, Dom Mocquereau replied to a recent article by Dom Pothier on the same subject, in which the author justified beforehand his principle for the restoration of the Gregorian melodies taking into account their development over the centuries

down to modern times, i.e. not overlooking changes that occurred in

the melodies after the golden age of Gregorian chant. Here is the key

passage:

It has always been the way with tradition down through the ages, whether pre-Gregorian or Gregorian, that as a living tradition it is consequently susceptible, as is every form of life, to constant change and development, but always by means of evolution and not revolution.177

Dom Pothier had this point of view admitted in the motu proprio during the preparatory stage, and it became the basis for disputes relating to

the Vatican Edition (Dom Cagin, April ).

It was during his lecture that Dom Mocquereau estimated that it

. The two lectures are printed in the Rassegna Gregoriana of , Dom Pothier’s ( Le chant grégorien est un art) at col. –, and Dom Mocquereau’s ( L’École Grégorienne de Solesmes: I. Sa Méthode critique, col. –; II. Histoire d’un neume, col. –; III. L’évolution dans l’esthétique et la tradition grégorienne, col. –). Dom Mocquereau’s lecture was translated into Italian and Spanish ( Études Grégoriennes II, , p. ). Both lectures were recorded by the Gramophone Company.

. La question du plain-chant. Une lettre de Dom Pothier, in Le XXe Siècle, Brussels, February ,

.

260 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

would take fifty years to prepare a definitive edition: “Even with our

charts, some areas of our work remain provisional.......It would be inad-visable and premature to offer an edition as being definitive. Perhaps in fifty years such an edition may be within the realm of possibility. Not

today.”178 This statement was to be used against future publications, and against Dom Mocquereau himself. Msgr. Moneta-Caglio commented in

this respect: “But upon sufficient reflection, this is one of the most judicious statements ever made by Dom Mocquereau. It gives a full picture

of his conscience as a paleographer.”179

We must also point out the April  lecture given by Dom David, enti-

tled Comment les mélodies grégoriennes ont été retrouvées, which dealt rather briefly with the history of the beginnings of the Gregorian restoration

at Solesmes.180 Dom Cagin also responded to this in the Rassegna Gregoriana by developing the subject more fully, with the documentation that he had at hand in Rome. That article, entitled L’oeuvre de Solesmes dans la restauration du chant grégorien (cf. Rassegna Gregoriana , col. ff.), in turn elicited reactions which intimated that the proposed publication

project would not be accomplished without difficulty.

At the sidelines of the Congress, Pécoul was also distributing an arti-

cle from Le Gaulois that was at least inspired, if not actually written, by him. The article makes Dom Pothier out to be the founder of the Paléographie Musicale. 181 Moreover, faced with the success of Dom Mocquereau’s “tables,” this same person started the rumor that the Solesmes choirmaster followed the manuscripts too closely, and this after having

accused him of not giving them sufficient attention.

On April , the Vatican Edition was officially announced during the

Third General Meeting by Msgr. Foucault, Bishop of Saint Denis, Hon-

orary President of the Gregorian section. The night before, on April ,

at the Second General Meeting, Father de Santi was pleased to say that

the Pope did not favor any particular publisher, and that, although for

the time being the Solesmes publications were the only ones considered

. Rassegna Gregoriana, col. .

. Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra , p. , notes –.

. The lecture is published in the Rassegna Gregoriana, col. . Father de Santi made some changes in the lecture when it went to press (Dom Cagin, April , and Dom Noetinger, April ).

. A. Louis, Une réforme de Pie X, La musique sacrée et le chant grégorien, in Le Gaulois of March

, . This historic error was often repeated in the years that followed. Therefore, from that time on, announcement of the Paléographie Musicale included this subtitle: “Under the direction of André Mocquereau, Prior of Solesmes.”

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 261

as conforming to the motu proprio of November , , and had come to be approved by the Congregation of Sacred Rites of February —on

the favorable advice of Perosi182 and according to a formula designed by the Holy Father himself (Dom Noetinger, March , cf. Desclée to Dom

Noetinger, February , )—this approbation did not provide a privi-

lege in their favor, since it was given to every other publisher who

would offer the same guarantee of fidelity to the manuscripts.

These same assurances were given by the Pope himself to Msgr.

Foucault, who then communicated them, in turn, to those attending

the Congress at the same time that he announced the official Vatican

Edition. In fact, the Vatican Edition was announced in the following

terms, in wording personally approved by Pius X:

His Holiness does not wish to establish a privilege of a monopoly for any publisher.

As soon as possible after the Congress, His Holiness will form a Commis-

sion to prepare the Typical Edition.

As the pages are issued by the Vatican Press, they will be placed at the disposal of the publishers who will have the right to reproduce them but without change.

Meanwhile, each diocese can continue to utilize its current books without being obliged to adopt others before the publication of the Typical Edition.

Each person interpreted the first part of the statement according to

his own mind set. For some, Poussielgue was seen as the publisher,

whose hope relative to the publishing project was mentioned above—

and this, it seems, is what Father de Santi had in mind;183 for others, only Desclée, Solesmes’s publisher, could be viewed as the publisher (cf. infra, No. ). As for the second part of the declaration, while it announced the formation of a Commission instructed to prepare the Vatican Edition, it

did not define its role, and it made no mention of the editors for the publication. At this time, in fact, the Pope’s determination had not yet taken shape relative to these two bodies. What is more, the correspondence at

Solesmes attests to the fact that Pius X was still quite ambivalent as to the matter of the edition itself (letters of April , , and ).

On April , Pius X celebrated a Papal Mass in the Vatican Basilica.

. Cf. Sulla restaurazione della Musica Sacra e del Canto gregoriano secondo il motu proprio di S.

S. Pio X Papa (supplement to the Rassegna Gregoriana of ), pp. –; Un giudizio del Maestro Perosi sul Canto Gregoriano.

. Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra , p. . Cf. infra No. .

262 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

According to his wishes, as previously expressed in his letter of Decem-

ber ,  to the Cardinal Vicar, the chants were Gregorian. The Proper was sung by a schola of  singers from St. Anselm, under the direction of Dom Janssens, and the Ordinary, the Mass of the Angels, was sung

by more than , clerics from  different institutes, under the direction of Msgr. Rella. All these chants were taken from the latest

Solesmes publication, according to the Pope’s wishes, and reproduced

in leaflet form without the rhythmic indications for the Prelates and

with rhythmic indications for the singers.184 The Alma cohors Sequence had been restored by the Anglican pastor H. M. Bannister, a well-known

paleographer.

The Pope followed the Mass from a parchment Missal, transcribed

and decorated in the style of the most richly decorated manuscripts by

the nuns of Saint Cecilia of Solesmes. At the time, the nuns were

refugees at Ryde, Isle of Wight. The volume offered to the Pope by the

Solesmians on April  (Dom Cagin, April ) contained the Ordo Ro-

manus used for the service, the Office of Tierce, as well as the chants for the Mass of St. Gregory. Camille Bellaigue wrote:

Pius X was finishing singing the Preface. The Cardinal Deacon who was assisting him turned the page of the Sanctus, where the Benedictine nuns had painted a golden lyre with the figure of Christ on the Cross stretched out across it.

This symbolic miniature charmed the Pope, we know, and held his attention for a moment. Art and faith combined could not offer a more subtle expression of thanks to the Pontiff whose firm and steady hand had just placed the image of the Crucified Lord back onto the lyre.185

Mention has been made of Bannister. He was the one who, at the be-

ginning of the April  ceremony, stunned by how little attention was

being given to Dom Mocquereau, made him step out of the crowd and

take his place in the front row (Dom Cagin, April ). A witness wrote:

“Why have the Benedictines of Solesmes in these solemn feasts taken

such a self-effacing role? Or rather, why did they play no role at all? The majority of the Congress attendees were visibly troubled by this.”186

. Officium et Missa Sancti Gregorii Papae et Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris juxta antiquorum codicum fidem restituta, Desclée ,  pp.

. Pie X et Rome, Librairie National . Cf. Rassegna Gregoriana , col. –, with two photographs of the Missal and a Brief of thanks addressed to the Reverend Abbess of Sainte-Cécile de Solesmes.

. Reverend H. Villetard, Les fêtes de la Musique Liturgique et le XIIIe Centenaire de la mort de saint Grégoire le Grand à Rome (April –, ), Paris , p. .

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 263

On April , the Pope received the delegates and exhorted them to

imitate the holiness of St. Gregory. Then he gave each a commemora-

tive medal of the Congress (Dom Noetinger, April ).

. Publication of the Motu Proprio Dated April , 

As mentioned earlier, the motu proprio for the Vatican Edition was signed on April —and thus was antedated, since it bears the date of

April , the Feast of St. Mark. Below is a translation of it, with references to the draft discussed above, which differs from the final text on certain points. The Pope said:

With Our motu proprio of November , , and with the subsequent decree, published by Our command through the Congregation of Sacred Rites, January , , We have restored to the Roman Church Her ancient Gregorian chant, the chant which She inherited from the Fathers and which She has jealously preserved in Her liturgical codices, and which the more recent studies have happily brought back to its primitive purity. [The same terms were used in the motu proprio of November , .]

In order to accomplish the work begun, as is proper, and to provide Our Roman Church and all Churches of the same Rite with the common text of the liturgical Gregorian melodies, We have decreed the publication of the liturgical books containing the chant of the Holy Roman Church as restored by Us, by Our Vatican Press.

[In a practical Appendix, the draft stated that publication would be limited to typical and essential books only: “Publication will be limited to the typical and essential books only, such as the Liber Gradualis, Liber Antiphonarius, Rituale Romanum, Pontificale Romanum, etc. The chant shall be expressed in the appropriate traditional Gregorian notation, without particular rhythmical indications.”]

In order that everything may proceed with full comprehension by all those who are or will be called by Us [the draft also added: “or by our Congregation of Sacred Rites,” see above] to offer the tribute of their studies to a work of such great importance, and so that the work may proceed with the fitting diligence and alacrity, We have established the following norms:

a. The melodies of the Church, so called Gregorian, will be restored in their integrity and purity in accordance with the true text of the most ancient codices, in such a way, however, that due attention be given to the true tradition contained in the manuscripts throughout the centuries, and to the practical usage of contemporary liturgy. [This last sentence, as we have already 264 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

pointed out, was suggested by Dom Pothier and was destined to trigger endless debate later on.]

b. Because of Our special predilection for the Order of St. Benedict, recognizing the work done by the Benedictine monks in the restoration of the genuine melodies of the Roman Church, particularly the work done by the Congregation of France, and of the Monastery of Solesmes, We wish that for this edition, the editing of those parts containing the chant be especially entrusted to the monks of the Congregation of France, and to the Monastery of

Solesmes. [This text was discussed in No. .]

c. The works thus prepared will be submitted for examination and revision to the special Roman Commission recently instituted by Us for this purpose. It has the obligation of sworn secrecy for all that regards the compilation of the texts and the manner of printing.187 This same obligation must also be extended to all other persons outside the Commission who may be called upon to render their services to this same end. The Commission must proceed in its examination with maximum diligence, permitting nothing to be published for which sufficient and certain proof cannot be given. In case of doubt, the opinion shall be sought of persons who are outside the Commission and the editorial staff who are recognized as competent in this field of study and are capable of rendering an authoritative judgment. During revision of the melodies, if difficulties should arise concerning the liturgical text, the Commission will consult the historical-liturgical Commission previously instituted under the auspices of Our Congregation of Sacred Rites, so that both Commissions proceed concor-dantly with respect to those portions of the books common to the work of both Commissions. [In case of persistent difficulties, the draft (Appendix) referred the issue back to the supreme authority: “If a mutual understanding cannot be achieved even in this manner, the problem shall be decided by the Supreme Authority.”]

d. The approval to be obtained from Us and from Our Congregation of Sa-

cred Rites for the books of chant thus compiled and published will be of such a nature that no one else shall be permitted to approve liturgical books, even in the parts which contain the chant, unless they either altogether conform with the editions published by the Vatican press under Our auspices, or at least in

. With regard to the secrecy demanded of the members of the Vatican Commission, Father de Santi noted in , in the Rassegna Gregoriana, that the “obligation to secrecy had to do only with the compilation of the texts and the printing schedule, as indicated in the motu proprio, so that publishers would not issue anything ahead of the Vatican Press” ( Rassegna Gregoriana

, col. ), cf. Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra , p.  and note ).—As to the texts relating to the deliberations of the Commission, if they, too, were included in the secrecy, it must be acknowledged that the Commission scarcely felt bound by it; from –, the Revue du Chant Grégorien published two letters from the Cardinal Secretary of State intended only for the Commission members ( Revue du Chant Grégorien , p.  and , p. ).

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 265

the judgment of the Commission they conform in such a way that the variations introduced prove themselves to come from the authority of other good Gregorian codices. [This last option expressly referred to the Solesmes editions already in use.]

e. The literary copyrights of the Vatican Edition are reserved to the Holy See. The editors and printers of every nation may request from Us permission to print this edition. Those who under certain fixed conditions will give sure guarantees of their capability to accomplish the work satisfactorily will be granted permission to reproduce these freely as they wish, and to make extracts therefrom, and to spread the copies everywhere. [The draft differed on this point, since it stated that the edition did not have copyright status as St.

Pius X had at first wished (cf. letter of Msgr. Bressan to Dom Delatte): “The Roman edition will be limited to the typical and essential books only, and will not have copyright status, so that all publishers will be permitted to reproduce it as they see fit, to make excerpts from it, and to distribute copies of it according to their own interests” (cf. No. ).]

Thus, with the help of God, We hope to be able to restore to the Church the unity of Her traditional chant, in a manner corresponding to the science, the history, the art, and the dignity of liturgical worship, at least insofar as Our present studies permit, and We reserve to Ourselves and to Our successors the right to dispose otherwise.

Given at Rome at St. Peter’s on April , , on the Feast of St. Mark the Evangelist, in the first year of our Pontificate.

Pius X, Pope.

It is interesting to note two provisions of the draft that were retained in practice, even though they do not appear in the motu proprio itself: a. One concerned the new Offices, which are not in the manuscripts

and which had to be composed according to the ancient models: “But

the melodies composed for the new Offices, which for this reason are

not found in the ancient manuscripts, ought always to correspond ex-

actly to those published by Us; they ought to conform in every respect

to those of the Vatican Edition.”

b. The other requested that the Commission issue the Kyriale first (which was done, as the Vatican Commission had already made this decision during its initial meetings).

The Pontifical Commission for the Vatican Edition of the Gregorian

liturgical books instituted by the motu proprio included ten members and ten consultors:

266 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

Members of the Commission:

Right Rev. Dom Joseph Pothier, O.S.B., Abbot of Saint-Wandrille, President Msgr. Carlo Respighi, Pontifical Master of Ceremonies, of Rome

Msgr. Lorenzo Perosi, Perpetual Director of the Sistine Chapel, of Rome

Msgr. Antonio Rella, of Rome

Rev. Dom André Mocquereau, O.S.B., Prior of Solesmes

Rev. Dom Laurent Janssens, O.S.B., Rector of St. Anselm, of Rome

Rev. Father Angelo de Santi, S.J., of Rome

Professor Baron Rudolf Kanzler, of Rome

Professor Dr. Peter Wagner, of Fribourg, Switzerland

Professor H. G. Worth, of London

Consultors of the Commission:

Rev. Father Raffaello Baralli, of Lucca

Rev. Father François Perriot, of Langres

Rev. Father René Moissenet, of Dijon

Rev. Father Norman Holly, of New York

Rev. Father Ambrogio Amelli, O.S.B., Prior of Monte Cassino

Rev. Father Hugo Gaisser, O.S.B., of the Greek College at Rome

Rev. Father Michael Horn, O.S.B., of the Monastery of Seckau

Rev. Father Raphael Molitor, O.S.B., of the Monastery of Beuron

Professor Amedée Gastoué, of Paris187bis

On April , the Pope received the members and consultors who

were in Rome.

The Minutes of the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican Edition of Gregorian Liturgical Books begin as follows:

The Holy Father received the Commission in an audience on April , , at

 o’clock in the hall of the Library. Present were: Right Rev. Dom Pothier, Dom Mocquereau, Dom Janssens, Msgr. Respighi, Msgr. Rella, Father de Santi, and Baron Kanzler.

bis. The announcement of Dom Mocquereau’s appointment is dated April , , with the signature of Cardinal L. Tripepi, Pro-Prefect of the Congregation of Sacred Rites.

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 267

In very affectionate terms, the Holy Father thanked the Commission “for the kindness shown toward the Holy See and to him personally” by offering its work for the Vatican Edition of the liturgical books. He said, “With Dom Pothier, Dom Mocquereau, and Dom Janssens, we are an iron barrel [i.e., we are sure to succeed] and we are unafraid of our critics. We shall respond to them; as for those critics who add the prefix hyper that is so prevalent these days, we need not be concerned by them.” The Pope read the list of consultors, praising the choice of membership. He singled out for special commendation the Director of the Vatican Press, Commander Scotti, and recommended that all should

keep him informed of their deliberations and actions. Finally, he gave each one a copy of the text of the motu proprio of April  and, at the same time, a silver medal enclosed in a small case emblazoned with his coat of arms. After impart-ing his blessing to each, He ended the audience by thanking them again and encouraging them in the task ahead.

. Brief of , Ex Quo Tempore, to Dom Delatte

On May , , the Abbot of Solesmes was honored by a Pontifical

Brief. In this document, the Pope not only recalled and praised the work of Solesmes on Gregorian chant and thanked the Abbot for his promised collaboration in favor of the Vatican Edition, and for his generosity, but also praised again the manner in which, up to the present, Solesmes

had pursued the work of restoring the Gregorian melodies. We know

that this method was to be practically rejected by certain members of

the Vatican Commission because it seemed too rigid, not allowing op-

tional choices of melodic variants and for adopting certain changes con-

forming to modern taste and introduced in the old melodies over the

centuries of its history. A word must be said on the origin of this document.

Father de Santi was saddened at witnessing the first lively opposition,

and lost no time in conceiving the idea of a Brief to the Abbot of

Solesmes to regain the terrain lost during the heated discussion in pre-

paration for the motu proprio of April . This is what Dom Noetinger wrote on April : “Father de Santi says that the Holy Father intends to send us a Brief in which what is lacking in the motu proprio will be filled in” (letter quoted above). On the same day, Dom Mocquereau noted:

“Father de Santi, seeing how much I regretted the omission of the Ab-

bot of Solesmes (motu proprio), repeated several times that this omission 268 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

will be rectified very clearly in the Brief that the Holy Father will soon send you.”

Father de Santi wanted to have the method employed by Dom Moc-

quereau approved, a method that he could judge himself thanks to the

comparative tables shown him. In , he based his defense of

Solesmes’ work on this document. The Brief is not a mandate, at least

not in the sense indicated by Father de Santi, because Msgr. Bressan had already transmitted the Pope’s thanks to the Abbot of Solesmes in a letter dated April  (cf. No. ), and to Dom Mocquereau in a letter of

April . This second letter announced the shipment of two chalices in-

tended for the monasteries of St. Peter and of St. Cecilia of Solesmes.

Msgr. Moneta-Caglio did not call attention to this Brief in his article in the Musica Sacra of Milan. This is why we are dwelling on the elements that characterize it, and provide a complete translation of it below,

since the Brief outlines the main lines of Solesmes’ work in the matter

of Gregorian chant. We have underscored the principal passage.188

To our dear Son, Paul Delatte, O.S.B., President of the Benedictine Congregation of France, Abbot of Solesmes

Pius X, Pope.

Dear Son, Greeting and Apostolic Benediction.

Ever since Prosper Guéranger of illustrious memory, your first predecessor, by his wholehearted devotion to liturgical science, aroused and inflamed your endeavors by his own, everyone has been acquainted with the renowned name of the monastery of Solesmes, especially through the skillful work of restoration of the ancient teaching of Gregorian melodies. And you, who were pressing forward this both difficult and fruitful undertaking, did not, and indeed could not, lack signs of praise from the Apostolic See.

For Leo XIII of blessed memory more than once testified to this, and particularly in a letter addressed to you by name in May ; and, moreover, quite recently in the month of February, the Congregation of Sacred Rites both confirmed and willingly approved the liturgical books of plainchant edited under your care and already widely in use.

. On May , Father de Santi wrote to Dom Mocquereau: “Msgr. Galli said that the Holy Father holds firmly to the details of the Brief, except he crossed out what was said about the equality between the Vatican edition and that of Solesmes.”—This Brief is found in the Rassegna Gregoriana , col. –. Msgr. Fernessole, Pie X, essai historique, vol. , p.  (Lethielleux

) remarked that the tone of the pontifical document “was moreover one of high praise and endearment.”

THE NEW LEGISLATION OF PIUS X 269

We, however, hold that the time has come for Our office to deal authoritatively with the work of restoring the Gregorian chant according to the old traditional order, and We have shown quite recently that We hold your labors in this area in very high esteem, as We have frequently testified elsewhere. For in the solemn ceremonies which We celebrated at the tomb of Gregory the Great in honor of his centenary anniversary, when We wished, as it were, to consecrate the beginnings of the restoration of the Gregorian chant, We ordered the Solesmes melodies to be used as an example.

Now, moreover, there is a special reason why We should extol, in addition to this great skill of yours, your sentiments of devotion towards the Roman Pontiff. For when We were thinking of deciding on a Vatican Edition of liturgical melodies, which should be adopted everywhere under Our authority, and appealed to your zeal with this object, We received from you, Our beloved son, in the month of March, a most gratifying letter saying that you were not only ready and prepared to help with the desired work, but were willing for that purpose to yield Us even the fruits of your toils which had already been published.

It is then easy to understand how highly We value such a signal indication of your love and regard, as well as the gratification it affords Us. And in order to express the thanks deserved by such an exceptional service, as by Our motu proprio, We have charged chosen men to prepare Our said official edition, so at the same time We wish it to be the work of the congregation of which you are the Superior, and especially the duty of the community of Solesmes, in their own manner and method, to go through the entire field of ancient records now existing, and when they have thence elaborated and arranged the materials of this edition, to submit them to the examination and approval of those whom We have appointed for that purpose.

And as to this toilsome but most honorable duty, although you had already been informed of it, We gladly appraise you by Our own hand that We have laid it upon you, beloved Son, whose chief care it is to see that your companions carry it out. We know your great love for the Apostolic See and Church, your zeal for the seemliness of divine worship, and your care for the holy rule of the monastic life. The further practice of these virtues will assure you hereafter, as it has done hitherto, a happy issue to your labors; and verily the saying, which Gregory uttered concerning the Father of the Rule, may not unfittingly be applied to you his children: “His teaching could not differ from his life.”

But We trust that abundant assistance will be afforded to you in your endeavors to carry through the work committed to your care, and particularly that there will be no hindrance to your investigation of the ancient codices; and We are sure that the principal factor, the divine assistance, which We earnestly implore, will not be wanting. As a presage whereof, and in testimony of Our 270 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

singular benevolence, We most affectionately grant to you, beloved Son, and to your monks Our Apostolic blessing in the Lord.

Given at Rome at St. Peter’s on the Feast of Pentecost, May , , in the first year of Our Pontificate.

Pius X, Pope.

We shall not give the original Latin of this document, titled Ex quo tempore, which has been frequently reprinted in journals almost as often as the Brief Nos quidem of May , , addressed to the Abbot of Solesmes by Leo XIII (cf. No. ).

IV ■ T H E M E E T I N G S O F T H E

C O M M I S S I O N H E L D I N 1 9 0 4

. The Initial Meetings of the Commission

The meetings of the Commission began on the afternoon of April

. Six meetings were held between April  and June  at the Circle of St. Peter, at the offices of the Congregation of the Propagation of the

Faith, and at St. Anselm, the Benedictine house. The purpose of these

meetings was purely practical: to organize the work, and to determine

the steps to be taken. In these first six meetings, there were never more than seven members of the Commission present: Dom Pothier, the

President, took part in the first meeting only, and Dom Mocquereau

participated only in the first three. Dom Janssens came to only four

meetings, Gaisser and Kanzler to three. Perosi attended two. Only

Respighi, Father de Santi and Msgr. Rella, attended all the meetings.

The major decisions taken, which were sent to the other members

and consultors on June , were as follows:

. The Vatican Edition will not feature the rhythmic indications of the latest Benedictine editions, but will limit itself to the method already in use in the initial editions of Dom Pothier, retaining only those signs related to the groupings of notes and of members of phrases.

. The pages of the Kyriale will be printed first, so that publishers can reproduce them immediately as an excerpt.

. The Liber Gradualis and the Liber Antiphonarius will be printed simultane-ously, to enable publishers to produce the excerpts that are appropriate for them right away.

. We wish to take advantage of the opportunity at hand to revive some ancient melodies, either within the body of the books or in an Appendix; for ex-271

272 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

ample, other cadences for the chant of the lessons, and other melodies for the hymns. Please send your suggestions on this point.

. During printing, we wish to publish the following parts as separate offprints intended for publishers only: Officium et Missa Nativitatis, Hebdomada Sancta, Officium et Missa Defunctorum.

. The most direct work on the Vatican Edition is reserved for the members of the Commission. Everyone, including the consultors, will be kept up to date on what the Commission is doing and, if they are present in Rome, they shall participate in the ordinary meetings and may exercise their voting rights.

. The members of the Commission review the printer’s proofs. The proofs shall be sent to those consultors who request them. However, everyone has the right to send in comments on any particular reading of the melody, basing those comments on the latest Benedictine editions from Solesmes.

. In the Vatican Edition, the morae vocis shall be indicated by a blank space of equal and unchanging width, and four sorts of bars shall be used: a small bar, a medium bar, a large bar, and a double bar. After the intonations, the double bar shall be omitted, and replaced by a star or asterisk.

. A copy of the circular (not confidential) sent to the major masters of Gregorian chant shall be sent to all members of the Commission, with the request that they, too, answer the questions posed in the circular.

. Please send comments on changes to be made in the literary text to the Editorial Board (Reverend Father Dom Mocquereau, Appuldurcombe, Isle of

Wight) as soon as possible.

. We would like to submit a request to the Congregation of Sacred Rites asking it to decree that from now on, no liturgical Office proper to particular dioceses shall be approved unless the corresponding chant is presented at the same time; that chant must be reviewed by the Commission, which shall make its decision in conformity with the Vatican Typical Edition. If the dioceses do not present the chant, the Commission shall be responsible for providing it, at the expense of the dioceses.

. We would like to hear everyone’s opinion about the approval to be

granted at a later date to books that, while containing the chant of the Vatican Edition, add other rhythmic indications to it and that present the melodies in modern notation. This issue has been debated at various meetings, and so far, our opinion is that these editions must be approved by the bishops only, not by the Congregation of Sacred Rites.

In effect, the motu proprio of April ,  offers only two formulas for granting approval: absolute conformity with the Vatican Edition,

and conformity with certain variants derived from good manuscripts. If

we start approving the addition of rhythmic indications and of transla-

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1904 273

tions, it will not be possible to limit ourselves to the editions of

Solesmes alone. [Excerpt from the minutes.]

We must now return to certain points that require explanation, or

that are not included in the Circular of June . This information is

drawn from the minutes of the Commission and from the correspon-

dence of the monks of Solesmes.

At the first meeting on April , after a brief speech by Dom Pothier

commenting on the first paragraph of the motu proprio of April  that established the Vatican Commission, Father de Santi noted that the

Commission was new, i.e. that it was different from the one to which new members had been appointed by the Congregation of Sacred Rites

the previous March  (cf. supra, No. ). When he went on to suggest that the opinions of the consultors should be sought on certain general matters, Dom Janssens noted that the Commission had nothing to do

until the text was submitted to it by Solesmes. Father de Santi respond-

ed by saying that Dom Mocquereau was already in a position to indi-

cate the musical text that he would be recommending. In fact, the let-

ters received from Solesmes state that it had been decided that the

current Solesmes edition—the edition of —would be used as the basis for the Vatican Edition (Dom Noetinger, April , ).189 Dom

Mocquereau noted, in this regard, that Dom Janssens’ ill humor had not

abated, and that he was creating “as much of a road block as possible by claiming to want to have every note of the text suggested by Solesmes

checked” (Dom Noetinger, April , Dom Mocquereau, May , cf. supra, No. ). The same remark appears in the correspondence of Father de

Santi (to Dom Mocquereau, May , and to Dom Delatte, June ,

).

We have already seen that it was decided—at the first meeting—that

the Vatican Edition “would not have special rhythmic indications like

those in the most recent Solesmes edition” (Minutes). But at the second

meeting (May ), Dom Mocquereau asked that the manner of marking

the morae vocis be decided; he recommended that they should be

. The correspondence from Solesmes also indicates that, at the second meeting, the point was made once again that the Vatican edition would be limited to the essential books only: the Liber Gradualis, the Liber Antiphonarius, the Pontificale, the Rituale, etc., as had been specified in the draft of the motu proprio (in the Appendix), but not stated explicitly in the final version of the text (cf. supra, No. —Dom Noetinger, April , ).

274 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

marked with a space of equal and unchanging length (which was not the course followed later on), and that the four types of bars used in the

Solesmes editions should be adopted. Similarly, he proposed that at

the intonation, an asterisk should replace the double bar, which inter-

rupted the melody in an inopportune way. These suggestions were

adopted unanimously.

It should be pointed out that the Abbé Moissenet of Dijon, wrongly

supposing that the existing Benedictine editions would be printed as is, sent a letter dated April  to the Pope, by way of Msgr. Bressan, accompanied by a memorandum in opposition to those editions. But the

Commission rejected the memorandum, noting that the letter had been

written before the publication of the motu proprio of April  and that, as a result, the Abbé Moissenet could not have known the intentions of

the Holy See at the time (rd Meeting, May ). In fact, except for the issue of the rhythmic indications, the most recent Benedictine edition

was used as the basis of the Vatican Edition in terms of the melodic content, strictly speaking. At the meeting on May , Father de Santi had actually asked whether, in the Vatican Edition, it might not be possible to indicate by means of a tenete the note that, according to the Romanian signs, should be slightly lengthened. But that idea was rejected out of

consideration for Solesmes, which was already using those long marks

in its punctuated editions.

At the fourth meeting, on May , Father de Santi presented a letter

from Dom Mocquereau dated May , in which the Abbot of Solesmes

waived the subsidies offered by the Pope for the photographing of the

manuscripts needed for editing the Vatican Edition. The letter was sent

to the Pope, who instructed the Commission to express his thanks to

Dom Delatte (th and th Meetings).

At the sixth meeting, on June , Father de Santi read two letters

from Father Grospellier of Grenoble and from the Abbé Paquet of An-

necy, concerning a response from Msgr. Bressan to Msgr. Turinaz, Bish-

op of Nancy. Bressan’s response stated not only that the Benedictine

editions would not be the only sources taken into account in editing the Vatican Edition (Msgr. Turinaz feared that they might be creating an

edition that would be inaccessible to the Christian people), but also that the Vatican Edition would not be forced on the dioceses that already

have a Gregorian tradition of their own. That second phrase, in particu-

lar, might “open the door for all the editions in use in the dioceses of THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1904 275

France.” So the Commission expressed the desire that from then on, it

should be consulted before responses of this kind were issued in the

name of the Pope. The Commission also agreed to publish a brief arti-

cle in the Rassegna Gregoriana concerning the letter of Msgr. Bressan to the Bishop of Nancy.190

On May , the same day as the third meeting, Dom Mocquereau

was received by the Pope, as was Dom Cagin (Dom Noetinger had al-

ready left to return to England). Pius X had just sent them two very

beautiful chalices intended for the Abbeys of Saint-Pierre and of Sainte-Cécile, and at the audience—”a delightful audience,” wrote Dom Moc-

quereau—the Pope expressed to them his great appreciation and affec-

tion for Solesmes (Dom Mocquereau, May ).

On May , Father de Santi and Msgr. Rella came to say goodbye to

the two monks from Solesmes. “They are going away happy,” Father de

Santi noted. He also stated his own satisfaction with his last conversa-

tion with Dom Mocquereau: “I had a good and useful conversation

with Dom Mocquereau, and it is quite obvious how well he knows the

manuscripts” (de Santi Journal, May ).191

Dom Mocquereau thanked Father de Santi once more for everything

he had done on behalf of Solesmes (cf. De Santi Journal, May ), for without him, quite clearly, Solesmes would have been completely ignored.

. Cf. Rassegna Gregoriana , col. — Revue du Chant Grégorien, September–October

, pp. – (article by A. Grospellier).—Here are some additional issues dealt with by the Commission during its first six meetings:

Appointments: Father de Santi, recording secretary; Msgr. Antonio Rella, treasurer; Giulio Bas, reviser;—expansion of the Commission;—the process for revising the melodies;—printing and final printer’s proofs;—consultation with libraries.

Review of works submitted to the Commission: (the following list contains only those that were accepted): letter from A. Dabin and D. Gaisser on the “pausa correpta”; and a paper from Dom Maurice (Solesmes), pointed out by Dom Mocquereau (May ) on the changes of the literary text brought about as a result of the restoration of the authentic melodies (cf. Dom Maurice, La revisione del testo liturgico delle parti di canto (Graduale) al XVI e XVII secolo in Rassegna Gregoriana

, col. –; col. –).

. Quoted by Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra , p. .

276 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

. The Publishers’ Concerns

We have already addressed the legitimate concerns of the publishers,

particularly the concerns of the publishers based in Paris.192 Thus, on

April , during the Congress of St. Gregory the Great, Msgr. Foucault,

in his capacity as honorary chairman of the Gregorian section, was

charged with preparing a statement to calm the publishers with respect

to the intentions of the Holy See: “His Holiness does not wish to insti-

tute any privilege or monopoly for any publisher.” As for the Vatican

Edition, the publishers “will have the right to reproduce it, but without any changes.” The first part of this statement, as we have said, was interpreted in various ways. Some saw it as a statement aimed at

Poussielgue, who had just proposed that he himself create the edition

under the auspices of the Holy See, or Desclée, the printers that

Solesmes used. On the previous February , Desclée’s editions had

been declared in conformity with the motu proprio of November , 

(cf. Nos.  and ).

But the motu proprio of April , , on the Vatican Edition was not entirely to the liking of the publishers. In effect, the document stated that “the Holy See would retain the copyright for the edition,” whereas

it had initially been said that the edition would not be copyrighted. In addition, it had also been mentioned early on that the edition would be

limited to the essential books, such as the Liber Gradualis, the Liber Antiphonarius, the Pontificale, the Rituale, etc., which the definitive text of the motu proprio no longer specified (cf. supra, No. ). Finally, for the publishers, approvals already granted for the Solesmes editions seemed

to create a sort of privilege in favor of those editions,193 all the more so since one paragraph of the motu proprio specifically addressed the Solesmes editions already in use (paragraph d).

Thus, on May , , the Fédération des Travailleurs du Livre sent a

. Cf. Nos.  and , and especially No. ;— supra, No. .

. Cf. Revue du Chant Grégorien, March , p. : “The present edition has been found to be in conformity with the typical one in regard to the text. In regard to the chant it is in accordance with the motu proprio of His Holiness, Pope Pius X, issued on November , , and also with the decree of the Congregation of Sacred Rites given on January , . In testimony of the authenticity of this decree, I have been authorized by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of Sacred Rites to make this known. From the Secretariat of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, on the th day of February, . D. Panici, Archbishop of Laodicea, Secretary of the Congregation of Sacred Rites.”

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1904 277

Note to the Minister of Trade. In it, on the one hand, they stated that the motu proprio of April  “made it possible to annul anything liberal that the statement issued by the Bishop of Saint-Dié (Msgr. Foucault) had

contained,” and, on the other hand, that the Desclée company, which

had become the owner of the Solesmes Press (Desclée was in negotia-

tions with the Liquidator of the properties of religious congregations)

was seeking to obtain a monopoly. As a result, their Note requested that the Minister instruct the Ambassador of France to intervene with the

Holy See to warn it about the Desclée company and about the Vatican

Commission itself, where Desclée had powerful support from Dom

Mocquereau and another religious (Father de Santi). Likewise, the Note requested that the Minister instruct the President of the Council and

Minister of Religion to intervene with the bishops of France, to de-

mand that they not purchase their books of liturgical chant from a for-

eign supplier (Desclée).

On July , Father de Santi informed Dom Mocquereau that the Note

de la Fédération des Travailleurs du Livre had been sent to the Vatican through the good offices of the Embassy, and in the name of the French

Government. Father de Santi pointed out:

It is very well known in the Vatican that this is simply a ploy by Mr. Pécoul, and it was extremely displeasing for its insolent form and for its statement of facts absolutely contrary to truth. I too am involved, though not mentioned by name. An answer has already been given by His Eminence, the Cardinal Secretary of State and it was easy to give it in exhaustive fashion.194

Father de Santi was quite correct in identifying the inspiration be-

hind the Note, who took his revenge in this way for not having been able to dislodge his support for Solesmes.195 The evidence comes straight

from the pen of Msgr. Foucault, in a letter that he wrote to Pécoul on

May , :

I had just finished writing a letter when I received the document from the Fédération du Livre along with your letter. I will be in Paris tomorrow .l.l. I am taking the liberty of arranging a meeting with you there at :. If the secretary

. “Si sa benissimo in Vaticano che essa è manipolazione del Sig. Pécoul e dispiacque assai per la sua forma insolente e per l’esposizione dei fatti assolutamente contrarii alla verità. Io pure, sebbene non col mio nome, sono messo in ballo. La risposta è gia stata data dell’Emo Card. Seg-retario di Stato ed era facile il darla esauriente” (de Santi, July , ).

. On A. Pécoul, cf. supra, Nos.  and .

278 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

of the Federation is able to join us there, we could exchange our impressions, and decide on a course of action.

Shortly before that, Msgr. Foucault had announced to the Pope “a

memorandum on Gregorian chant.” (The response from the Cardinal Secretary of State to the letter announcing its despatch was published in the Revue du Chant Grégorien in May , p. , and is dated May .) On July , Father de Santi told Dom Mocquereau that it had arrived:

“Msgr. Foucault’s memorandum has arrived at the Vatican, and I have

been told that it will be sent along to us.” (Nonetheless, there is no trace of it in the minutes of the Vatican Commission.) No doubt, Msgr. Foucault believed that this memorandum obviated the need for him to re-

spond to the questionnaire sent by the Vatican Commission to the lead-

ing Church musicians, for the Commission’s records for the meeting on

September , , held at Appuldurcombe—Solesmes in exile—show

that Msgr. Foucault refused to respond. All of this, it would seem, clear-ly indicated a bit of ill will on the part of the individual who had been responsible for announcing the Vatican Edition at the Congress of

Rome on April .—Let us also point out that Dom Pothier promised, at

the same moment, that he would write to the Pope on the matter of

the chant (A. Bonnaire to Pécoul, May , ).196

Father de Santi’s letter shows that the promised intervention with

the Pope happened right away, and that the answer came promptly. On

July , the Minister of Religion, Émile Combes, sent a Circular to the Bishops of France, saying:

I am convinced that, under these conditions [those described above], you will be the first to imagine, Bishop, that since the Holy See is granting full freedom, there is no reason, in this matter, to harm the interests of French industry to the benefit of foreign industries, and particularly that it will be your view, in this regard, to issue the Imprimatur only to French editions made in France, in French workshops, and issuing from publishing houses that truly belong to individuals of French nationality.197

In conclusion, let us note that at the Congress of the Fédération des Travailleurs du Livres held at Rome shortly thereafter, the printer J. Dumoulin said the following, in an attempt to reassure the Master Printers:

. Cf. Revue du Chant Grégorien, November , p.  ( La Croix, December , ).

. Circular reproduced in Dom André Mocquereau, Le Décret du  février . . . . , Desclée,

, p. .—On these matters, cf. Archives of Solesmes.

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1904 279

The Pope does not want to profit from this work by granting to the Holy See the monopoly denied to Mr. Pustet. On the contrary, everyone knows, despite the silence of the motu proprio in this regard, that the Editio Vaticana, printed in a relatively small number of copies and offered for sale without adding any profit margin, will be made available to the bishops and to interested parties.

.l.l. Besides, we should not believe that the Editio Vaticana, entrusted to the disciples of Dom Delatte, will be entirely in conformity with the previous

Solesmes editions. The religious are renouncing any copyright on the noted text of their current edition, in favor of the Holy See, and they are going back to work so that the new manual will truly be an Editio Vaticana, and not an Editio Solesmensis. On this point, fairness requires that we acknowledge that the houses of Desclée in Tournai and Pustet in Ratisbon have joined Solesmes in renouncing their copyrights. So the implementation of the plans of Pius X, like the project itself, provides complete reassurance for French printers.198

. The Congress of Arras—Summer School

at Appuldurcombe

From August –, , a Congress of Religious Music was held at

Arras. The Congress was the brainchild of the Abbé Delépine, choir-

master of the Cathedral. On June , the Abbé Delépine had sent a mes-

sage to the Pope, requesting the apostolic benediction and specifying

the goal he was pursuing:

To work effectively for the reform of sacred music and to study the means for ensuring proper performance of Gregorian chant and classical polyphony .l.l.

and to organize in France a St. Cecilia Society on the model of the one now flourishing in Germany.

Delépine added that a large number of bishops had already sent expres-

sions of support for the Congress. The Sovereign Pontiff, not content

merely to grant the blessing that had been requested, wrote in his own

hand, at the bottom of the request, that he “earnestly recommended”

the Congress. Then he sent his blessing a second time, in response to an address from the participants.

It does not appear that the Congress was as successful as had been

. J. Dumoulin, Le Chant liturgique. Le Motu Proprio de S. S. Pie X et l’impression des livres liturgiques en France. Rapport lu au Congrès des Maîtres-Imprimeurs, in La Fonderie Typographique, Vol. , No. , pp. –.

280 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

hoped. Only one bishop was present—the Bishop of Arras. Although

the spectrum of choirmasters who surrounded the Very Reverend Dom

Pothier was quite varied, their numbers remained, nonetheless, rather

modest. Despite the desire expressed by the Abbé Delépine, Solesmes

was not represented at the Congress. Preparations for the Vatican Edi-

tion and for a Gregorian “Summer School” commanded the full atten-

tion of Dom Mocquereau and his colleagues.

There were two offices (benedictions), two performances of Grego-

rian music and of ancient and modern polyphonic music, and four

study sessions in keeping with the motu proprio. The Congress was clearly a success for Dom Pothier: “Between two sessions, those attending

the Congress took up the matter of establishing a general St. Cecilia Society in France. The idea was approved in principle .l.l.but that was as far as it went.”199

Dom Mocquereau was both a man of science and a practical person.

The momentum he gave the choir at Solesmes, which he directed from

 on, is well known. He had always attached great importance to the

proper performance of the Gregorian melodies, without which it is im-

possible to comprehend the full import of the artistic and spiritual rich-es that the melodies contain. Solesmes was the place to go for a thor-

ough grounding in singing, even more than for initiation into Gregorian

paleography. When the monks were expelled from France and arrived

in England, at the Appuldurcombe estate where they remained until the

restoration of Quarr Abbey in , Catholic and Anglican priests began

to attend the monks’ Offices. Thirty to forty attended Vespers during

the week, with  to  in attendance on Sundays.

One priest from the chapter of Westminster, the Reverend Moloney,

came up with the idea of a “Summer School” or Gregorian Session,

during the summer of . The Session took place in the last two

weeks of August, from August –, and was attended by forty-five

Englishmen or Irishmen (and one American who came at the last

minute), twenty-two of whom were priests, with one bishop, Msgr.

Donnelly, Auxiliary Bishop of Dublin, who took a very active interest in the conference sessions.

There were two lectures on performance practice every day, after

. Cf. Revue du Chant Grégorien, June , p.  (program); July , pp. – (address to the Pope); September–October , pp. – (report).—Cf. Tribune de Saint-Gervais , pp.

–.

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1904 281

Mass and after Vespers, which were held in the temporary wooden

chapel. At the first lecture, Reverend Moloney underscored the continu-

ity of the Gregorian work of Solesmes, from Dom Guéranger to Dom

Mocquereau. Then Dom Mocquereau, Dom Eudine, Dom Sergent,

and Dom Mégret began their practical lessons, as one roguish chroni-

cler noted, to “make the ears of the sons of green Erin and blond Al-

bion sensitive to the charms of the Gregorian melodies.” On August ,

those attending the Congress went to Cowes, where the religious of

Sainte-Cécile de Solesmes had taken refuge. They visited the royal cas-

tle of Osbourne on their way there. On August , the evening before

the closing session, the Schola gave a performance in the Chapter of the most beautiful Gregorian pieces—and that evening, at tea, speeches

were given by the Reverend Moloney, by the Reverend Colgan, in Gael-

ic, and by an Irish organist, on behalf of the laymen present.200

During the session, Reverend Moloney sought the blessing of the

Pope in these terms:

The  priests and  laymen meeting at Appuldurcombe in England to be

trained in the Gregorian chant by the Monks of Solesmes for two weeks pay tribute to Pius X, worthy successor of St. Gregory, and seek his blessing. Father Moloney, Promotor of the Gregorian Chant Summer School, Appuldurcombe,

Wroxall.

He received the following telegram from Cardinal Merry del Val: “To

Father Moloney: The Holy Father thanks you and those meeting with

you, and extends his most affectionate blessing. Cardinal Merry del

Val.”200bis

The momentum was there, and it did not diminish. In following

years, there were similar meetings at Appuldurcombe, the ancestors, so

to speak, of our summer Gregorian sessions in France.

. Chronicle of Solesmes—Giulio Bas, La scuola solesmense di Appuldurcombe e le riunioni della Commissione pontificia per l’Edizione Vaticana delle melodie gregoriane, in Rassegna Gregoriana , col. – (Bas had been staying at Appuldurcombe at the time, since July).—Cf. Revue du Chant Grégorien, , p. .

bis. Sacerdotes et Laici XV et XXX congregati apud Appuldurcombe in Anglia ut, per disciplinas XV dierum, efformentur in cantu gregoriano a Monachis Solesmensibus, Pio X, digno Gregorii successori, obsequium testantur, benedictionem petunt. Moloney sacerdos, Scholae Aestivae Gregorianae promotor, Appuldurcombe, Wroxall.

Moloney sacerdos . . . Tibi, tuisque sociis una tecum congregatis, beatissimus Pater gratias agit et amantissimus benedicit. Cardinalis Merry del Val.

282 THE WORKS OF ST. PIUS X

right:

n, R.

om left to

Dom A.

ed.

) Fr ow:

 nd r

e italiciz

th. or

A. Gastoué, Dom M. Hor

September – riot, H. Wer A. Booth,

land) (

. P, F ow: atican Commission, ar

rd r. the V

anssens

. Bas

s of

unity in Eng

, G

, Dom L. J

othier

, M. Moloney

e not member

. P

er

the Solesmes comm

ho w

, wts

uge of

eau, Dom J

ef

, A. Grospellier

xper

st r

the e

Dom R. Molitor

combe (the fir

,

he names ofT .

ney

. Guillaume

, A. de Santi, Dom A. Mocquer

. Cor

agner

Dom W

Meeting at Appuldur

P. W

. Gaborit, P

d, C

 . ow:

 st r Gatar Moissenet,

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1904 283

. Meeting of the Vatican Commission at Appuldurcombe

From September –, , the Vatican Commission held several

meetings at Appuldurcombe, at the initiative of Dom Mocquereau. He

felt that it was essential for the members of the Commission to gain

personal knowledge of the Gregorian manuscripts, and to judge the Ed-

itorial Board’s work on the Vatican Edition for itself. He wrote: “My

hope is that they will agree to work with us for a short time on the

restoration of a Gregorian phrase, just for the experience of it.”201 His fervent wish was for the members of the Commission to come to Appuldurcombe, either as a group or even one by one, if it proved impos-

sible to schedule a meeting (to Father de Santi, July , ).

From the private letters that Father de Santi wrote to Dom Moc-

quereau at the time, it is clear that the Pope was thoroughly aware of

the feelings that were being expressed within the Commission, and he

hoped that the meeting at Appuldurcombe would produce the union of

minds he desired.

To provide support for Dom Mocquereau’s request even before it

was made, Father de Santi sent the following circular letter, dated Au-

gust , to the members and consultors of the Vatican Commission, and

to other well-known Gregorianists, in keeping with the Pope’s wishes:

The Benedictines of Solesmes feel that it is absolutely necessary for all the members of the Commission, to the extent possible, to meet at their residence at Appuldurcombe, on the Isle of Wight in England, to define together the matters that relate to the Vatican Edition, and to examine and to debate the resolutions of the Commission, and the responses from musicians to the circular letter of June . The Commission will receive an invitation directly from Dom Mocquereau, and I, too, urgently request that the Commission not fail to attend this important meeting.

In the circumstances in which the Holy See now finds itself, however, it is difficult for us to request the subsidies that would be needed to make such a trip. But the generosity of each person will, no doubt, suggest ways in which this sacrifice can be made, a sacrifice that will be of extraordinary usefulness for all, and will make the difficult task entrusted to us far easier.

The date of the meeting is September –. In my capacity as Recording Secretary of the Commission, I will attend. I am also in a position to add that His

. Quotation from Dom Mocquereau, in L’Univers: Chronique Grégorienne, March , 

(signed J. Dupont, a pseudonym of Étienne Bourigaud).

284 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

Holiness was particularly welcoming of the proposal for our meeting with the Editorial Board of the Commission, and grants a special Apostolic Benediction to us and to our work.

On August , Dom Mocquereau sent the invitation that Father de

Santi had announced:

We have advanced sufficiently in our work editing and correcting the Kyriale to be able usefully to present the results of that work to those members of the Commission who would like to see our work and our method in person.

You must already have received a circular letter from Father de Santi, expressing our strong desire to have this meeting. I know that several members or consultors of the Commission are preparing to come, and I now invite you, in the name of the Reverend Father Abbot of Solesmes, to join them. We would be delighted to welcome you.

It would seem best for us all to meet here together. Your visit would thus be even more fruitful.

Unfortunately, the straitened circumstances of our encampment in exile do not permit us to offer lodging for the members of the Commission, but our closeness ( to  minutes) to the town of Wroxall will give you opportunities for a quite suitable place to stay, at very reasonable prices.201bis

After various exchanges of letters, the dates for the meeting were set

for September –. Only twelve members (six actual members, and six

consultors) of the Commission attended the meeting—so, strictly

speaking, it was not a plenary session—as well as seven experts from

among the Gregorianists who had been invited at the request of the

Holy Father, in order to give greater weight to the decisions to be made.

The members of the Commission who attended were:

Right Rev. Dom Joseph Pothier, President

Dom André Mocquereau

Dom L. Janssens

Reverend Father A. de Santi

Dr. P. Wagner

Mr. H. Worth

The consultors who attended were:

Rev. Father François Perriot

Father Alexandre Grospellier

bis. See also a letter from Dom Mocquereau to Father Baralli, quoted by Moneta-Caglio ( Musica Sacra, , p. ).

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1904 285

Abbé René Moissenet

Dom Michael Horn

Dom Raphael Molitor

Professor Amédée Gastoué

Among the experts who attended were:

Father C. Gaborit (Poitiers)

Father M. Moloney (Westminster)

Dom A. Gatard (Farnborough)

Dom W. Corney (Downside)

Reverend Father Guillaume (Trappist Monastery of Oka, Canada)202

Mr. A. Booth (Liverpool)

Mr. Giulio Bas (Italy)

Eight countries were thus represented at the meeting, and only one

Italian, Bas, attended—and he was not a member of the Vatican Com-

mission (Father de Santi was still of Austrian nationality). None of the Germans who were invited as experts responded to this appeal.

There were seven sessions in all: one the first day, two (morning and

evening) on the days thereafter. These were the most important ones,

not merely because of the number of members of consultors who par-

ticipated in them, but also because of the positive decisions that were

made during them. Bas was appointed secretary, at Dom Pothier’s sug-

gestion. His minutes are used as the basis for the account given here.

The first session was held on September . Dom Pothier addressed

the meeting to pay tribute to Pius X, restorer of the liturgical chant, and read the following telegram, which was dictated by the Pope himself:

Rome, September , , : PM. To: Abbot Pothier, Appuldurcombe, Wroxall. His Holiness, most pleased with the meeting of the illustrious members of the Gregorian Commission being held at the monastery of the worthy monks of Solesmes, extends his fullest apostolic blessing and with the wish for much benefit from the union of minds and efforts. (Signed) Respighi.202bis

. The Reverend Father Guillaume from the Abbey of Oka did not arrive until the third session, so his signature does not appear in the missive sent to the Pope ( Rassegna Gregoriana

, col. –); however, he does appear in the photograph published in Rassegna Gregoriana

, col. –.—Cf. The Catholic Choirmaster , no. .

bis. Roma  Sett. , ore , pom.—Abate Pothier, Appuldurcombe, Wroxall. Sua Santità, lietissima della riunione degli illustri membri della Commissione Gregoriana presso gli am-mirandi monachi Solesmensi, invia a tutti amplissima apostolica benedizione, augurando dall’unione di animi e studii proficuo risultato. Respighi.

286 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

The members of the Commission responded to the Pope in these

words:

Most Holy Father. The members of the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican Edition of the chant, and all those who have been invited to take part in their deliberations, meeting together at the residence of the Benedictines of Solesmes at Appuldurcombe, prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness, express their earnest feelings of acknowledgment and filial devotion for the goodness with which Your Holiness has deigned to send them a new Apostolic Blessing, for the most precious encouragement for the work entrusted to them, and which they wish to pursue with zeal for the glory of the Holy Church, and the satisfaction of Your Holiness. [Signatures]

Then Dom Pothier underscored

the responsibilities to the Church, art, and science that were incumbent on all with regard to the research to be done and the decisions to be made. That is why everyone must have the same objective: the interests of art itself, the destiny of which has been, in a way, entrusted to the Commission. Even the inevitable divergence in points of view must work together for the good of the common effort: they must tend to unite, rather than to divide.

Dom Pothier also called to mind paragraph a of the motu proprio of April , in which the task of the Commission is spelled out:

The melodies of the Church, so called Gregorian, will be restored in their integrity and in their purity in accordance with the true text of the most ancient manuscripts, in such a way, however, that due attention be given to the true tradition contained in the codices throughout the centuries, and to the practical usage of contemporary liturgy.

Father de Santi spoke next. “He assured the group that the Holy Fa-

ther was pleased with these meetings held at Appuldurcombe,”—and

he added specifically that it was at “the wishes of the Holy Father” that other Gregorian scholars from outside the Commission had been invited to attend,203 since the work of restoring the Gregorian melodies ben-

efitted from the scholarly work and the efforts of all. Father de Santi

continued, saying, “It is truly unfortunate that many of the Germans in-

vited to these meetings were unable to attend.l.l.l. Their presence

would have help mitigate, to some extent, the mistrust that still exists in Germany with regard to our work.”

. Dom Mocquereau is thus wrongly accused of having issued these invitations on his own.

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1904 287

Then Dom Mocquereau noted that the Kyriale that was planned for publication first is the part of the Gregorian repertory that poses the

most problems—it is the least ancient part—and, as a result, he asked

for a few months’ reprieve, in order to work on determining his defini-

tive version. In this regard, he announced that two monks were travel-

ing at that very moment to photograph the manuscripts, and that they

were sending back reproductions every day. By contrast, he noted that

the Proper of the Gradual was almost finished. At the second session, Dom Mocquereau was in a position to agree to supply the text of the

Kyriale in January , which was unanimously approved.

During that first session, Father de Santi began providing informa-

tion about the answers to the questionnaire that had been sent to the

members and consultors of the Commission on June , and to other

musicians and Gregorian scholars.

That circular letter, announced in the decisions of the first sessions

held in Rome, asked the opinion of each person on the following

points:

. Do you have any reservations on the last editions by Solesmes,

published by Desclée? What changes should be made, beginning with

the Kyriale and the first part of the Graduale?

. How, in psalmody, might the mediant better be handled when it

falls on a monosyllable or on a Hebrew word?

. What rules should be followed in adapting the text to psalmodic

cadences when there are words that have an unaccented penultimate

syllable?

Father de Santi informed the meeting of the answers received during

the various sessions. These responses were quite brief, except for a few more detailed ones, such as those provided by Dom Pothier, Msgr.

Grassi-Landi, canon of St. Peter’s in Rome,204 Father Gaborit, Father

Grospellier, Father Perriot, Dom Janssens, Dom Molitor, Reverend Fa-

ther Dechevrens, Reverend Father Olmeda, Dr. Wagner, and Professor

Amédée Gastoué.

The file of responses was then available to anyone. It contained near-

ly fifty responses (, to be precise). Curiously, Msgr. Foucault, Bishop

. Canon of St. Peter’s in Rome who, according to a confidential remark by Father de Santi, believed that he was quite talented when it came to things Gregorian ( Iter Italicum, manuscript of Dom Blanchon, pp. –).

288 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

of Saint-Dié, and Edgar Tinel, of Mechlin, declined to give their opin-

ions. Bishop Foucault did so because he was unable “to follow the Com-

mission into the territory in which it had moved,” and Tinel because he

restricted that honor “to the eminent individuals who have been official-ly appointed to be part of the Commission at issue, and among whom

clearly I had no right to be counted.” There was also a letter in support of the restoration of the ancient Hymns, signed by a group of seminarians from Saint-Sulpice, some fifty of them, among whom were Abbé

Maurice Feltin (later Archbishop of Paris), and Abbé Yves Delaporte.

At the second session, on September , after some responses to the

Commission’s questionnaire were read, the following agenda was

adopted for the sessions:

. Notation of the Vatican Edition, and the relationship of the nota-

tion to the rhythm.

. Approval of the Vatican and other editions or popular transcrip-

tions.

. Diocesan Propers.

. Psalmody, interrupted cadences.

. General lines of the Commission’s work.

The discussion on the notation of the Vatican Edition began immedi-

ately. “It was decided unanimously that no notation would be accepted

unless the grouping of the notes is in conformity with the traditional

grouping.” In the afternoon, the morning’s discussion of notation con-

tinued, and the Commission decided to allow publishers the freedom to

choose the form of writing that they would adopt (for example, certain

neumes could be written with the two forms, vertical or slanted), and it rejected a resolution from Dr. Wagner that was worded as follows: “Dr.

Wagner proposes issuing a categorical exclusion of any other notation

(other than that adopted by the Commission), but the proposition was

not accepted.” Finally, the Commission did pass a resolution that the

Vatican Edition would be “mandatory for all Churches of the Roman

rite.”204bis

The question of approving the editions of Gregorian chant was ad-

dressed on September . Two lines of thought surfaced regarding the

bis. This decision concerning Gregorian notation would be annulled by the decree of the Congregation of Sacred Rites of August ,  (cf. No. ).

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1904 289

interpretation of the paragraph in the motu proprio that dealt with this matter:

One tends to legitimize the various individual traditions, provided that they are confirmed by good manuscripts; the other, to the contrary, admits that the purpose of the Vatican Edition is specifically to put an end to these various traditions, and that paragraph d of the motu proprio is intended to protect only those variants of versions that are supported by good manuscripts. Dom Pothier .l.l. stated that he considers the variants of the versions more dangerous and subject to confusion than the complete diversity of several melodies for the same liturgical text. But Father de Santi, backed by Dom Janssens, noted that the objective of paragraph d of the motu proprio 205 was quite a worthy one, and that it was very prudent with respect to scientific studies and the work of Gregorian scholars, and therefore it should not be diminished in any way by the decisions of the Commission. It was then agreed to define the subject very precisely.

.l.l. The Very Reverend President took the occasion to note that the diversity of variants is a rather secondary aspect, in the face of the real and substantial unity of the Gregorian tradition. That unity must not be threatened in any manner.l.l.l.

Those words ended the debate, and at the next session, in the afternoon

“Father de Santi’s proposal (made at the previous session) regarding the approval of the texts with variants, which will be mentioned in the

wording of the approval, was adopted.”

In the morning session, the discussion had led Father de Santi to ask

Dom Mocquereau for a demonstration, to be done in front of every-

one, of the method used in restoring the melodic text. That evening,

Dom Mocquereau

presented the comparative table of the various versions of the manuscripts for the Kyrie Fons bonitatis, and he read some explanations which he then expanded upon in additional remarks, and which the members commented upon

at length .l.l. Dr. Wagner then moved for a motion of confidence in favor of the editors and asked the members of the Commission to offer any of their own comments that they felt would be useful on the suggested text. Dom Moc-

. Paragraph d of the motu proprio of April ,  was annulled by the decree of the Congregation of Sacred Rites of August ,  (cf. No. ). The paragraph addressed the Solesmes editions that had already been approved and declared in conformity with the motu proprio of November , , on February , . It should also be noted the Dom Mocquereau did not seek any support for his editions at the session on September .

290 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

quereau agreed, but asked that detailed reasons be provided to substantiate the comments.

Dom Janssens noted that the proposed motion would imply that there had

been a lack of confidence at times, which was not accurate. To the contrary, the Holy Father had expressed his own confidence with singular solemnity [an allusion to the Brief addressed to Dom Delatte on May , ] and in Rome the Commission itself had manifested its confidence. For these reasons, he felt that a new motion was unnecessary. It was Father de Santi’s opinion that Dr.

Wagner’s proposal should be considered a confirmation of the resolution taken in Rome, being made more solemn by the number of those in attendance, all the more so since many of the members had not been present in Rome.

The next day, on September , Dr. Wagner’s motion was recorded with the

following addition: Upon reading the minutes of the previous session, Dr. Wagner added to the motion of confidence in support of the monks of Solesmes, which he proposed the day before, another motion worded as follows: The

Commission desires that in all cases where the data of the manuscripts is insufficient for a definitive reconstruction, preference shall be given to the versions already used by Gregorian scholars and contained in the books of Solesmes.

The Commission approved the resolution. But Dom Janssens proposed a resolution worded as follows: “The Commission expresses its wish that, in cases where paleographical research does not provide a definite solution, esthetic considerations can cause the most beautiful version to prevail, even if an examination of the manuscripts would tend to favor another version.” The Commission approved that resolution, as well.

It is regrettable to see Dom Janssens opposing Dom Mocquereau

once again, and all the more so since the opposition was a long-standing one. At the Conference of Christian Archaeology held at Rome in April

, Dom Janssens had opposed a resolution in favor of the Paléographie Musicale (cf. No. ). We have already examined his subsequent actions in March , during the preparation of the motu proprio of April

 (cf. Nos. –). Again on May , Father de Santi had drawn Dom

Mocquereau’s attention to the fact that if the Commission failed to

meet, the reason was Dom Janssens: “Dom Janssens always says that he

is ill, and in fact he did not show up yesterday. Might this perhaps be a diplomatic illness?” Finally, on June , Father de Santi notes that the Brief that the Pope sent to Dom Delatte had disturbed him:

Reverend Father Janssens now seems to me to be taking the edition very much to heart; but in speaking with me the other day of the latest Brief addressed to you, he told me that it gave the impression that there was a desire to put the THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1904 291

Right Rev. Dom Pothier completely to one side. I do not understand where anyone could derive such an idea. (To Dom Delatte)206

Father Grospellier has given the following impartial eyewitness ac-

count of the impression left by the visit to the paleography workshop:

Aside from the sessions, the members of the assembly were especially interested in their visit to the paleography workshop, where the work of restoring the Gregorian melodies takes place. At the sight of these manuscripts, which have been gathered from all over, and of the photographs of the manuscripts—

thousands of which have already been collected, and the number of which is growing daily in this new style of scriptorium—one had to concede that one could not possibly imagine a richer and more varied collection of materials for preparing the Vatican Edition. It is truly the entire tradition of Gregorian chant that is spread out before your eyes, represented by hordes of witnesses from every century and every country.

Although some entered the scriptorium with some residual caution and de-

fiance, they left with confidence in their souls and with praise on their lips for Dom Mocquereau and his worthy team. All were unanimous in their procla-mation that an edition based on such a wealth of materials, such an expert staff, and such refined and conscientious working methods would be worthy of the destiny that the Sovereign Pontiff is preparing for it throughout the entire Church.

The same impression was made even more strongly in a session where Dom

Mocquereau presented to the assembly the complete table of a Kyrie, with the whole critical apparatus of the variants from all the manuscripts, and the reasoned and documented justification for each reading adopted for the typical edition. Once again, the conviction unanimously expressed was that it would be impossible to have more abundant information available or to implement a more perfect method of work. (A. Grospellier, “Appuldurcombe et la réunion de la Commission grégorienne,” in Revue du Chant Grégorien, September–October , pp. –.)

In the March–April  issue of the Revue du Chant Grégorien, shortly before the Vatican Commission was dissolved, the following notice appeared: “The editors are using the surest means and the most earnest

and conscientious work methods to give the Church as accurate and as

perfect an edition as is humanly possible” ( Échos et Mélanges, unsigned, p. ).

. Dom Janssens carefully avoided the two monks responsible for photographing the Gregorian manuscripts, when they passed through St. Anselm’s in  ( Iter Italicum, p. ).

292 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

Let us return to the session of the morning of September . Dr.

Wagner offered a resolution that, in a certain manner, has just been tak-en up once again by Vatican Council II. It was worded as follows:

Dr. Wagner, underscoring the conditions of small Churches in non-Latin

countries, where the integral chanting of very ornate melodies is impossible, and the recitation of the texts in place of the chant is no less difficult owing to pronunciation and ignorance of the Latin language, asks whether it would be possible to allow the chants between the Epistle and the Gospel to be omitted.

Dom Horn seconded this resolution, at the request of many Germans. Father de Santi recalled that in Rome, at the Gregorian Congress, he had suggested introducing some more or less ornate formulas to which the various texts mentioned by Dr. Wagner could be suitably adapted. Dom Pothier and Dom Moc-

quereau averred that such formulas could be found in the manuscripts, without any need for composing new ones.

Dom Janssens suggested preparing an abridged edition, made according to

all the criteria and means available today, thanks to which a truly artistic result could be achieved. However, the Commission did not share Dom Janssens’

opinion. Some commented, as well, that they did not have the authority for such work. To this, Dom Janssens responded that he was only asking that some thought be given to the topic.

With regard to this last suggestion, it must be noted that there could

be, in fact, no question of abridging the traditional melodies, thereby

falling into the errors of the Medicean edition—nor even of adapting

ancient formulas to new texts (and that is doubtless why the  proj-

ect was abandoned)—but of providing, with the permission of the Holy

See, a new repertory of ancient, very short pieces that could be sung in small parish churches, or when it is truly impossible to provide for worthy performance of the traditional Gregorian repertoire.

That afternoon, Dr. Wagner returned to the question:

With regard to the formulas to be adopted for the simple chanting of the Graduals, Tracts, Alleluia verses, Dr. Wagner proposes that, to this end, reference be made to the formulas of the responsorial psalms that have fallen into disuse. The liturgical nature of these chants would thus be maintained. Dom Mocquereau shares this opinion.

.l.l. Dr. Wagner, therefore, proposes that the editors of the Vatican Edition be formally charged with selecting simple formulas .l.l. formulas that should be published at the same time as the rest of the edition, and submitted to the Commissioners as early as possible. Father de Santi also proposes that the THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1904 293

Commission authorize the Rassegna Gregoriana to publish them. The Commission approves. The matters relating to the previous session were concluded, and the minutes of that session were approved.

In the afternoon of September , a heated debate concerning the “in-

terrupted mediants” took place.

Father de Santi read separately the responses received on this matter, according to the questionnaire that had been sent out. Dom Pothier immediately drew a distinction between the medieval psalm formulae and those more commonly used today. Before comments could be made, he said, it was necessary to know which psalmody was being discussed. In this regard, Dr. Wagner suggested a resolution in favor of returning to the medieval psalm formulae for the psalmody of the Introit and the Communion, which the Commission approved. Then discussion turned to the “interrupted mediants.” Father Grospellier read an interesting paper to prove that during the Gregorian era, no special treatment was given in the chant to final monosyllables. At the end of the reading, the Commission was unanimous in its applause.

Dom Pothier admitted that there was no interrupted mediant when the for-

mula is melodic, no matter how little; but that it does exist when the psalmody is merely an accentuation. Professor Gastoué remarked that in many cases, the accented monosyllabic final is illogical and contrary to grammar, and that the truncated final is thus not logical, whereas in the case of oxytonic accentuation, it is legitimate, or at least is not a source of difficulty.

After considerable exchange of ideas on ancient and modern pronunciation of Hebrew words in the liturgical texts, and on the practical opportuneness of maintaining one or another of the forms discussed, Dom Janssens, in agreement with Dr. Wagner, proposed allowing free choice, and the decision was approved to introduce in the Vatican Edition the ordinary formula of the psalmody in any case, placing the interrupted mediant as an alternative at the bottom of the page, for instances in which it might be applicable, for the Lessons, Epistles, and Gospels and in the psalmody of Modes , , and . [Ultimately, it was the contrary that was implemented.]

Finally, there was a debate on psalmody, on September , during

both sessions:

Father de Santi conveyed various comments and requests sent to the Commission, following which Dom Mocquereau moved that discussion be limited to the psalmody of the Introit. Dom Pothier spoke about the variants that occur on this point, and about their note groupings, and defended his reasoning, in part. Dom Mocquereau and Father Grospellier stated that there was nothing to 294 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

debate, since the manuscripts are unanimous on the issue. Professor Gastoué responded that certain medieval authors gave norms that were contrary to the manuscripts. That is why both sources must be consulted.

In the afternoon, debate once again focused on this issue:

Dom Pothier spoke at length in favor of the version in which the accent coincides with the neume. Dr. Wagner then asked whether the group wanted to exhaust such a topic on the spot. However, Father Grospellier, in agreement with Dom Mocquereau, answered that the group could and should decide immediately, since the unanimity of the manuscripts left no doubt on what should be done. Therefore, at the specific suggestion of Dr. Wagner, the Commission unanimously decided to follow the uniform tradition of the manuscripts.

In the morning, Father de Santi had made an important suggestion.

He proposed promoting an international Gregorian congress, which would be held at Strasbourg the following year, before the Catholic Congress scheduled to be held there, as well. He suggested making Dr. Wagner responsible for forming an organizing committee, and he proposed that the Pontifical Commission hold a meeting during that Congress. The proposal was approved

unanimously.

After the discussion on psalmody discussed above, Father de Santi

took the initiative to adjourn the meeting:

The work of the Commission being thus concluded, Father de Santi proposed that special thanks be expressed to the Reverend Father Abbot of Solesmes who had extended such warm hospitality to the Commission, and all applauded loudly. Dr. Wagner said that before the group went its separate ways, it was appropriate to adopt a resolution of thanks to the Reverend President. May God reward fifty years of activity and scholarship devoted to the service of the Church and of art by Dom Pothier! All applauded, and Dom Pothier responded by speaking about the history of the Gregorian restoration accomplished at Solesmes. He thanked those who had helped him, those who had continued

and strengthened his work, and those who will continue to work on it. Dom Mocquereau thanked him in the name of all the monks of Solesmes, and after a resolution of thanks to Pius X proposed by Dom Janssens, the final session was adjourned. Pax in virtute!

The main decisions of the meeting have been presented above, at

times summarizing everything that was said about a particular subject

(at the session of the debate and at the following session when the min-

utes were submitted for approval by all). However, there were other de-

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1904 295

cisions, generally of secondary importance, that have not yet been ad-

dressed. As they appear in the official list of decisions made by the

Commission at Appuldurcombe, in concluding this section, the full list

is presented below, with some additional information provided in

parentheses:

. The Commission meeting at Appuldurcombe confirms the motion

of full confidence that it issued at Rome in support of the Benedictine

fathers of Solesmes as Editors of the Vatican Edition of Gregorian

chant.

. The Commission expresses its desire that, in all cases where the in-

formation of the manuscripts is insufficient to establish a definitive reconstruction of the melodies, preference shall be given to the versions

already used by Gregorian scholars and contained in the books of

Solesmes.

. The Commission expresses its desire that, in cases where paleo-

graphical research does not provide a definitive solution, esthetic con-

siderations may cause the most beautiful version to prevail, even if the study of the manuscripts may tend to favor another version.

. In every country, an individual shall be made responsible for gath-

ering correspondence concerning Gregorian chant addressed to the

Commission, and to forward such correspondence to Rome.

. The Commission, limiting itself to the obvious meaning of the

motu proprio, decides to approve only those editions that contain the melodies of the Vatican Edition. In cases where there may be several

variants of versions confirmed by good manuscripts, the wording of

the approval shall indicate the legitimate presence of the traditional

variants. (This decision was annulled by the decree of the Congregation

of Sacred Rites of August , .)

. The Commission expresses its wish that the Vatican Edition be de-

clared mandatory for all Churches of the Roman rite.

. In the Vatican Edition and in reproductions of it, no notation shall

be accepted unless the grouping of the notes is in conformity with the

traditional grouping.

 to . [These paragraphs relate to the writing of the neumes, for

which a certain degree of freedom was granted to publishers, as men-

tioned above—vertical or slanted shapes; the liquescent notes and the

quilisma are mandatory. A decree of the Congregation of Sacred Rites

of August , , imposed absolute uniformity in these matters.]

296 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

. The Editorial Board of the Vatican Edition has until January 

to produce the melodies of the Ordinarium Missae and they undertake to send the recommended musical texts to the Commission from time

to time, as they are restored.

. Other Masses, including a Mass taken from the Ambrosian

chants, shall be added to the Ordinarium Missae currently in use. [The Editorial Board did, in fact, prepare an Ambrosian Mass, which appears

in the initial proofs of the Kyriale.]

. The traditional titles of certain Masses and melodies shall be re-

tained (e.g. Kyrie Fons bonitatis, Kyrie Deus sempiterne, etc.), and certain more widely known chants and Masses shall be distributed according to

the importance and the class of the (liturgical) functions, leaving all the other chants ad libitum.

. The Royal Mass of Dumont shall not be included in the Vatican

Edition, but the Missa de Angelis shall be retained.

. Certain good melodies for the Credo, if any are found, shall be in-

troduced into the Ordinarium Missae.

. In the formulae to be placed at the end of the Ordinarium for recitative chants, a return shall be made to the ancient variety and richness, and for the Preface, as well.

. The Congregation of Sacred Rites shall be requested to return to

the medieval text of the Hymns (a) because the text corrected by Urban

VIII is ill-suited to the needs of the chant; (b) in consideration of the artistic unity of the whole of the liturgical work; and (c) out of respect for the ancient and holy authors of a great portion of these chants.

. Authorization to add certain ancient sequences as an Appendix to

the Missal shall be sought from the Holy See. [At the suggestion of Fa-

ther Grospellier.]

. The Congregation of Sacred Rites shall be petitioned for authori-

zation to sing the Benedictus of the Mass as a single unit with the Sanctus, in conformity with ancient liturgical usage.

. The medieval psalm formulae shall be used once again for the

psalmody of the Introit.

. With respect to the psalmody of the Introit, the uniform tradi-

tion of the manuscripts must be followed.

. The Editorial Board of the Vatican Edition is charged with select-

ing more or less ornate recitative formulae that may be introduced as a

simple chant for the Graduals, Tracts, and Alleluia verses, and which are THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1904 297

to be published at the same time as the official edition. The Commis-

sion invites the Editorial Board to submit these formulae to it as soon as possible. The Rassegna Gregoriana of Rome is authorized to publish them as soon as the Commission receives them.

. For the psalmody, the ordinary formulae shall be introduced in

the Vatican Edition in all cases, placing the interrupted mediant at the bottom of the page as an option, when it is applicable. The same shall

be done for the formulae of the verses, lessons, Epistles, and Gospels.

. A complete list of corrections to the liturgical texts to be recom-

mended to the Congregation of Sacred Rites must be drawn up, indicat-

ing with a special sign those corrections that relate to the chant; an explanatory note must be provided for all corrections.

. The Congregation of Sacred Rites shall be asked (a) for approval

of the diocesan Propers, not only the texts but their melodies, as well, and to submit them to the Commission; (b) if there are already any existing parts in the Propers, that the melody to be adopted shall be the

melody already in use; and (c) that not too many different Masses shall

be granted for the same feast.

Father Grospellier noted that the wishes expressed by the Pope in his

telegram to the Commission had been fulfilled, and that the meeting

had taken place in the harmony “of minds and scholarship.” Nearly all

the decisions had been made unanimously. That is clearly what the min-

utes show. Yet if one looks back at the events of March, when the motu proprio issued in April was being drafted and the membership of the Vatican Commission was being determined, and if one then examines

carefully the minutes of the sessions, it is clear that a certain amount of mistrust was forming with regard to the Editorial Board, and it becomes evident that this unanimity was quite fragile. That everything

went so smoothly can be explained by the fact that the hot topics were

not tackled, or were mentioned only briefly in passing: the interpreta-

tion of paragraph a of the motu proprio of April ,  (cf. above). The future was soon to show that this somewhat pessimistic assessment was

well founded. When the problem was addressed head-on and openly,

the Commission split into two camps, and soon fell to pieces, in fact if not in theory.

Nonetheless, at this meeting in September, there was no dearth of

high praise, and very sincere praise, for the work of the scriptorium at Solesmes, and even with regard to the chanting of the monks, which

298 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

was performed according to rhythmic principles that some of the group

had already rejected and which were, at least in part, at the origin of the misunderstanding.

Let us return to the chanting of the monks.

These performances were not merely an artistic delight, but an instructive lesson for all. One did not tire of admiring the perfect ensemble singing of these sixty men’s voices, admirably blended into one, nor of the sweetness of the psalmody, of the melodies, in which everything seemed so natural, so devoid of studied effects, as is appropriate for prayer. Thus we were not surprised at the considerable number of Protestants who attended Vespers each evening. (A.

Grospellier, Appuldurcombe, p. )

Msgr. Foucault had declined to respond to the questionnaire sent to

him by the Commission. We have also seen that he shared the concerns

of the French publishers (cf. No. ). This did not augur well for the Vatican Edition. However, the edition of Rheims-Cambrai—certainly the

best of the French editions published before Dom Pothier’s edition—

seemed to him to suffice for the French. Thus he was planning on

reprinting that edition, to defeat the Vatican Edition in France. An en-

voy from the Bishop of Saint-Dié, went to Cambrai, as a very well-in-

formed correspondent wrote to Dom Mocquereau,

to ask that the diocese join him in reprinting the Rheims and Cambrai edition.

There are four dioceses that have already agreed, and if the number is large enough, one could speedily proceed with the task. Without any doubt, the objective is to obstruct the Vatican Edition. (To Dom Sergent, September , ) Nonetheless, despite his differences of opinion with Dom Pothier,

Msgr. Foucault found himself with him in Belgium (where Dom Poth-

ier had taken refuge with his community), at Andenne, on September

. In the company of Dom Pothier, he took part in a large meeting

held under the auspices of the Association of St. Gregory, of the Dio-

cese of Namur, chaired by Father Sosson, a musicologist.207

. Cf. Courrier de Saint-Grégoire (Liège), October–December , pp. –. On the meeting at Appuldurcombe, cf. Musica Sacra (Milan), October , p. , an article by Father de Santi : La Commissione Pontificia per la nuova edizione dei libri di canto gregoriano nell’Isola di Wight (excerpted from Civiltà Cattolica , vol. , pp. –).

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1904 299

. Paleographical Wanderings in England and Italy

Dom Mocquereau had long wanted to create at Solesmes a vast col-

lection of Gregorian chant manuscripts, through photography. Howev-

er, these manuscripts had to be sought out in the public or capitular libraries, whose conservators were often hardly supportive of, if not

outright hostile to, the reproduction of their treasures. Dom Moc-

quereau was already familiar with the primary collections in France,

Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands, where he had traveled

looking for manuscripts, and he was very eager to study the libraries of England, Austro-Hungary, and Spain. The editing of the Vatican Edition, for which he was responsible, was an opportunity for him to fulfill his dream of visiting these countries.

During his stay in Rome, Dom Mocquereau had insisted that he be

given every possible assistance in this matter, and he finally obtained a letter from the Cardinal Secretary of State, dated August , , to the conservators of the libraries, recommending the delegates of the Abbot

of Solesmes who were assigned to photograph the manuscripts.

Armed with the recommendation from Cardinal Merry del Val and,

soon, from the Minister of Public Instruction of the Kingdom of Italy,

two monks set off on August , , and did not return to Appuldur-

combe until December . They were Dom Paul Blanchon-Lasserve and

Dom Amand Ménager, who explored the major libraries of Italy. A new

photographic technique (the use of an erecting prism) enabled them to

acquire a few hundred definitive proofs in just a few hours. The photo-

graphs were taken directly on paper, without the intermediary of a

plate or film. Once exposed, the sensitive paper was packaged on site to protect it from light (in the dark room to which Dom Blanchon alludes

below), and immediately sent to Appuldurcombe. There, the photo-

graphs were simply developed and fixed. At that point, they had a nega-

tive reproduction of the manuscripts, which could be used immediately

to transcribe the melodies onto the comparative tables.

Let us now quickly join our travelers as they cross the peninsula, tak-

ing selections from Dom Blanchon’s chronicle, focusing primarily on

how warmly they were received everywhere.

The tour through Italy was preceded, in June, by visits to the li-

braries at Oxford and Worcester, visits that were also made by Dom

300 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

Blanchon and Dom Ménager. The librarians were most hospitable, such

as the dean (of the Anglican cathedral) of Worcester, who

welcomed us with a warmth that we had hardly hoped for. We worked up in

the rafters of the cathedral. The day was far from perfect, but we made do, at the cost of some stiffness that is inevitable when one has to spend a long time in a little nook in the rafters, which I transformed into my darkroom. ( June ) In early August, the two monks also visited the British Museum, thanks

to the recommendation of the Duke of Norfolk and of Msgr. Cahill,

Bishop of Portsmouth. Their departure for Italy took place on the th.

On the th, our travelers had reached Milan, and by the twentieth, they were at the Ambrosian Library.

Dr. Ceriani and Professor Ratti [the future Pius XI] were most welcoming, and readily granted us permission to photograph the chant manuscripts that we wanted. We kept up this schedule for eight days at the Ambrosian. Father Garbagnati often came to see us. He is quite friendly, a great admirer of the chant of Solesmes .l.l.l; he is quite interested in the manuscripts, and makes every effort to help us.

On the th, we set up our operation at the Brera, where we were to photograph a manuscript and several fragments. We were very warmly received, and we learned that a telegram had arrived that very morning, urging the Librarian to give us whatever support he could provide for our work. From that point on, we would encounter no more problems .l.l. The steps taken by Msgr. Bressan resulted in our obtaining a letter from the Director of Public Instruction, and in notice being sent of our arrival to all the Italian libraries.

Archpriest Msgr. Rossi received them equally warmly in Monza on Au-

gust  (they returned to Milan every evening). There were a great

number of manuscripts there:

all these manuscripts are marked with the stamp of France’s Bibliothèque Nationale, and they are bound in red morocco leather with the insignia of

Napoleon. The Emperor had had them all brought to Paris. They were re-

turned to their Church under the Restoration.

They went on from Monza to Vercelli, from September –: “We are

able to put in solid days here, from :  to : , or even : , the only interruption being for dinner (on the grass in the inner court of the Duomo).” Then they headed to Ivrea, to the library of the Chapter

(the two monks lodged at the seminary and went to visit the Salesians).

On the th, they continued on to Turin, where they stayed with Don

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1904 301

Bosco. “We bring our equipment into the room where they have

brought together what remained of the manuscripts, following the fire

last January.”

On Sunday, October , our travelers reached Piacenza; our Msgr. Pia-

cenza,207bis a friend of Bannister and Father de Santi, “showed us all its treasures, including a splendid th-century Antiphonal, a large folio with perfect writing and excellently preserved.” On Thursday, October

, they left Piacenza after being received by the Carmelites for four days

“that may well count among the most pleasant of our travels.”

After a night on the train, in a car that was completely full and

stacked with their awkward baggage, our travelers arrived in Lucca, on

Friday, October . They were cordially welcomed there by Father Baral-

li, thanks to whom the canons, ardent supporters of Pustet, agreed to

allow their manuscripts to be photographed, although they did request

(as was the practice in public libraries) a written promise not to publish the photographs. Gregorian chant enthusiasts met one evening at Father Baralli’s residence—an event that was to be repeated elsewhere—

and the monks of Solesmes could hardly refuse to provide a few sam-

ples of the chant of Solesmes, “even though Baralli, who had never set

foot there, sings much better than we do.” On Friday, October , they

reached the Archbishop’s offices and the various libraries of Florence.

On the th, they left for Perugia, where they stayed until the th, the date they departed for Rome.

They arrived in Rome on October . Their first visit was to Father

de Santi. On October , they visited Msgr. Bressan, who had received

the letter from the Italian government. Then they visited Cardinal Ram-

polla, the archpriest of St. Peter’s. The cardinal “received us right away, and as soon as he learned of the purpose of our visit, he stated that he would cooperate fully with us, and that he would convene the Chapter

the next day, Sunday, following the Mass” (with regard to the authoriza-

tion they had requested). That same day, again with an eye to reproduc-

ing manuscripts from public libraries, they had to go to the Ministry of the Interior, where they received a friendly welcome, then to Felici,

who was to photograph the manuscripts selected in Rome. Although

the archives of St. Peter’s were rich particularly in Palestrina’s music, the other libraries were more satisfying.

bis. Sic: It so happened that the city and its bishop shared the same name.

302 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

On Wednesday, October , the Pope granted a -minute audience

to the monks from Solesmes, and showed them that he was very well

informed about everything. He said,

you are having fewer problems than those who were here a few months ago

[for the preparation of the motu proprio of April ]; they worked well, and it was difficult at times, but now everything has calmed down and there is general agreement.

Then the Pope added:

Be patient. We are going to produce a good edition, and the Pope who will come after Us will see to it that everyone accepts it. The work of the Church proceeds slowly. Just consider the Council of Trent: some of its decrees have still not been promulgated, and they would already stand in need of amend-ment! And those decrees were passed ,  .l.l. no,  years ago!

While performing this little calculation, Pius X smiled and blinked his

eyes, and his expression was truly wonderful.

On November , the monks from Solesmes saw the Pope once more,

but this time in the company of other pilgrims.

On November , our travelers left Rome after making a pilgrimage

to Subiaco. They learned before leaving that the Marciana library in

Venice, which was on the verge of collapsing in ruins, had been closed,

and they decided against traveling there. Instead, they headed for Bari

by way of Monte Cassino. It was there that they reached “our highest

output, managing to produce  photographs in seven hours of work”

(at which point, they noted, they had used four kilometers worth of pa-

per). On Monday, November , they were in Benevento,208 followed by

Loretto on November  after an overnight trip, Bologna on the st,

Modena on the th, Nonantola, where the work proceeded very quick-

ly, and Verona on the th.209 In Bologna, Cardinal Svampa welcomed

them very cordially, and reminded them that he had been one of the

first defenders of the Solesmes chant against Pustet (see above, No. ).

He gave them a letter of recommendation for the Archbishop of Mode-

na and the Cardinal of Verona, who welcomed them with the greatest

possible cordiality. On December , the travelers were back in Milan

. Father Antonio di Rienzo: I Benedettini di Solesmes a Benevento, in Musica Sacra (Milan), January , p. . Cf. p. , Note Italiane.

. Fiori Solesmiani, in Verona Fidele, December ,  (chant course at the Seminary).

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1904 303

once again, but this time to rest at the Benedictine house, where they

had been so warmly welcomed at the outset.

After being away for four months, the travelers returned to Appul-

durcombe on December , after a brief stop at Andenne, where there

were a few manuscripts to be photographed.210

This first journey for the Vatican Edition brought more than ,

photographic proofs to Appuldurcombe, and at that point, the work-

shop had more than  complete manuscripts.211 These photographs

were sent to England immediately, after each stage of the journey,

which enabled the twelve monks working as copyists to use them right

away for the preparation of the Kyriale, which had been promised to the Commission for January . Dom Mocquereau was very well aware

of the objections that would be raised, and he thus took the wisest

course by positioning himself immediately to answer his critics. On this issue, Msgr. Moneta-Caglio wrote:

In this climate of naïve optimism (which arose following the meeting at Appuldurcombe), Dom Mocquereau was the one person who, more than anyone

else, kept his head on his shoulders and understood that he was faced with a task that required all his strength. So he got down to work right away, since he wanted the version that he had to submit as editor to be very thoroughly documented. ( Musica Sacra, , p. )

The Revue du Chant Grégorien alludes to these objections:

All those who will make the effort to obtain accurate information on the preparation of the chant books will say, along with the Commission, that an edition that has such thorough documentation at its service, such expert scholars, and such refined and conscientious methods, will be suitable for the plans that the Sovereign Pontiff has for it throughout the entire Church.

Another element that supports this affirmation are the Notes on the Kyrie Fons bonitatis that Dom Gabriel Beyssac, one of the young editors of the Gregorian school of Solesmes, has just published in the Rassegna Gregoriana (November–December , col. –). The  neumes of that piece are reviewed

. Iter Italicum by Dom Blanchon; cf. Revue du Chant Grégorien, , p. ; Musica Sacra (Milan), January , p. . Two other paleographical tours took place in , one to Germany, the other to Spain. Finally, another trip took place in  (Germany, Austro-Hungary, and once again in Northern Italy). Cf. infra, No. .

. J. Dupont (pseudonym of Dom Étienne Bourigaud) in L’Univers of March , 

(Chronique Grégorienne).

304 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

one after the other in his article, according to the manuscripts at the paleographical scriptorium. There are  manuscripts for this Kyrie, grouped into six classes or schools; several date back to the tenth and eleventh centuries. From this exceedingly detailed study, Dom Beyssac has come up with a dozen small corrections, based on the best and most numerous manuscripts. No method

could be more scientific, more serious, and more sure of uncovering the authentic teaching. (November–December , p. )

The following text appeared in the same publication somewhat later:

This does not keep some detractors, in certain publications dedicated to the chant and to music, from denigrating beforehand the edition now in progress, and abandoning themselves to fanciful tales of doubtful taste on what they call the “Benedictine Commission” selected by the Pope. These impassioned, a priori judgments can stem only from ignorance, prejudice, or other even less re-spectable feelings. (March–April , p. )

A confidential remark of Dom Mocquereau, regarding the “fifty

years” that a definitive edition would allegedly take to produce, was also used against the upcoming edition. This supposedly confidential remark was in fact something that Dom Mocquereau had said quite pub-

licly, at the lecture he gave in Rome itself during the Congress of St.

Gregory the Great, and at the time he was speaking only of “some less

ancient pieces and certain irreducible variants” ( Revue du Chant Gré-

gorien, March–April , p. ; cf. supra, No. ).

Thus, despite a work that ensured great accuracy, there were doubts

and criticisms already being raised concerning the edition that was yet

to be created. Msgr. Moneta-Caglio presents these criticisms as follows, justifying Dom Mocquereau’s point of view which, ultimately, failed to

carry any weight within the Commission:

.l.l. Outside the Commission, the question of the future edition was being debated among the learned scholars who were raising a number of concerns. G.

Houdard, free professor at the Sorbonne and a recognized mensuralist, published articles in reviews and journals with the intention of proving that, as the studies then stood, the princeps edition of the Gregorian melodies as envisaged by the Vatican was not yet possible. The work of the renowned Gregorian

scholar in Seckau, Dom Célestin Vivell, was somewhat more measured. Written on the model of the Brief Nos quidem of Leo XIII, it had obviously been prepared before the publication of the motu proprio, and yet it remained a valid piece that should have recommended it to the Commission charged with

preparing the new Gregorian teaching. In the summary of this work, H.

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1904 305

Müller, a professor at Paderborn, said, in fact, that “the work of restoring the authentic text is not considered to have been completed with the work of Dom Pothier.l.l.”. In Strasbourg, the periodical Caecilia reported that “It is difficult for us to believe that the Vatican Edition is about to be published. Such work cannot just be churned out, for it must have lasting value. As it must be supposed, several years shall pass before we have it in hand.” That was to prove a prophetic remark, even though the Rassegna Gregoriana responded by saying,

“The pontifical motu proprio does not demand absolute perfection, which, given the nature of the critical research on the manuscripts, may never be achieved. It is enough for the edition to correspond appropriately to the current state of scholarship.” Two years later, the same publication was to deplore the imperfection—both absolute and relative—with which the edition was being man-

aged. In quite the opposite sense, the Bishop of Nancy, Msgr. Charles François Turinaz, was concerned with the fact that the thorough restoration of the melismas, dictated for artistic and not pastoral reasons, would make Gregorian chant inaccessible to the people, and he wrote to the Holy Father requesting that carte blanche not be given to the Benedictines alone. In the name of the Pope, Msgr. Bressan responded by assuring him that work done outside the sphere of Solesmes would also be taken into account. ( Musica Sacra, , pp.

–, cf. supra, No. )

V ■ T H E M E E T I N G S O F T H E

C O M M I S S I O N H E L D I N 1 9 0 5

. Preparation of the Kyriale

Dom Pothier returned to Rome at the beginning of February ,

and was received by the Pope on February  ( Revue du Chant Grégorien, March–April , p. ). The meetings of the Commission had resumed February . In spite of Father de Santi’s wishes and those of

Dom Mocquereau, the number of consultors remained the same. On

November , , Father de Santi had nonetheless written to Dom

Mocquereau that the Pope agreed that there should be a greater num-

ber of consultors so that the preparation of the Vatican Edition might

be given the best possible guarantee of success.

At Appuldurcombe (where Solesmes was in exile), the work was in-

tense, and there was no cause for complaints about the slow progress,

except from those who had no idea of the method being followed under

Dom Mocquereau’s direction or of the problems that came to light.

Moreover, it had been conceded the preceding September, at the time

of the plenary session of the Commission at Appuldurcombe, that the

Kyriale could not be ready before January . As early as mid November, the beginning of the Kyriale—four settings of Asperges me and the Vidi aquam—had been sent to Dom Pothier. In proposing several

melodies for the Asperges me, Dom Mocquereau was merely responding to the wishes of the Commission, whose members requested more variety. For all that, Dom Pothier’s response on November  was a bit discouraging, because he rejected the Cantus brevior of the Asperges me as

“superfluous,” though more ancient, and the Ambrosian Asperges me as

“useless.” Moreover, Dom Pothier affirmed his preference for DO, in-

stead of SI, as the reciting tone of Mode  and Mode . SI is given in the manuscripts, but Dom Pothier judged it “harsh, difficult, and dull” (now 306

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 307

it was not yet a matter of modifying the dominant of the psalms, rather

only of establishing SI in the interior of melodic phrases.)212 It was to Father de Santi that Dom Mocquereau sent his response to Dom Pothier’s objections, on December .

Finally, on December  and on January , , the “pieces reviewed

from the ancient Kyriale” (from the Liber Gradualis by Dom Pothier, published at Solesmes in ) were sent to Dom Pothier; on January

, Dom Pothier returned them to Dom Mocquereau, who sent them

on in two mailings to Father de Santi, on January  and . The new

pieces which were due to appear in the Appendix were sent at a later

date.213

Dom Pothier’s Memorandum

In returning the text of the Kyriale, Dom Pothier included a brief memorandum, replying in part to some questions of Dom Mocquereau.

In this memorandum, he clearly dismissed two suggestions proposed

by Dom Mocquereau. It is well known that in the Middle Ages, there

was a custom of writing Kyrieleison, as if the two words made only one.

Dom Pothier replied that a similar tradition cannot be maintained, and

by necessity one should not be “fearful of amputating (the melody) and

altering its form, even if fidelity to manuscript notation suffers because of this.”—Another common tradition in every Kyrie was to make but one syllable of the lei in eleison, and Dom Pothier insisted that there should not be a diphthong here, but two distinct syllables.—Other detailed remarks on the Kyriale followed.

But above all, Dom Pothier took the occasion to present his great

principle in a few lines (and credit is due him for having posed at once and openly the problem which had not been frankly exposed at Appuldurcombe in September ), namely that of the melodies in the Kyriale, “there are some among them which can and even ought to be given important retouching, sometimes to correct them, at other times to im-

. On the reciting tones of these modes, see Dom J. Gajard, Les récitations modales des IIIe et IVe modes et les manuscrits bénéventains et aquitains, in Études Grégoriennes, , pp. –. In the discussions of the Vatican Commission, note that this issue of choosing between SI and DO as the reciting tone applied to Mode  (not just to Mode ). In fact, in some passages in Mode , the reciting tone is on SI.

. With five Agnus Dei or Sanctus from the ancient Kyriale, which are not found in the manuscripts.

308 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

prove them by enriching the melody and by giving them developments

suggested by circumstances.”

Dom Mocquereau’s Memorandum

On his own initiative, Dom Mocquereau, with the help of Dom

Gabriel Beyssac, prepared a lengthy memorandum in Latin (the motu

proprio of April , , required that nothing be published that could not be justified). In it, he said that the editing of the Kyriale had been done according to about  manuscripts from the tenth to the seventeenth century; a few of the Kyrie s were studied according to about fifty manuscripts; that “the research procedures and comparison of these

numerous early documents had already been set forth in the Rassegna

Gregoriana .l.l.”214 and that “the Editors had but one regret: nine months was insufficient time to complete the most difficult phase of the work

.l.l. that with somewhat more time we might perhaps have been able to

do better.”

In the memorandum, Dom Mocquereau then restated Dom Poth-

ier’s general principle, as mentioned above, because it clearly set forth the explanation of the changes that he required. However, the Editors

did not want to reply to Dom Pothier other than to set forth the facts as they became known. Dom Mocquereau, in fact, was naive enough to

believe that the evidence of the manuscripts would speak for itself,

without need of further explanation.

There followed a detailed analysis of the problems encountered, of

Dom Pothier’s objections, and the solution for these offered by the Edi-

tors. In the event of a disagreement with Dom Pothier, the Editors left

it to the Commission to come to a decision.

The Solesmes memorandum was printed in Rome under the title

Animadversiones in Kyriale Pontificiae Commissioni propositum simul cum Responsis ad ea quae Solesmensibus a Rev. D. Pothier obiciebantur. It contained three parts, the first published on March  (pp. –), the second arriving at Appuldurcombe on April  (pp. –) with the first proofs of the Kyriale, and the third a few days later (pp. –).

The first two parts were prefaced by a brief Monitum by Dom Poth-

. Dom G. Beyssac, Notes on the Kyrie Fons bonitatis, Rassegna Gregoriana , col.

–.—Dom. A. Mocquereau, L’École grégorienne de Solesmes : I. Sa méthode critique ( Rassegna Gregoriana, col. –); II. Histoire d’un neume (col. –); III. L’évolution dans l’esthétique et la tradition grégoriennes (col. –).

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 309

ier (undated) and, at the end of the text, a few reflections by the chairman to justify his point of view.

Regrettably, the printing of these Animadversiones in Kyriale, which arrived well after the resumption of the meetings (February ) was de-

layed because Dom Pothier wanted to make some annotations, as not-

ed above, before sending them to the printer. Thus, discussion and

correction of the Solesmes text were begun without waiting for the jus-

tification of the text. Therefore, it could be predicted that the positions so clearly taken by each party would merely become increasingly hardened, and that further discussion would soon become impossible.

When the fascicles of the Kyriale edition arrived, it was too late: the position of each player had already become set.

. Resumption of the Meetings in Rome

The meetings of the Commission in Rome resumed on February .

There were fourteen of these meetings, numbers seven through twenty,

before Dom Mocquereau arrived. The meetings took place first at the

Chancery, then, starting with the eighth one, at the Greek College. Fa-

ther de Santi, recording secretary, was not present for the ninth (March

), fifteenth (March ), and nineteenth (April ) meetings. Therefore, the minutes of these meetings are very brief. All that is known is that

the examination of the printed proofs continued, and no attention was

paid to who was present at the meeting of March  (the fifteenth meet-

ing), except for Dom Amelli, whose name was singled out.

The list presented below details the attendance at these meetings in

.

At the outset, it should be noted that the first meeting in  picked

up right where the sixth meeting held in Rome in June  had left off; so the meetings held at Appuldurcombe in June  had their own

numbering sequence.—We have left the column for the fifteenth meet-

ing (for which there are no minutes), and we have added Father Holly

to that of the twenty-third, since we know from Dom Mocquereau that

he attended that meeting (Dom Mocquereau added his name to his

own copy of the minutes of that meeting).—Finally, although the last

meeting scheduled is the twenty-sixth meeting, on May , we know

310 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

26

5-7

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

25

5-4

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

23

4-30

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

23

4-28

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

22

4-22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

21

4-18

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

20

4-16

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

19

4-11

19

19

19

19

19

18

4-9

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

17

4-7

17

17

17

17

17

16

4-5

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

, A. Gastoue

15

3-26

15

Meetings

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14



3-24

13

3-22

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

n, Dom Molitor

12

3-20

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

11

3-17

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

, Dom Hor

10

3-15

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

9

9

9

9

9

9

3-12

9

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

2-19

7

2-12

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

riot, Chan. Grospellier

th

er

or

eau

anzler

alli

y

s:

othier

H. W

Chan. P

espighi

erosi

ella

anssens

agner

r. R

e de Santi

. Mocquer

. W

ev. Holl

Meeting

Date

Member

Dom P

Mg

Nos P

Don R

D

Dom J

Pèr

Baron K

Dr

Absent:

Consultants:

Don Bar

Ch. Moissenet

R

Dom Amelli

Dom Gaisser

Absent:

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 311

that there was one more meeting on May , according to Father de

Santi.

Of the twenty commissioners (ten members and ten consultors),

fourteen participated in the meetings of , of which nine were mem-

bers and five consultors. (Don Mercati, appointed on May , did not

have time to participate.) The line-up of those present is as follows (the names of consultors are in italics):

Dom Pothier

 meetings attended

Dom Gaisser

 meetings attended

Msgr. Respighi

 meetings attended

Father de Santi

 meetings attended

Dom Janssens

 meetings attended

Father Holly

 meetings attended

Dr. Wagner

 meetings attended

Msgr. Rella

 meetings attended

M. Perosi

 meetings attended

Baron Kanzler

 meetings attended

Dom Mocquereau  meetings attended

Rev. Father Baralli

 meetings attended

Abbé Moissenet

 meetings attended

Don Amelli

 meetings attended

Those who never participated in the meetings were H. Worth, Father

Perriot, Father Grospellier, Dom Horn, Dom Molitor, and Professor Amédée Gastoué.

Before Dom Mocquereau’s arrival in Rome, those who participated

in the meetings as members of the Commission were: Dom Pothier, ( President, at  meetings), Msgr. Carlo Respighi (at ), Father de Santi (at ), Dr. Wagner (at ), Dom Janssens (at ), Perosi (at ), Baron Kanzler (at ), Msgr. Rella (at );—as consultors: Dom Gaisser (at ), Father Holly (at ), and Dom Amelli (at ). So there were eleven commis-

sioners present for these important meetings: eight out of ten mem-

bers, and three out of ten consultors, particularly Dom Gaisser ( times present) and Father Holly ( times present), who were faithful in their attendance, while among the members, Perosi (at  meetings), Baron

Kanzler (at  meetings), and Msgr. Rella (at  meetings) participated less frequently, even though they lived in Rome.

312 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

Now we arrive at the subjects discussed by the Commission, leaving

aside details and practical matters that did not go to the heart of the

problem facing the panel. The best approach is to follow in chronologi-

cal order the Minutes of the meetings, of which we have one faithful

copy by Dom Cagin, as well as some added notes, all usually in Italian

(we believe that the report is complete up to the end of June ).

Meeting No. , February . Father de Santi asked for a summary of the Appuldurcombe meeting (cf. No. ). Then it was decided to resolve to

keep “everything relating to the compilation of the texts and the process of the printing” in secrecy, and it was decided to maintain the Commission in the statu quo by naming no more than a few additional member correspondents and a few honorary members. Then, after presenting

the first proofs of the Kyriale, it was decided to “reduce the morae vocis and to return them to the form already used in the Solesmes Liber Gradualis,” and the President agreed to assume the task of directing the work.

On this matter, Perosi declared that “it is necessary to be faithful to the motu proprio. Basically, the Edition is a critical edition; above all, the manuscripts must be followed, unless a solid reason based on good tradition or current performance of the chant suggest a change. There is agreement on this point.”

Father de Santi, for his part, proposed that Solesmes be asked to pro-

duce a memorandum justifying its text, and announced that he had

handed over the entire content of the Kyriale to the printing office, and had turned the Appendix over to the office of the President for examination.

Meeting No. , February . It was announced that Solesmes was

preparing a research trip to Spain and that, for this purpose, the Cardinal Secretary of State had sent a letter of recommendation. Then the

appointment of new consultors was reconsidered, and several names

were proposed, but no decision was reached on the matter.

Meeting No. , March . In the absence of Father de Santi, there was no report of the minutes. The examination of the Kyriale proofs was started.

Meeting No. , March . As to the matter of the proofs and the evalu-ations of the reviewers already received, the recording secretary notes:

“It is not possible to indicate each one of the changes, but probably they will be summarized eventually in a special memorandum.”

Meeting No. , March . The Animadversiones (Part ) of the Editors, THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 313

preceded by a monitum of the President, and the corrected proofs up to the Easter Mass, were sent to the consultors in Rome. On this matter,

Father de Santi expressed the wish that the personal communications of

the President be made in his name and signed by him.

Then, Msgr. Respighi presented a sort of rules of order for the Commission, based on what is currently in use in other Roman commissions, and which

doubtless would be useful in dealing with our business more clearly, more quickly, and with better documentation. The memorandum was read and

praised, but no real decision was made on the matter. Father de Santi merely recommended that, for the moment, Father Holly collect the arguments for and against the corrections that have either been recommended or actually made in the proofs examined up to this point. Father Holly graciously agreed to do this.

We must note, in this regard, that Father de Santi appended the follow-

ing observation to the minutes of the meeting:

In my position as recording secretary, I must note that our Commission lacks a regulating and unifying principle. Time is lost returning to the same questions without any definitive resolution. My advice is that first a memorandum ought to be drawn up which will summarize the opinions reached on the various

points discussed; these ought to be studied privately by each member, accepted or rejected, and always for well-founded reasons. Only then should questions be submitted to the Commission, and each one would be better prepared to make his definitive judgment.l.l.l.

Meeting No. , March . “The need to establish rules of order for the Commission was the primary focus .l.l. Everyone feels the need for

keeping a written record of all matters, especially the reasons for cor-

rections to be made on the melodies proposed by Solesmes.” Father de

Santi recommended Msgr. Rella for the task, but meanwhile Father

Holly offered graciously to step in to cover the need. “The debate on

the matter of the SI and the DO came up again; Wagner and Dom

Gaisser cite several good reasons for preference to be given to the DO,

as will be summarized by Father Holly in particular. (Holly’s notes are

very brief.)215

. Here is a summary of the debate written by Father Holly, and communicated, no doubt, to the Members of the Commission: “At the sessions of March  and , , the general matter of the choice to be made between the notes SI and DO as Dominants in Mode  and Mode 

arose.—The Right Reverend President read out the opinions of absent consultors, with the exception of Father Baralli and Baron Kanzler. Most of these gentlemen agreed with the Right 314 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

Meeting No. , March .

The minutes of the meeting were read (from the preceding meeting), and

again the need for rules of order was of great concern.l.l.l. In addition, it was proposed that, on the basis of the notebook containing the debates, an official report should be established summarizing the reasons for the corrections introduced in the proofs, and the readings definitely fixed. This report, signed by the President and the Secretary, will remain as an official document of the work of the Commission. All are agreed on this point. [To our knowledge, such a report was not done.]

The entry continues: “Progress is being made scrupulously, and not a

single correction is accepted unless it has the support of the manu-

scripts, even though the general tendency is to consult the tradition [the living tradition] and to exclude forms that are too archaic.” (At the preceding meeting, for example, the model of a Kyrie proposed by the editors was rejected.)

Meeting No. , March . Father de Santi reported on the content of a private letter from Dom Mocquereau, who protested certain corrections, in his opinion, as unsustainable. Dom Mocquereau realized that

his presence in Rome was necessary but, at the same time, he could not

distance himself from the archives collected at Solesmes. However, “he

said that if the observations were sent to him successively, he could respond by return mail with a substantiated yes or no.” As a result, “the

earlier decision to notify the Editors officially of any corrections made, before they are definitively adopted and entered into the printer’s

proofs, was confirmed.” Father de Santi also proposed that an official report on corrections made to the Editors’ manuscript should be kept in

Reverend President in preferring the DO.—Dr. Wagner then took the floor, and he pointed out to us that it would be impossible for us to re-establish in its entirety the practice of the eighth and ninth centuries on this matter: () because the SI of that day was sharper than ours (i.e. between the SI and the DO of our scale), and () in light of the great inconvenience that would arise from establishing a difference between the Dominant of the antiphon and that of the psalm. Besides, he said that we must take legitimate tradition into account that, for reasons relating to the development of Roman chant over the subsequent centuries, had solidly established the Dominants of Modes  and  on the note DO.—The debate then turned to the phrase et omnes ad quod .l.l. from the Vidi aquam. —Father de Santi preferred SI. Dom Gaisser initially wanted SI, but ultimately preferred DO, as more in conformity with a well-founded tradition and, in any event, much easier in practice. Finally, everyone came out in favor of DO () in cases where there is a reciting tone in the course of the antiphon, and () anywhere that adopting the SI might lend itself to the danger of creating a FA sharp (a danger pointed out for us by Dom Gaisser).”

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 315

the attendance register, with a brief indication of the reasons for those changes.

Meeting No. , March . Since Father de Santi was not in attendance, no minutes were kept for this meeting. We know only that the examination of printed proofs continued.

A note (written later) mentions that the rest of the Kyriale proofs were distributed (pp. –), along with the second part of the Animadversiones of Solesmes (pp. –), and also that Dom Mocquereau had sent two strongly worded circulars, on March  and , to defend his

work as editor of the Vatican Edition.

. At the Heart of the Problem

The reason for Dom Mocquereau’s two letters, of March  and ,

must be clarified. On February , Father de Santi had written to him:

“All of us on the Commission have agreed to avoid any hurt feelings and

to support the Editorial Board in everything that is truly important.l.l.l.

However, we all think that it is necessary for Your Reverence to come to Rome.” A few days later, on February , Father Baralli, who was not in

Rome but was evidently kept abreast of all matters by Father de Santi,

complained bitterly at the character of the turn of events.216

Surely, Dom Mocquereau, who had already received Dom Pothier’s

memorandum on the matter, a memorandum to which his Animadver-

siones in Kyriale had replied, could have himself formed an idea of the situation from the corrections made to his text, corrections in his view often without justification. Moreover, it could be seen from the forego-ing, by following the Minutes of the first meetings of , that the

Commission was continuing without a guiding principle and without

method, and also, obviously without sufficient basic documentation,

which left the door wide open to fantasy and whimsy. The resolutions

adopted at Father de Santi’s suggestion—() to inform the Editors of the corrections made to its text and () to draw up a memorandum detail-ing the modifications adopted, together with the reasons for them—

were not yet known at Solesmes. They would remain a dead issue in

any event. Thus the need for some rules of order became increasingly

. Baralli letter of February ,  (Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra, , pp. –).

316 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

urgent, at least among those who wanted to take the instruction of the

Pope seriously and to proceed with the greatest possible scientific rigor.

First Circular from Solesmes

In the first of his circulars, dated March  (four large duplicated

pages), Dom Mocquereau recounted what the principles of the Editori-

al Board were: the same as those given in the motu proprio of April ,

, in the Brief to the Abbot of Solesmes dated May , , and in

the decisions reached at Appuldurcombe,—and he said that he was pre-

pared to accept all the proposed changes, “provided that they were well

substantiated, based on solid reasons and on specific, designated docu-

ments just as we provide substantiation and a foundation for our own

texts,” something which, for its part, the Commission had not done up

until that point.—Dom Mocquereau further stated that the Editors, in

many cases, had already considered the legitimate tradition; further-

more, the principle of the legitimate tradition must not be applied

willy-nilly, and that the revisionists should give proof of (a) the legitimacy of the tradition of their versions, and (b) the reasons that made them select a later and altered tradition over the pure and ancient tradition.—

He also noted that several modifications introduced by the revisionists

departed clearly from the resolutions adopted at Appuldurcombe.—He

added once more that he had promised to justify and defend the work

of the Commission, that he would then have to take responsibility for

all these changes,—and finally, by continuing on the way they were go-

ing, they were exposing themselves to producing a “bastard work, inde-

fensible, unworthy of the Commission, of Pius X, and of the Holy

Church.”

Second Circular from Solesmes

In the second circular, dated March  (five large duplicated pages),

Dom Mocquereau wished to point out the danger of the criteria fol-

lowed by the Commission and to outline the responsibility of the Edi-

tors, and he gave examples of publications that in the past had withered away after a brief period of success;—he then made clear what he

meant by legitimate tradition, that “which does not contradict the source from which it comes: tradition called continuity, transmission.

However, something that contradicts its sources is undeserving of this

venerable name!” (at which point Dom Mocquereau gave the example

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 317

of the settings of the Asperges me proposed by the Commission);—finally, he recalled what the Pope had demanded in the motu proprio of April

, , and in the Brief to the Abbot of Solesmes dated May , .

Dom Pothier’s Memorandum

This second circular by Dom Mocquereau was in response to a print-

ed memorandum in Latin by Dom Pothier: Nonnullae Animadversiones

ex parte D. Praesidis Commissionis (Some Comments by the President of the Commission) comprising four large pages (undated, as was customary).

In it, Dom Pothier, the President of the Commission, defended his prin-

ciple of the living tradition and gave as an example the gradual im-

provement over the centuries renovata in meliu s (“renewed for the better”) by the rise of the Dominant to DO in Mode  and Mode :

“However, this was done well, indeed for the purpose of saving the

chant from a confusion of tones or modes, or even from losing them

entirely.” Several remarks followed on the Kyriale. Dom Pothier had this to say regarding the Asperges me (st ad libitum) of Mode : “The shorter melody of the Asperges me antiphon must be rejected ultimately, or rather should be deleted. The reason: it has fallen into disuse for some time now.” Dom Mocquereau wrote in his circular of March :

So it is expelled, eliminated, cancelled because it is archaic, because this delicate antiphon had the misfortune in the th century of falling into the hands of people of ponderous tastes who weighed it down and ornamented it in their fashion, and so it passed into the modern editions through their hands.217

Letters of Father de Santi and Father Holly

While Dom Mocquereau was preparing the long defensive memo-

randum requested by Father de Santi, a memorandum that he had been

thinking about for a long time anyway (at the time, it already ran to

some twenty large pages of manuscript, on the first six Masses of the

Kyriale), suddenly two letters arrived back to back, one from Father de Santi and the other from Father Holly, with a Note from the President

of the Commission.

. Writing to Dom Pothier on March , Dom Molitor wrote [in Latin] about this issue (and informed Dom Mocquereau of his letter): “Besides, I greatly fear that, by withdrawing from the authority of the ancient manuscripts, we might not know where to base our understanding of that extremely complex question of the Dominant, SI or DO, in tones VIII and III”

(St. Joseph near Billerbeck, March , ).

318 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

Father de Santi’s letter was dated March , and was written follow-

ing the fourteenth meeting of the Commission. It arrived after a series

of cards and letters that came in rapid succession (dated February , ,

,  and March , , , , , , and ), and replied to a personal letter of Dom Mocquereau (cf. Meeting ). Father de Santi spoke with

severity about the Commission and the President, but added:

we hope to establish some rules of order, so that matters will proceed with order and speed. Meanwhile, the Commission has decided to ask the Editors

please to add any comments on the manuscript that it deems opportune, but never in the form of a polemic that seems unpleasant to everyone. Henceforth, Your Reverence can give as a pretext the general tendency of the Commission, which is to avoid any model that is too archaic and too skeletal, and then it will not be difficult for you to justify by special reasoning the changes from the first edition (of the Liber Gradualis of , republished in ), that you find the most essential .l.l.

Father de Santi added, in an allusion to the disorder of the meetings:

If matters continue as they have, I intend no longer to attend the meetings, which have caused me to lose an infinite amount of time.l.l.l. (And moreover) my studies do not give me any special competence to decide in favor of one version rather than another.

Father Holly’s letter (written in French) was dated March . He in-

sisted strongly that Dom Mocquereau should come to Rome:

.l.l. Father de Santi does what he can to save a few fragments of the numerous phrases you have challenged. Mr. Wagner, thanks to the authority of the German manuscripts that he quotes at every turn, has been of value to you in a small way. However, in general, I must tell you quite simply that the majority of the voting is in favor of the version of the Liber Gradualis, every time that, in the better known chants, that version is contradicted by your instructions. This is ridiculous, because no one of us is qualified to sit in judgment against the work of Solesmes. What reconciles me to this is the perfect confidence that what we do will be submitted to your monks, and that it is you who will always have the last word. It’s just that you have to be present here to protect your rights

.l.l. As I see it, certain individuals here are convinced that this referral back to you is done only as a courtesy, and that the Commission as it is constituted at the Greek College has the right to treat your text however it sees fit. So you can see what we need: not your archaeological weaponry from Solesmes, but some canonical weaponry from Rome. You yourself must wield these weapons.

What is needed is a leader. For there is no one here strong enough to wage a THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 319

campaign in favor of Solesmes. If you were there, you could easily form and direct a parliamentary block, which would give you a majority of votes on all questions under discussion. Father de Santi has tried hard to line us up and lead us in the attack, or rather, to organize the defense. However, lately he is discouraged.l.l.l. Last year, you came (at my urging or on your own initiative, no matter) and you were able to prevail in each of the opposing arguments. Now, if you hold firm in your decision to stay at home, you will certainly lose the fight.

You still have time to regain the lost terrain, and to organize the defense of the ground others covet.l.l.l. P.S. It seems to me that you would do well to invite Mr. Worth and Father Baralli to come, and also one of your monks who is better able than I to write up the acts and discussions of the Commission.l.l.l. [As we have seen, Father Holly had been assigned the task of preparing certain documentation.]

The President’s Memorandum

The Memorandum received from the President that arrived at Ap-

puldurcombe on April  was another matter. This Memorandum, dated

April  (though the postage cancellation date was April ), addressed to all the members and consultors of the Commission, was printed, and

comprised twenty-one lines in all, wherein was explained the procedure

followed when examining the texts proposed by the Editors.

It could possibly be useful and certainly acceptable to the members of the Commission who are not in a position to participate in the deliberations to know the procedure that is followed at the meetings when the texts proposed by the Editors are examined.

Each one present has a copy of the proofs to be examined. The President

has written on his copy the various proposals from absent members so as to be able to tell how many are favorable or unfavorable to such-and-such a reading.

When a passage emerges about which one of the members has a comment to

make, or when one of the absent members has written a question or remark, the President stops and the problem is discussed, reading the absent member’s own text or observation, if necessary. If the feelings of the gathering are clear, the debate is closed. If no agreement is evident, however, the President asks each member his opinion in turn, and when a majority is reached, a decision is made. One of the members has been assigned to recapitulate in writing the reasons for arriving at a decision. To help him in his task, he gathers the various folders of proofs on which each one has recorded his observations.

Clearly, the method is detailed enough, but orderly and sure.

Rome, April , .

Dom Joseph Pothier, President.

320 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

This Memorandum was in response to Dom Mocquereau’s circulars,

at least to the first one, dated March . The Memorandum arrived at

Appuldurcombe and immediately Dom Mocquereau sent a telegram of

protest “at the haphazard method described in the President’s Memo-

randum.”

Third Circular from Solesmes

The same day, April , Dom Mocquereau sent a third circular to the

Commission (comprising five long duplicated pages) in which he

showed once again how meaningless the reasons were for opposing the

archaeological tradition, noting that “the archaic and the antique are

not the same thing,” that all art, every expression of beauty, has its hour of maturity, of perfection, and that Gregorian chant, too, had its hour.

“It blossomed forth in its absolute beauty, inspired, definitive, after centuries of persecution and following the great centuries of doctrine. Su-

pernatural civilization was at its zenith.” After a vibrant page—actually written by Dom Delatte—, Dom Mocquereau recalled that Dom Pothier did not think otherwise. In fact, in  he wrote: “The simpler,

more open manner of the early melody is also the softest and most dis-

tinctive, a manner that combines the advantage of art and taste with

that of antiquity” ( Revue du Chant Grégorien, December , p. ). Finally, Dom Mocquereau did not deny that there had been a tradition of

development and adoption of new formulae, but “the truth is that the

further away one gets from the ages of faith, the more the Gregorian

musical art follows the lamentable downturn of a long-term decline.”

. The First Letter from the Cardinal Secretary of State,

April , 

At Meeting No. , held on April ,

Dom Pothier informed the Commission of a letter from the Cardinal Secretary of State dated April , in which he set forth, with the authority of His Holiness, the interpretation given to the motu proprio of April , , pertaining to the criterion of tradition in the presence of the most ancient manuscripts. Dom Janssens read the document aloud:

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 321

Most Reverend Father:

It has come to the attention of the Holy Father that, among those who are working to prepare the Vatican Edition of the liturgical books, a doubt has arisen as to the best manner of responding to the intentions of His Holiness relative to the restoration of sacred music. The August Pontiff is pleased to state that the differences between one side and the other have arisen out of a desire to respond to his intentions in the best way possible. However, in order to eliminate any occasion and any pretext of doubt and incertitude, His Holiness has instructed me to inform Your Reverence that when He decided on the return to the ancient Gregorian chant, He did not intend to make this work exclusively favorable to the archaeology of the chant, to the point that models of Gregorian melodies that have been received over the course of the centuries cannot be accepted today. In his motu proprio of November , , the Holy Father recalled very opportunely that “the Church has always recognized and encouraged the advancement of the arts, allowing for use in its worship services anything that artistic genius has found good and beautiful over the course of the centuries, as long as liturgical rules are respected at all times.”

In his second motu proprio of April , , establishing the rules of order with regard to the Vatican Edition of the liturgical books, His Holiness wisely decided that “the integrity and purity of the melodies of the Church, known as Gregorian chant, will be restored according to the most ancient manuscripts, but particularly bearing in mind the legitimate tradition contained in the manuscripts over the course of the centuries, as well as the practical use in current liturgy.”

According to these principles, which express the true tradition of the

Church, it will not be against the intention of His Holiness that the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican Edition of Gregorian liturgical books should give preference to some less ancient compositions, provided that they have the true character of Gregorian music. In fact, it cannot be demonstrated that the most ancient chant is necessarily and always the best for practical adaptation. Because of certain subsequent developments in the art, the ancient melodies could have evolved logically, or even could have acquired certain embellishments, without causing harm to their original purity.

Please share these authoritative explanations with the Commission over

which you preside with such dignity, so that the Commission might take them as a norm and guide in doing its work, and may the Commission continue to prove ever more worthy of the trust that His Holiness has placed in it.

In the meanwhile, I am happy to take this opportunity to express to you my distinguished expressions of esteem, and remain

Yours very affectionately in the Lord,

R. Card. Merry del Val,

Rome, April , .

322 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

Dom Pothier sent this letter on April  and, according to Father Hol-

ly, it was inspired by Dr. Wagner (Holly, June ,  to Dom Moc-

quereau). After it was read aloud by Dom Janssens at the April th meet-

ing, there followed “a lively discussion of the document which had just

been read, and of other current topics.”218

Father de Santi said that he accepted this authoritative instruction as was appropriate, but at the same time, he protested against recourse to the Holy See in a case where, in his opinion, the authority of the Commission would have sufficed, especially since the decisions reached at the various regular meetings and at the plenary meeting at Appuldurcombe had already in substance fixed the same principles as contained in the new letter. The Commission could then affirm and impose them once again. He recognized that the Editors were prone to prefer the oldest manuscripts alone, but at the same time he believed that, on the other hand, too much weight was given easily to subsequent tradition.

The Cardinal’s letter now caused the balance to tip more in favor of subsequent tradition whereas, in his opinion, it would have been preferable to refer to the principles that had already been laid down and, always, to the correct criterion alone.

Dom Gaisser noted that the new document did not impose this tendency,

and that it merely affirmed that this was not contrary to the intentions of the Holy Father.

Father de Santi replied that the new document, by not being more precise in explaining the problem, left the question at the same point as before. Finally, he declared that it would have been better not to make this appeal without first seeking the advice of the Commission, and that such remedies, which are always extreme, should rather be reserved for those instances where every other means seems to be exhausted.

Dom Pothier, Dom Janssens, and Dr. Wagner thought the document very

opportune, for it was required because of the Solesmes circulars, and it provides a more reliable rule for resolving practical difficulties.

Father de Santi added that the criterion of subsequent tradition could have been invoked when it seemed right to do so, as is the case specifically for the Kyriale, or at least for several pieces of the Kyriale, and he cited some very clear examples. He maintained that the strictest critical criteria ought always to be affirmed as the sound basis for our work.

. This letter—from the Cardinal Secretary of State on April —which had been written for the Commission (and which was thus intended to remain secret) was published first in excerpts by Dr. Wagner in his pamphlet Über traditionellen Choral, and then in its entirety by the Strasbourg Caecilia, and finally by the Revue du Chant Grégorien, January–February , p. .

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 323

Msgr. Respighi returned to the absolute necessity of establishing rules of order, such as those followed in the Congregations and in the other Commissions in Rome, where difficult and very important matters are settled with reasonable speed and in a prescribed order. He referred to the French Circular

[President’s Memorandum of April ], recently circulated by the Very Reverend President, in which certain things that do not seem to correspond to reality are affirmed.

In that regard, Father de Santi read a commentary that arrived today by

telegram from Solesmes against the Circular of April  from the Very Reverend President, and he declared that regretfully he would have to add his own protestation to it. Specifically, the method followed by the Commission had been discussed and various proposals made to remedy it: it should not have been declared good. Moreover, it would have been good for such communications to have been proposed first in committee. Various comments were made by the Very Reverend President and Dom Janssens to defend the Circular,

namely that the method also had its good points and that a detailed account had been kept of the various opinions and points conscientiously discussed, points, moreover, that were not presented as definitive. Father de Santi replied that in Rome, we know that these decisions are not final, but that those away from Rome will readily abide by what the Circular has stated.

Father Holly noted that procedures had been uncertain in the initial meetings, but that he had felt renewed hope when the principle was adopted that solutions would not be definitive, but would first be sent to Solesmes.l.l.l. Msgr.

Rella voiced the same opinion.

Everyone agreed that rules of order must be established, and Dom Gaisser proposed that Father de Santi draft these rules, and present them at the next meeting. He accepted, and said that he would focus primarily on the proposals already made by the members at the various meetings. Everyone agreed that without the experience acquired on this issue, it would have been impossible to design rules of order.

In a note, the recording secretary added, certainly at the request of

Wagner himself:

Dr. Wagner read a page of an essay that he planned to publish. He said that the Fathers at Solesmes wrote their missive in vinegar rather than ink. He said that they showed neither a knowledge of history nor musical taste, two things absolutely necessary to perform well the task of editing. They merely copy manuscripts. Father de Santi observed that Dr. Wagner’s statements against the Editors were too strong.

324 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

Father de Santi wrote to Dom Mocquereau on April :

I read the hasty telegraph of protest against the Circular in French, and to it I joined my own protest energetically; others joined in with the protests. It all has to do with the internal rules of order, where all matters are controlled. The meeting was very stormy, but we hope that it will bear fruit.

Father de Santi wrote to Dom Mocquereau again on April :

At the meeting on the th, after the President informed us of the letter

[from the Cardinal], I made the following protest: I protest against having recourse to the Holy See without the advice of the Commission in those matters for which the Commission has complete competence, before exhausting every possible avenue requiring this ultimate solution, and especially that this was done by someone who had a particular interest in the matter. I am convinced that the motu proprio, just as it has always been interpreted in the obvious sense in the inner workings of the Commission, is adequate for our needs. Thus I am convinced that both sides are going a bit too far, the Editors in giving too much, perhaps exclusive, consideration to the most ancient manuscripts, the President in placing too much reliance, sometimes without convincing reasons, on subsequent tradition.

Then I read your telegram protesting the Circular of April , and I added my own protest to it, because the Circular had been sent without the consent of the Commission, without considering some of the comments made by the

Commission against the regularity [ sic] of the process, and especially in declaring definitive certain conclusions that, many times, are different from what was agreed in the meetings.

Finally, it was resolutely decided that the Commission’s internal rules of order would be developed, spelling out the authority of the President, the standard to be followed for revision (of the proofs), and the procedure that applies to all necessary steps.

I should like to hope that things will improve now, and that we will finally make some headway. I believe that your presence in Rome is now imperative.

In any event, for my part, I will always argue that justice must be done for all.

Father de Santi added the following post-script:

The content of the letter (from the Cardinal) leaves me neither hot nor cold.

The matter can readily, and even ought to be, interpreted in the sense of the motu proprio, as we have always held.

In his protest, which was deposited in the Archives of the Commis-

sion and is dated April , Father de Santi added not only that the President’s Memorandum had been “distributed without the consent of the

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 325

Commission,” but that it claimed as “perfect and certain” a method that

others had criticized in the meetings as “uncertain and disorderly,”219

and, finally, it had been decided in the meeting to await Solesmes’ re-

sponse to the correctors’ revisions and to make an official report of the reviewers’ work before “closing the debate.”

Before this, in a letter sent to Dom Pothier on April  and deposited

in the official record, Father de Santi had complained that the Commis-

sion was being conducted without a plan—which resulted in a consider-

able loss of time—and that the decisions to be made to remedy this

condition remained without effect.219bis As a result, Father de Santi confessed that his assignment as “recording secretary” had been rendered

difficult, and that he would be very happy were it to pass into other

hands. Dom Pothier replied on April , by referring to his Memoran-

dum that was released the same day.

For his part, Dom Janssens wrote to Father de Santi (the statement is

in the official record, undated) to protest what he had said in the meeting about the Cardinal’s letter and the role of the President, when nothing had been said about the circulars from Appuldurcombe, the tone of

which he found offensive. In fact, Father de Santi himself had com-

plained to Dom Mocquereau about the controversial tone of his circu-

lars.

On April , Father de Santi replied to Dom Janssens, repeating and

clarifying the object of his criticism: not the Cardinal’s letter, which he accepted, but the fact that Dom Pothier had had recourse to the Holy

See without the advice of the Commission, which was fully authorized

to act independently. He agreed that the Editors were overly reliant on

the manuscripts, and that Dom Pothier was overly reliant on the subse-

quent tradition, and without sufficient reason.

. “I am very sorry that I, too, must protest against this note. Above all, because it was distributed without the consent of the Commission on a matter that was not a personal concern of the President, but common to all and concerning the procedure followed by the Commission itself. Secondly, because the comment was made repeatedly in the sessions that things are proceeding in an uncertain and disorderly manner. If there was disagreement on this point, it should have been discussed in the Commission. Now the President, in his note, simply states that the method being used, which has now been placed into doubt, is perfect and certain” (de Santi, April , ).

bis. Here is the main passage from Father de Santi’s letter to Dom Pothier: “A few decisions were made by the Commission specifically to avoid these obstacles, but I note that that these decisions were not followed in practice” (de Santi, April , , to Dom Pothier).

326 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

Speaking of an audience with the Pope, Father de Santi added:

At any rate, I only repeated in the Commission the same thing I said the evening before in the presence of the Holy Father, when His Holiness wished to question me on the matter of the letter (of the Cardinal); since I had to tell him that I knew absolutely nothing about it; on the spur of the moment

His Holiness deigned to tell me the steps taken to obtain it. If necessary, at the proper time, I shall relate the counsels His Holiness gave me on this subject .l.l.220

Finally Father de Santi declared:

As for the rest, it is very obvious that disorder reigns everywhere. Imploring, insisting in private and in the Commission have always been in vain. A protest was absolutely necessary: it took place and was vigorously debated, and it is the serious state of affairs that provoked it. Given the circumstances, it is our conviction that the Very Reverend President should guarantee the impersonal authority of the Commission in all his resolutions. Otherwise, the idea will ger-minate that the President does not direct, but that he governs despotically.

In a report to Dom Mocquereau written in , Father Holly noted

that it was the reference to rules of order [ regolamento, “regulation”]

made by Msgr. Respighi (cf. Meeting No. ) that convinced the Presi-

dent to have recourse to higher authority directly, in order to get out in front of the issue.

In fact, Father Bauducco notes specifically that the letter from the

Cardinal was triggered by a memorandum from Dom Pothier dated

March  (Il P. Angelo de Santi e l’edizione vaticana dei libri gregoriani dal

 al , Civiltà Cattolica, , I, pp. –). Msgr. Moneta-Caglio adds that he also had “the memoranda of P. Wagner, A. Gastoué, D. M.

Horn, all in support of the living tradition” ( Dom André Mocquereau e la restaurazione del canto gregoriano, Musica Sacra, January–February , note ).

New Memorandum from Dom Pothier

Before proceeding further, a word must be said about a memoran-

dum from Dom Pothier circulated at the same time as the letter of the

. Ad ogni modo in Commissione non ho fatto altro che ripetere quel medesimo che la sera innanzi al S. Padre, quando Sua Santità volle interrogarmi intorno la lettera e poichè io dovetti dichiarargli che non ne sapevo assolutamenta nullo, si degnà spontaneamente di narrar-mi i passi fatti per ottenerla. Se sarò necessario comunicherò a suo tempo gli avvisi dati me in proposito dalla medesima Santità Sua (Father de Santi to Dom Janssens, April , ).

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 327

Cardinal, entitled: “Explanatory Memorandum with regard to the two

letters (March  and ) sent by the Reverend Father Dom Mocquereau

to the President and several other members of the Pontifical Commis-

sion on Gregorian Chant.” This memorandum contained six large du-

plicated pages; it is not dated, as was Dom Pothier’s custom, but he said that it accompanied the Cardinal’s letter.

The President of the Commission hoped that his memorandum of

April  “was satisfactory and reassuring”—he stated that the difference

between the Commission and the Editors lay less in principles than in

the manner of interpretation—in his view, the unforeseen changes in

the chant over the centuries:

more than once enriched it.l.l.l. In fact each century is part of this tradition, which is not at all a fixed language, halted in one epoch, but an ancient language, handed down and modified on occasion and perfected by the genera-

tions that knew it, understood it, loved it, and practiced it; .l.l. what was done in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is not always to be held in disdain.

Consequently, a later variation should be condemned only “if it clearly

proves to be an alteration,” and

if the antiquity of a manuscript is to be given prime consideration, relative antiquity is not at all the only criterion .l.l. and the unexpected changes over the course of the centuries could be accepted as seriously motivated, without the support of more ancient manuscripts which, besides, it is not always our good fortune to possess.

Dom Pothier continues:

Art and performance (in fact) partake of the intimate formation of the chant

[and performance always] has wisely modified and in the West gradually refined the scale itself and tonality. Archaeology ought to have the first word, if it will not always be the last. [In the case of a disagreement] performance will have more weight, for Gregorian chant is not a piece of museum furniture.

Finally, Dom Pothier concludes:

The Editors’ line of conduct thus becomes more clear. Surely, the ancient manuscripts and even the most ancient among them must be followed, but without placing in them the legitimate tradition as a unique haven of refuge without discovering in them the necessary perfecting of the art, without recognizing constantly improved conditions for performance. At the same time what we call the living tradition will be followed.

328 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

Pointing out in closing the two Gregorian heresies of our age (very

modern infatuation with erudition and ignorance of the manuscripts),

the President declared that the providential mission of the Commission

is to safeguard against the two extremes and to halt at the truth, “in medio stat virtus. ” There followed the examination of an example chosen by Dom Mocquereau in his second circular, the Asperges me of Mode .

Reply from Solesmes

Dom Mocquereau assuredly was not contradicting all this, but the

question was of a practical nature. In fact, how did the Commission

function? The President’s memorandum of April  had indicated it, and

Dom Mocquereau noted in his first circular, dated March :

Changes are being proposed to or imposed on us—we do not know which it

is—in the following form: This now is what we wish .l.l. that change is desired

.l.l. This thing does not please us .l.l. No one can deny that there are convincing enough reasons to preserve the ancient version of the Kyrie fons bonitatis; here and there, one reads on the proofs: “the manuscripts say .l.l.”, without further explanation.

Was it not to remedy this state of affairs that Father de Santi called

for creating a memorandum in which all the Commission’s corrections

of the Editors’ texts would be justified? Too often, the Commission

gave no reasons that were truly justifiable. Furthermore, on certain

points, Dom Mocquereau was without doubt ahead of his time. For ex-

ample, it seems that the world indeed today appreciates the beauty of

the recitations on SI, which were rejected by the Commission and

adopted by the Monastic Antiphonal of .

Dom Mocquereau made lengthy annotations on Dom Pothier’s

memorandum. He left unfinished a detailed draft of an article which his

work did not afford him time to put into final form, but which Dom Ca-

gin redrafted and which appeared under his name in the Rassegna Gregoriana of July–August , that is to say, very much too late, and entitled: Archaïsme et Progrès dans la restauration des mélodies grégoriennes (Origines et Apogée du chant grégorien—Décadence du chant grégorien—La Restauration des mélodies grégoriennes peut-elle trouver dans cette décadence un principe d’esthétique grégorienne? [Archaism and Progress in the Restoration of the Gregorian Melodies (Origins and Apogee of Gregorian Chant—Decline of Gregorian Chant—Can the Restoration of the

Gregorian Melodies Discover a Principle of Gregorian Esthetics in this

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 329

Decline?]  col.). Moreover, it is doubtful that, even arriving on time, these pages would have modified the situation. Since this article can

readily be found, we will merely sketch out its main idea here. After

having established the definitions and necessary distinctions, and after having painted a large tableau of the history of the Gregorian cantilena, Dom Cagin concluded that it was erroneous to affirm that

the Gregorian art has continued to progress, to improve up to our own day, when there is, on the contrary, a new musical art, born late, which continued to develop in parallel alongside it from the th century onward, having influence on it only to corrupt and disfigure it. ( Rassegna Gregoriana , col. ) With the assistance of Dom Beyssac, Dom Mocquereau prepared a

lengthy paper, Observations sur les corrections proposées, a paper that was not printed or even duplicated. He justified the text adopted by the Editors, when this was necessary. In addition, Dom Beyssac, declaring that

Gastoué’s observations had the force of law, added a Réponse au Résumé des principales observations de M. Gastoué. All of this still concerned only the first twenty-four pages of proofs of the Kyriale ( Masses) and was the beginning of the memorandum justifying the Vatican Edition that

Dom Mocquereau had promised to provide (cf. st Circular of March

th).

At this point, we must call attention to two letters from consultors

(to be discussed further on) announcing the shipment of reports to the

Commission and declaring adherence to the principles set forth in the

Appuldurcombe circulars. The reports had to do with letters from Fa-

ther Perriot of April nd, and another from Father Grospellier of April

th. Father Perriot wrote:

I have enclosed the reasons [he was returning the Kyriale proofs] why I think that we should not admit later modifications in the well-established earlier versions. It is on this point that I insisted at greater length in my first letter, which I did not send to you.

Father Grospellier noted:

When I returned the first  proof pages, I included a very clear refutation of Dom Pothier’s principle relating to tradition. It is exactly the same point of view I discovered in your various Circulars .l.l. I fear that these pages were not even sent around.

330 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

And as for Dom Pothier’s Memorandum of April :

Sending this Memorandum around did serve a purpose. However, although it sheds light on the method employed regarding the proposed variants for the chant, neither the Memorandum nor the Animadversiones we have received show that the Commission addressed any of the other specific desiderata or more general comments that members who were not present may have submitted for the entire Commission, but only the variants themselves.

Father Perriot’s report was sent to Rome on March , and by April

, it had not been distributed to the Commission. Dom Mocquereau

himself noted: “In a conversation I had with Father de Santi at the

French seminary on Good Friday (April ), he told me that Dom Poth-

ier had neither communicated Perriot’s letter nor even its content to the Commission.” Father Grospellier’s report was dated March , but it

had not been sent around to the Commission by April .

Father de Santi acting as moderator—Memorandum addressed to the Pope At the th Meeting of the Commission, April , Dr. Wagner read a

written statement and requested that it be included in the Acts of the

Commission. This statement defended the President and included three

points: () The President has the right to consult with higher authority without the consent of the members and the counter-signature of the

Secretary. () He has the right to send notes bearing his signature to

members and non-members. () The official declarations and treasurer’s

reports ought to bear the signature of the President and Secretary.

Father de Santi remarked that statements made in the name of the

Commission ought to be made by common consent. Then, he protest-

ed once again against having recourse to the highest authority, and read the following note sent to the Pope because of “the wish spontaneously

expressed by His Holiness to have his [Father de Santi’s] opinion”:

The motu proprio on the Vatican Edition (of April , ) has been studied, examined, discussed with the greatest weight given to each of its parts, and in particular the paragraph that indicates the principles for the reconstruction of the melodies. This paragraph was considered by all as a model in the critical sense, and one of exquisite tact. This appreciation was given, specifically on the matter of the two currents that have appeared since then: One of extreme rigidity in favor of the teachings of paleography, and one with a tendency to follow subsequent tradition. Thus the Holy See, leaning neither to one side nor to the other, remained completely free of all responsibility for everything that we would accomplish later on. Our task is very difficult, and it will not be pos-THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 331

sible always to remain exactly in the middle as indicated by the motu proprio.

But in the case when accusations are made that we are following a path toward one extreme or the other, the supreme authority will, nevertheless, remain un-scathed and inviolate, and it is to us that the fault will be directed for not having followed, as we ought, the way which had been so wisely pointed out.

The new document [the Cardinal’s letter of April ] tends to favor the broader course, but after reflecting upon it at length, I see that it does not alter the sense of the motu proprio; rather, it explains that sense. The only danger is that it may be abused, but the diligent watchfulness of the Commission will keep an eye on it.

Father de Santi ends by expressing the desire that the responsibility

for everything should always be taken in solidum. Then, in a spirit of very laudable reconciliation, he proposes that, for the Kyriale, which belongs to a relatively late tradition, “our work should be limited to revising the current traditional text, a revision to be made based on observations by the Editors and the revisers.” In a report intended for Dom

Mocquereau written in  (and mentioned above), Father Holly not-

ed, in fact, that Father de Santi proposed “that the Commission adopt

the Kyriale of  without further ceremony. This is the only way to save the Commission,” Father de Santi thought at the time.

At the th Meeting, on April , starting with an objection by Dom Mocquereau, Dom Pothier read a motion on the subject of the Kyriale.

He noted the fact that the Kyriale came from an epoch when Gregorian chant was already corrupt, and that it was popular, which is the reason

for the variants, that certain (modern) tastes must be taken into ac-

count, that Gregorian chant is universal, and that it is improper to re-

strict its development to one epoch and to one country.

Father de Santi then circulated a letter received from Solesmes, surely

for private use, in which Dom Mocquereau rightly “affirms that thirty-

four of the pieces in the Kyriale are from the th century, and twenty-six from the eleventh century, thus from the best Gregorian period.” Following this declaration, it was considered inopportune to circulate Dom

Pothier’s motion to the absentees, but noting that Dom Pothier’s mo-

tion addressed the Kyriale as a whole.

At that point, Dr. Wagner declared that he had lost all confidence in

Solesmes. Dom Pothier, while agreeing with Father de Santi on the con-

siderable and valuable work furnished by the Editors, also declared that his confidence in Solesmes had lessened, for he “saw a subjective ele-332 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

ment in archeology itself.” Moreover, he was of the opinion that the

Editors ought not criticize the Commission.

Father de Santi and Baron Kanzler expressed disapproval of the tone

of Dom Mocquereau’s circulars and the immoderate interpretation of

the motu proprio:

Dom Janssens proposes that a courteous formal letter be sent to Solesmes, in which the bad impression given by the circulars is to be deplored. This letter could be sent along with the ex officio shipment of the list of corrections that the Commission intended to make. Moreover, he proposed that two or three members of the Commission be sent to Appuldurcombe, invested with full authority to state precisely the entire text of the Kyriale.

Father de Santi, recording secretary for the Commission, not being

present at the th Meeting on April , the account of the proceedings was taken from Father Holly’s notes and includes nothing of importance.

Fourth circular from Solesmes—Dom Pothier’s circular

The th Meeting on April th, the last that Dom Mocquereau did not attend, was even more lively. Father de Santi had announced the arrival

of the Prior of Solesmes to Dom Pothier. Dom Pothier replied—and

the letter was entered into the minutes by Father de Santi—that “he

hoped that this would mean that an amiable settlement would be

reached .l.l. on the solid terrain of the motu proprio, honestly and totally accepted in all and each of its components .l.l. and clarified in the letter of the Cardinal Secretary of State” (April , ).

At the start of this twentieth meeting, the President announced that

Dom Mocquereau was in Rome, but that the invitation to attend this

meeting had probably arrived too late. He took advantage of this ab-

sence to communicate a circular from the Editors dated April , and

another in response to it from the Chairman, dated April .

In the circular of April , Dom Mocquereau in turn protested—as

had Father de Santi—against having recourse to the supreme authority

outside the Commission: “Is it not up to the Commission to determine

whether to consult the higher authority, if it deems such a move useful

or opportune?” Dom Mocquereau added that he feared that this action

would merely create a precedent that would be invoked (and this was

exactly what was to take place in June) every time there is discontent-

ment with a decision or a general approach.

On April , Dom Pothier replied that the Cardinal’s letter

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 333

was not in any way intended to supplant the Commission, but to uphold the principles and conclusions of its work which came under attack from the Editors in its Circulars. By giving its blessing to the Commission’s mode of operation, the letter was intended to safeguard its reason for being, because the Editors, through their narrow interpretation of the motu proprio, tended to diminish the role of the Commission to nothing more than an illusion.

Dom Pothier continued:

Assuredly, the two sides have always sought to respond in the most perfect way possible to the intentions of the Holy Father. However, since both sides rely on the same texts to support their differing points of view, it may seem necessary to have some kind of clarification. It is not only the President, but several members of the Commission who, on their own initiative, have felt the need to express their worries in this matter, and even their deep concerns.

Nevertheless, the President did not explain why these petitions had

not been done with the full agreement and consent of all. There fol-

lowed a lively discussion. The President agreed that “while it is always necessary to work on the basis of the oldest manuscripts, subsequent

tradition and contemporary liturgical usage ought to be considered at

all times.” Father de Santi, for his part, affirmed that “even if the

melodies varies in a thousand ways, to the point that it would be diffi-

cult to reconstruct them according to the total tradition, in such cases it is appropriate to focus upon the oldest manuscripts, or to the group of

variants deemed best.” Dr. Wagner, finally, maintained that “this wide-

spread variation in the earliest melody proves that it was not satisfacto-ry to begin with, and that it would continue to be unsatisfactory today.”

The Declaration of April 

When it came time to decide on the motion, Father de Santi made

the observation that it would be better to await the arrival of Dom

Mocquereau at the next meeting, but Dr. Wagner carried the day by re-

marking that this was needless, “since there is already a majority.” This effectively closed the door for subsequent, convincing explanations, for it was well known that Dom Mocquereau himself worked on the manuscripts and could demolish superficial arguments. However, to clear

his conscience, Father de Santi

insisted that it should be more clearly stated in the motion that work must always begin with the manuscripts and be based on them. A diplomatic edition is not the goal; rather, the aim is to produce a critical edition, come what may. It 334 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

is only thus that the edition can be defended vigorously. The proposed modifications are recorded, but there is not enough time to examine them properly.

The President declared that he would submit the copy to be sent, for the usual signatures.

The copy referred to was the following declaration, which must be

cited in full, noting that it was regrettable that Dom Mocquereau, who was invited only at the last minute, could not be present at this meeting, which could have been continued the next day since the meeting closed

without exhausting the subject. He could have cleared up both the the-

oretical and practical ambiguities (the very thing that was feared he

might do). The practical ambiguities were not resolved, and no men-

tion whatsoever was made in this document as to the Rule of Order

that was intended to put the workings of the Commission into good or-

der.

The Commission, meeting in a regular meeting on April , , discussed and approved the following resolution or declaration, with the unanimous consent of the members present:

Considering that:

. At the time when the Commission is preparing to send the first pages of the Vatican Edition to the printer, it is important to settle the difficulties that have arisen, and to anticipate those which may arise and that may harm the gratifying success of its work.

. As perfect an agreement as possible ought to be established between the Editors, to whom is due the gratitude of all for the attention they have given in carrying out their task, and the Commission, which has been appointed to examine and judge what is submitted for its consideration.

. The motu proprio, carefully explained in the letter of the Cardinal Secretary of State, ought to be the solid and sole basis for operations and decisions for all, as all agree.

. The criterion for the Gregorian restoration, according to the motu proprio, should be based on the following three things: first archeology, then tradition, and then practical and liturgical needs and adaptations of the present day.

. It is important to explain with the greatest possible clarity the manner in which this criterion is applied.

Declare that:

. These three critical elements are not subordinated one below the other, in the sense that the second or third are adopted only when the first does not apply.

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 335

. As a result, in considering the oldest manuscripts above all, the subsequent testimony of tradition should never be lost from sight.

. It is appropriate to take into account the legitimate development and adjustments that art and circumstances may have contributed to these melodies, without changing their character.

. The work of the Gregorian restoration, although based on the ancient

manuscripts, may admit the introduction of justified variations for practical or liturgical reasons.

The Commission further decides that:

The content of this declaration shall be communicated to those Members

who are absent from Rome.

President: Dom Joseph Pothier, Abbot of Saint-Wandrille

The Secretary: Msgr. Carlo Respighi.

Let us merely cite, and emphasize, the annotations that Dom Moc-

quereau made on his copy: “Considering .l.l. ) .l.l. and to judge with knowledge of the reason—) sole .l.l. there shall be a Regulation—) .l.l. to accept the legitimate tradition, reject illegitimate traditions.”

. Dom Mocquereau in Rome

Before introducing Dom Mocquereau in the meetings, it would

seem useful to point out his relationship to the other members of the

Commission. The minutes of the preceding meeting provide us a per-

fect opening to do so, because four letters addressed to Father de Santi are included in the Appendix—letters not yet sent to the members of

the Commission. One was from Father Baralli, dated March , two

from Mr. Worth in early April and on April , and one from Dom Moli-

tor on April , to which we will return. Before that, however, let us examine the position of other members of the Commission whose testi-

mony is known to us.

Dom Mocquereau’s supporters and adversaries

We know where Wagner stood. On March , he sent a long memo-

randum of seven large pages to the Commission, Observations concern-

ing the first part of the Vatican Edition of the Kyriale. In it, he first praised the work of the Editors, declaring that his reservations related not to

the work itself, but to the principles that guided it: work “of pure arche-336 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

ology, insufficiently suited to performance practice.” In his opinion, “All work of this kind can only be a kind of compromise, and the editor

must furnish proof that he is the master of the material on which he is

working.” Moreover, with regard to the modifications that Gregorian

chant underwent over the centuries, he stated: “From the Gregorian

perspective, all these changes were real improvements, and we must

preserve them. We see evidence of them throughout the Middle Ages,

and these are truly traditional, not the early form.” Finally, after praising the work of the Editors, he concluded that it was not scientific.

Dom Michael Horn, from Seckau, expressed similar thoughts in two

letters filed for the record and addressed to Dom Pothier (February 

and March , ). “Solesmes’ reasoning [with regard to the SI] are not convincing. To accept the SI is to turn back the art of music  years

.l.l. Germany and Austria will reject such melodies with scorn” (March

, ).

The comments of Professor Gastoué (Résumé des principales observa-

tions sur les pages  à , et  à ) on the beginning of the Kyriale have already been noted. This is not a memorandum. In it, the author does not

formulate any guiding principles, but simply indicates the corrections

he proposes, on seven long duplicated pages. Dom Beyssac refuted

these suggested corrections point by point.

However, other members of the Commission fully agreed with

Dom Mocquereau. Father Perriot of Langres wrote as follows on

March  and April  (letters not yet presented at the meetings by April

; reference was made above to the second of these letters):

The two other principles, taking into account both a long and legitimate tradition and current liturgical practice, must not weaken the first and key principle (the return to antiquity), nor open the door to the deplorable changes which have, in the long run, corrupted the ecclesiastical chant.l.l.l.

[The first of these principles], the return to antiquity, is very explicit. It is amply motivated by the state of degradation into which plainchant has fallen as a result of these modifications, which have been introduced since the high Gregorian era and all, or almost all, of which are veritable degradations.

(March )

To return to the earliest origins seems to be the true purpose of the restoration desired by the motu proprio. (April )

As we noted above, Father Perriot informed Dom Mocquereau that he

was going to be sending these letters.

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 337

Father Grospellier of Grenoble paid tribute to the work of Solesmes

(and his letter had still not been presented to the Commission by April

). He affirmed that the so-called improvements of Gregorian chant

were anything but, because the new theoreticians “were unable to

grasp the principles of art and accentuation followed by the early com-

posers, such as have been revealed to us in the studies undertaken by

the Benedictines for a quarter of a century.” He concluded as follows:

This proves that an existing tradition is not legitimate by the sole fact that it was established for a given number of centuries. Facing a diversity of tradition, the Commission cannot thus be obliged by a general rule always to follow the most recent; the motu proprio obliges the Commission to rely, in each case, on what reason, art, and science say is the most legitimate. It seems to me, in fact, that this decision, a priori and in the absence of proof to the contrary, necessarily favors the early and authentic reading; this reading will always be the preferred way of proceeding when it has not been shown for sure that another more recent reading is, in fact, more legitimate. It may be that, merely because of our familiarity with a different and more modern form, the restored reading of the most ancient manuscripts at first might seem somewhat shocking. As we well know, however, these first impressions are not long lasting, and gradually are replaced by an entirely different and more independent feeling.

As mentioned above, Grospellier had also informed Dom Mocquereau

that he was going to be submitting this letter.

On March , Rev. Father Baralli of Lucca gave a passionate presenta-

tion objecting to the living tradition and the confusion of the principal directors of the Commission:

I find the following criteria of the Commission—archaeology, esthetic tradition, pitfalls for the singers, rejection of archaism, ease of performance—so confusing that I do not understand any of it. I challenge the stance that it is by these means that we will arrive at the early purity of the sacred chant.

He encouraged the Editors to follow the solid path laid out in the motu proprio, and suggested that they publish their edition without further ado, which could be used as a reference point from the scientific perspective.

On April , after stating that he found the changes proposed in the

name of the Commission to be arbitrary, Dom Raphael Molitor of Beu-

ron concluded:

It is clear that the goal and ultimate outcome proposed in the two motu proprio documents is early purity, and our understanding of the ancient Gregorian 338 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

chant is so widespread today that it does not take much effort to realize that other, different principles have come into play at the Vatican.

Finally, Mr. H. Worth of London, in an initial letter sent in early

April, stated that in England, “a mediocre edition that does not conform to the most ancient manuscripts will not be accepted.” Then he recalled

the resolutions made at Appuldurcombe: “We want only an edition of

Gregorian chant that is truly authentic and in conformity with the

purest sources, not a work that is certain to come under attack and be

demolished.”

In a second letter, dated April , Worth wrote to say that he joined in the letter of protest sent from Appuldurcombe against the attitude of

the President, and that he placed his confidence in the “extremely con-

scientious work of the Editors.”

Others were also favorable to the Editors, as evidenced by the re-

ports of the meeting, and the comments made on the pages of the Kyriale. First, of course, there was Father de Santi who, at the time, thought that Dom Mocquereau followed the manuscripts too slavishly. In any

case, on April , shortly after he arrived in Rome, Dom Mocquereau

said:

He [Father de Santi] wanted to count the members who are favorable to our cause, and he also says that we have the majority,  to . We count Kanzler among those nine. He tells us that he is, in fact, hesitant, but leans more toward our side, as an archaeologist. Baralli, who has recently seen Kanzler, told us the same thing.

In his June ,  report referred to above, Father Holly said:

Little by little, the Commission is becoming neatly divided into two factions, of which Father de Santi and Dom Janssens set themselves up as leaders; Msgrs.

Respighi and Rella, as disciples of Father de Santi, are aligned with him, while Perosi, Kanzler, Wagner and Dom Pothier stand with Dom Janssens. Dom

Gaisser always remains independent. As for myself, after I recovered from my initial surprise and disillusionment, I did not hesitate to join Father de Santi. I was named Recording Secretary at the third or fourth meeting.221

A note from Dom Cagin likewise divided the members of the Com-

mission, at a later date (in his list, he mentions Don Mercati, who was

appointed to the Commission on May ):

. Cf. Norman Holly, The Vatican Edition, in Church Music, Philadelphia, December , pp.

–.

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 339

•.Aside from Dom Mocquereau,

•. In favor of the Editors: Msgr. Respighi, Father de Santi, Msgr. Rella, Father Baralli, Don Molitor, Father Perriot, Father Grospellier, Father

Holly, H. Worth, and Don Mercati.

•. Not in favor of the Editors: Dom Pothier, Dom Janssens, Dom Horn, Msgr. Perosi, Father Moissenet, Dr. Wagner, Professor A. Gastoué.

•. Hesitating: Don Amelli, Dom Gaisser, and Baron Kanzler.

Mention must be made here of the paleographic research done in

Spain by two monks of En-Calcat, at the request of Solesmes. Because

this work was not finished until early , we will discuss it again,

along with the research done in Germany by Dom Paul Blanchon and

Dom Benoît de Malherbe.

The information that follows has been taken from the official reports

of the Commission, and from correspondence that Dom Mocquereau

and Dom Cagin sent to Solesmes, as well as correspondence from Fa-

ther de Santi and Msgr. Respighi to Dom Mocquereau.

Papal Audience

On his arrival in Rome, Dom Mocquereau, accompanied by Dom

Cagin, paid a visit to Father de Santi. Father de Santi told him that he had it from the Pope that the Cardinal’s letter of April  had been wrest-ed from him and that a Regulation was envisioned to return to the crite-

rion given in the motu proprio.

The Pope explained [to de Santi] the origin of that letter and how much pressure had been brought to bear, so that, to end the confusion, he had given in

.l.l. The Pope told Father de Santi that if the letter stood in the way or contradicted the motu proprio, there were ways to readdress the issue. That was when Father de Santi suggested the ploy of the Regulation regarding procedure and, if necessary, one article of the Regulation could straighten things out .l.l. (Cagin, April ; cf. Dom Mocquereau and Cagin, April )

At the same time, Father de Santi pleaded the cause of the living tradi-

tion because he found the Editors too intransigent. Dom Mocquereau

also learned from Father de Santi how the April  meeting had pro-

ceeded, the meeting that he was unable to attend because he was invit-

ed too late. The purpose of that meeting was to provide an interpretation of the interpretation of the motu proprio already given in the Cardinal’s letter!

340 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

On April , Dom Mocquereau and Cagin were received in an audi-

ence with Pius X, who had previously received a letter from Father de

Santi. The Pope repeated the complaints expressed by Father de Santi

concerning the intransigence of the Editors, but Dom Mocquereau was

able to explain his point of view to the Pope so clearly that the Pope enjoined him to speak to the Commission in exactly the same terms.

“State fortiter! Pugnate fortiter!” (Stand firm! Struggle bravely!) the Pope said several times, striking the table with his fist for emphasis.

Have pity on this poor soul. I am all too familiar with everything that has been written about the Pustet business to start this adventure all over again. I would rather that there be no Vatican Edition at all than an edition in which not everyone has come around to your way of thinking! (Dom Cagin, April ; cf. April

)

Dom Mocquereau brought to the Pope’s attention the letters men-

tioned above (from Dom Molitor, Baralli, and Worth), and when the

monks from Solesmes were taking their leave, the Pope insisted that

they come back to see him again.

Dom Mocquereau at the Commission

The first meeting attended by Dom Mocquereau was the st Meeting,

on April . This was also the first meeting attended by Rev. Father Raffaello Baralli, whom Dom Mocquereau (pressed, in part, by Father Hol-

ly; cf. supra) had urged to come to Rome. After the reading of the minutes of the preceding meeting, Father de Santi stated that

the edition ought to be made according to the most ancient and purest manuscripts. If tradition and practical use in the present-day liturgy call for certain modifications, the reasons for such modifications will always be given. These reasons must always be weighty enough to provide a reasonable counterbal-ance to the authority of the manuscripts. Dom Mocquereau accepts these declarations, and agrees with the resolution of the Commission.

Father de Santi then read the letters to which we referred above and

not yet communicated to the Commission (cf. beginning of No. ),

and alluded to a similar letter received from Father Grospellier. There

was indeed some murmuring, but Father de Santi maintained that the

Commission ought to have “objective knowledge of what our col-

leagues are thinking.” Then Dom Mocquereau said,

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 341

The Editors have always taken into account the legitimate subsequent tradition, and several times already they have established the reading based on such tradition. Taken as a whole, the manuscripts are always the scientific and esthetic basis of the melody. Professor Wagner concedes that the manuscripts are the scientific basis of the melody, but he denies that they are always the esthetic basis. In that regard, he recalls a Papal audience during which (His Holiness) made the following timely comparison, namely that today, the sacred images as they are seen in the catacombs cannot be restored in the churches .l.l.

Father de Santi then proposed that the Commission begin examining

the Rules of Order. It was agreed that this examination should be post-

poned until the final version was completed and printed. In connection

with this exercise, Dom Mocquereau requested

that the course to be followed in revising and correcting the melodies be clearly set forth. The President, Dom Janssens, Father de Santi, Dr. Wagner, and others participated in the discussion. Dom Mocquereau’s proposal, approved unanimously, will thus be included in the Regulation. All comments of the examiners will be sent directly to Solesmes, where the final scrutiny will be made.

Through lithographed circulars, the reasons that led the Editors not to accept one correction or another will be explained. After this second exchange of ideas, the text will be set definitively, and the file of documents will be sent to Rome for verification and inclusion in the archives of the Commission.

Professor Wagner took the occasion to praise the workshop at Solesmes. He recalled how, on every occasion, the Right Rev. Dom Pothier had spoken with gratitude and with praise for the efforts of the Editors. He said that there was not another scholar in the world who had at his disposal such extensive and complete archives as those at Solesmes, and that, with the aid of these manuscripts, the monks will no doubt be capable of resolving any question easily. He recalled a motion that he had made earlier, and wished to mention it again, namely that if the variations proposed by the examiners are not pleasing, other, better ones might be proposed. Dom Mocquereau stated, and with great pleasure, that this could always be done.

At this point, Dom Janssens proposed that Dom Pothier should

come to Appuldurcombe as plenipotentiary of the Commission. Dom

Mocquereau immediately accepted, and everyone applauded the pro-

posal. Finally, after Wagner suggest that the flat sign be introduced ad libitum on the music staff of the last Kyrie Rex Genitor, Father de Santi noted that “the criterion of the motu proprio for practical usage in the liturgy ought to dissuade us from introducing variations ad libitum.”

In a letter, Dom Mocquereau noted that he had set up a modus viven-

342 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

di together with Father de Santi, in which the final word goes to those who have the manuscripts at hand. This was accepted as a point that

would be included in the Regulation (Dom Mocquereau, April ).222

The nd Meeting, on April , was very painful. First of all, the President read a memorandum criticizing the letters read at the preceding

meeting (the letters from Molitor, Baralli, and Worth; cf. beginning of

No. ). “He mentioned mistakes that are made in them” and produced

a letter from Gastoué criticizing not the Commission, but the Editors.

There followed another discussion of the meaning to be attributed to

legitimate tradition. For Wagner,

a legitimate tradition is one that departs from the most ancient manuscripts. In his opinion, Dom Mocquereau’s position that recognizes as a legitimate tradition one that preserves the early melody intact over the centuries, is too narrow. Dom Gaisser also believes that Dom Mocquereau is a bit too strict on this point. He also thinks that, as difficult as it is to define the principle in theory, it is easy to make practical application of it in each case. There followed a new discussion on the criterion of esthetics, on the tradition of the SI or the DO in the Vidi Aquam.

Prof. Wagner took his leave, as his departure was imminent. He expressed regret at leaving matters undecided. He recalled the refined taste of the Germans in matters of music, and the severity that they would express in evaluat-ing the Vatican Edition if it were to present the rough edges of a bygone era which can no longer be tolerated today. He predicted a disaster if sufficient attention is not given to this matter.

The meeting ended immediately, and Father de Santi inserted this

note in the minutes: “The recording secretary avers that henceforth it is impossible for him to recapitulate the meetings if they take place with

such little order, and without a well-defined agenda.”

The same day, Dom Cagin informs us, the Pope told Father de Santi

. Here is the wording of this modus vivendi: “. Our copies are sent to the Vatican Press; .

The proofs are returned and corrected at Appuldurcombe. Provisional release of final correction proofs; . Vatican Press sends these proofs to all members and consultors of the Commission; .

These proofs are returned to Appuldurcombe with comments, corrections, and suggestions from the members; . All these proofs are examined at Appuldurcombe. Accepted or rejected; .

The work thus amended is sent to the Commission in Rome; . The Commission examines the proofs, and does not make any corrections without consulting with the Editorial Board; . The Editorial Board releases the final corrected proof. In case of a dispute between the Commission and the Editorial Board, what will be the course of action? I did not want to address this point.

But after the meeting, I told Father de Santi that at the next meeting, I would ask that the last word be given to the Editorial Board.

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 343

that there would be no Vatican Edition if the Commission failed to

reach an agreement with the Editors, and that if necessary, he would

annul the Cardinal’s letter of April  if it were used to oppose the motu proprio:

Fortunately, we have the Pope’s word: Hold fast! He also said that he would prefer not to have a Vatican edition at all unless everyone agreed with the Editors .l.l. Dom Janssens responded (at the meeting) that since the letter from the Secretary of State had changed matters in that respect, he was siding with its point of view. Father de Santi, not content merely to deny that the letter from the Cardinal Secretary of State had introduced any change whatsoever, affirmed that he had it from the Pope himself that if there were any effort to interpret the Cardinal’s letter in that way, the Pope would rescind the letter.

(Dom Cagin, April )

Dom Mocquereau added that during this meeting, there had been a

heated discussion between Father Baralli and Dom Janssens on the cri-

terion of esthetics, and that they failed to set a date for the next meeting.

On April , Dom Cagin reported that Father de Santi wrote to the

Pope after the meeting on April . His idea was: () to entrust the

whole business to Solesmes, which would in turn send the work to His

Holiness; () that a Rule of Order seemed increasingly necessary, but

that it ought not be voted upon after deliberation. He even mentioned

drafting a pontifical letter to Dom Pothier, to notify him that the Pope was taking matters into his own hands. Msgr. Bressan, private secretary to

the Holy Father, responded that the Pope did not believe that he could

take on this responsibility, and that his wish was to submit the Rule to the Commission. The friends of Father de Santi held a private meeting

on this matter on April  (Dom Cagin, April  and ).

Audience with the Cardinal Secretary of State

Meanwhile, Dom Mocquereau was received in an audience with the

Cardinal Secretary of State on April . The welcome he received was

less cordial than that extended by the Pope. The Cardinal actually re-

proached Dom Mocquereau for the protest he had made against his let-

ter, and declared that the Pope wanted a practical edition. Dom Moc-

quereau replied by making a distinction between the Cardinal’s letter

and the procedures followed to obtain it (without consulting the Com-

mission). Dom Mocquereau also explained his point of view on the liv-

344 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

ing tradition, which was, in fact, a corruption and a historic error, given the manner in which it was being used. Then Dom Mocquereau explained how the Editors did their work. Then the Cardinal suggested

that a cardinal be made President of the Commission, recognizing that

Dom Pothier was both judge of and party to the discussion, but also

adding that in his view, Father de Santi was too closely aligned with

Solesmes. Finally, Dom Mocquereau remarked that it was not the re-

sponsibility of the Commission to draft the text, and that the Editors

had only one vote to defend their work (Father de Santi’s idea was that

the Editors should be given three to five votes; Dom Cagin, April ).

He added, in this regard, that the letter supporting the Editors had not been read in the meetings (Dom Mocquereau and Dom Cagin, April

).

While waiting for the next meeting to be called, the two factions

strengthened their positions: while Father de Santi and his friends were preparing the Rule of Order, the others went to the Cardinal, threatening to resign (Dom Cagin, April ).

However, Dom Mocquereau was not altogether satisfied with the

draft of Father de Santi’s Rule. Although Father de Santi was of the

opinion that the Presidency of the Commission should be entrusted to

a cardinal who would impose the Rule, and though he wanted to give

five votes to the Editors, he was leaving open a door that they wanted to close, by allowing the Commission to correct the submitted text.

Msgr. Respighi remained optimistic through it all: having seen the

Cardinal, he said that there was hope for adopting a good Rule of Or-

der. This Rule, which G. Mercati and Father H. Ehrle (a Jesuit), both

working at the Vatican Library and future cardinals, were to examine,

would bring everything back to where they had started from: the Edi-

tors would be responsible for the version of the melody, while the Com-

mission would handle publication (Dom Cagin, April  and ; Dom

Mocquereau, April ).

The rd Meeting was held on April , Easter Friday. This time, after the reading of the minutes of the preceding meeting, there was a brief discussion between Dom Mocquereau and Dom Gaisser

on the subject of the exact meaning of the expression legitimate tradition. During this exchange of ideas, Dom Gaisser cited the example of the Kyrie Fons Bonitatis, and said that, in this case, since the tradition is divided into two currents that are well documented in the manuscripts, he was inclined to favor the THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 345

version presented by the Editors, because there were proper and sufficient reasons to support that version.

The principle of the ad libitum variants was proposed again, and was unanimously rejected. Dom Mocquereau then said that “the Editors

would be quite willing to accept full responsibility for the edition,” an idea that Father de Santi had already mentioned to the Pope (cf. supra).

This led to a lively discussion of the matter, and Father de Santi tried to describe the role of the Commission clearly:

It seemed to him that the Commission ought to examine whether the work of the Editors corresponded to the conditions imposed by the motu proprio; the Commission could propose corrections which would be accepted by the Editors; finally, the Commission ought to decide if the work was worthy of publication, to honor the Holy See.

There followed a discussion on the order of Masses in the Kyriale. It was voted that the Appendix would be eliminated, and that all the

pieces would be included in the main section of the Kyriale.

The th Meeting was held on April . After reading the minutes of the preceding meeting, discussion focused mainly on the order of the

pieces in the Kyriale. The order proposed by the Editors, “although well composed in the copy submitted by Solesmes,” was not adopted. Two

adaptations made by the President ( Sanctus and Agnus de Beata), even though rejected by the Commission, were kept in, while the Asperges me of the Ambrosian Mass, although approved, was not included. Finally,

the Appendix to the Kyriale was kept as is, even though the decision had been made to incorporate it into the body of the Kyriale (cf. supra).

“Dom Mocquereau requested that he be given a clear account of every-

thing that the Very Reverend President wanted, promising to give it his

full attention.”

On the matter of this meeting, Dom Cagin adds an interesting detail

that he heard from Father de Santi himself:

Did (Dom Mocquereau) speak to you about this afternoon’s meeting (Father de Santi told me about it)? Just picture this: the question of the SI, which took up so much time and occasioned so much turmoil, has just been settled in Dom Mocquereau’s favor unanimously .l.l. All voted as one, Dom Pothier

along with all the others .l.l. Father Prior confirmed this to me when I came in.

They have completely caved in. Wagner is no longer there.l.l.l. (Dom Cagin, May )

346 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

. The “De Santi Regulation”

The Pope’s favorable opinion

On May , the Regulation ( Regolamento, “Rules of Order”) was forwarded to Msgr. Bressan by Father de Santi, after it was reviewed by

Don Mercati and Father Grisar, S.J., of Civiltà Cattolica. Dom Cagin wrote:

The Regulation, amended by Father de Santi in keeping with our recommendations, was forwarded to him [no doubt to Father de Santi by Don Mercati and Grisar]) yesterday evening, on Sunday, after the meeting of the Commission.

He sent it this morning to Msgr. Bressan, with a letter assuring him that Respighi had seen the Cardinal Secretary of State, and that all the problems have now been explained and all details clarified. Father de Santi spoke to Msgr.

Bressan about the Regulation which, he said, had been reviewed and approved by Grisar and Don Mercati, as it would have been without any doubt by Father Ehrle, if he could have reached him. There cannot be a divided opinion, he added, among the experts. He asked him to request that the Holy Father agree to authorize the printing at the Vatican Press as soon as possible. (Dom Cagin, May )223

The Pope and the Cardinal seemed satisfied with the Regulation, but

they did not want to force it on the Commission (Dom Cagin, May 

and ), and the Cardinal was to request “written comments from Com-

mission members” (Dom Mocquereau, May ). In addition, the deci-

sion was made that it would be printed up before it was submitted to

the Commission for discussion. Dom Mocquereau noted, finally, that

he, too, was pleased with the Regulation, since the edition would bene-

fit from it as well, because the Editors would have to be more exacting

in their work (Dom Mocquereau, May ). As for the five votes requested

by the Editors, he disagreed with Dom Delatte, who wrote on May : “I

would prefer that the Editors retain only one vote. Our strength is in

our reasoning.” Dom Mocquereau expressed his position as follows: “I

do not believe that there is any lack of dignity at all in accepting four or five votes for the Editors; since we are occupying the majority position, accept it we must.” At the same time, he announced that he had just fin-

. On May , Dom Mocquereau wrote to Father Baralli: “We are awaiting the Regulation.

It was submitted for review by Father Grisar, who approves of it entirely, and who suggested a few additions in an even more scientific direction” (quoted by Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra, , p. , note ).

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 347

ished the memorandum on the first twenty-four pages of the Kyriale

(Dom Mocquereau, May ).224

The following session, the th Meeting, on May , was a stormy one.

First of all, the minutes of the preceding meeting were read and Dom

Pothier succeeded in having his two adaptations “composed on two an-

cient and authentic Gregorian melodies” adopted. Then,

the recording secretary announced a memorandum from Father Perriot on the Credo proposed for the Kyriale, and handed it to the President. Then he rendered an account of the Regulation, which was completed by then. It had been given to Father de Santi at the meeting on April  (cf. supra, th Meeting). Several times, Father de Santi proposed that a discussion be held on the prepared topics. The Commission decided to postpone the examination until after the work on the printer’s proofs. The manuscript was sent to Msgr. Bressan, so that he could ask permission of the Holy Father to have it printed at the Press. The Holy Father wanted to read it, and passed it to the Cardinal Secretary of State.

His Holiness and the Cardinal stated that they were satisfied, and the manuscript was sent to the Press.

Then Msgr. Respighi disclosed to the Commission a proposal from

very high up, upon which the Commission’s opinion was being sought.

The proposal concerned the protection and the authoritative guidance

of a cardinal, specifically of the Cardinal Secretary of State. The pro-

posal was accepted unanimously, but Dom Gaisser expressed his wish

that having recourse to His Eminence should be limited to matters of

the utmost urgency.

At that point, the President proposed a draft agreement between the

Commission and the Editors, on the matter of examining the proofs,

but Father de Santi called attention to the need to wait for the Regula-

tion, since it was going to deal with that very issue. Nonetheless, the

minutes of the meeting include a note that contains a brief written pro-

posal from Dom Janssens on the same subject.225

. Dom Cagin informs us that Father Holly visited the Cardinal Secretary of State and spoke to him about the Commission on May  (Dom Cagin, May , ).

. Note on the manner of proceeding for revising the proofs. Father Janssens added a proposal, which he later submitted in writing, and which is attached here: “If the Editorial Board agrees to the modifications suggested by the Commission, the approval sanctioned by the President is final.—If the Editorial Board does not accept the modifications with the supporting reasons provided, and at the same time suggests other solutions that the President accepts, in this case the agreement between the Editorial Board and the President must be confirmed by the Commission.—If the Editorial Board and the President disagree, the Commission will adopt the 348 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

Likewise, Dom Pothier returned to the matter of the order to be fol-

lowed in the Kyriale, and the remark was made that this question should be considered closed. But the examination of the corrections that were

suggested for the Eastertide Kyrie and the Gloria (the question of SI or DO, again!) elicited a lively discussion, even though

Dom Mocquereau’s demonstration seemed overwhelming to most members,

and no significant response was directed toward it .l.l. So Father de Santi proposed that the Editors’ text for the Eastertide Kyrie and Gloria be definitively adopted, as is. With great difficulty and after repeated attempts, he managed to have his motion acknowledged for consideration and brought to a vote.

The same discussion took place with regard to the final Amen of the Gloria, which had occasioned an objection from Dom Janssens regarding the distribution of the syllables.

The session was much more turbulent than the Minutes would have

us believe. In fact, the President wanted to prevent Dom Mocquereau

from reading his observations on the Kyriale, and was forced to acknowledge that he himself was adopting corrections not based in reali-

ty. It was doubtless at that point that Msgr. Respighi handed over to

Dom Mocquereau the following written note: “In patientia vestra pos-

sidebitis animas vestras” (“In your patience you shall possess your

souls”) (Dom Cagin, May ).

On May , the Cardinal Secretary of State received Dom Moc-

quereau once again. “A good audience!” In fact, the Cardinal showed

that he fully understood what the Editors wanted, as well as their objections regarding the living tradition as it was too frequently understood (Dom Cagin, May ).

The next day, at the meeting on May  (Meeting ), the President announced the appointment of Don Mercati as a member of the Com-

mission, and read the Cardinal’s letter:

May . In order to assure a more perfect uniformity of effort and principles between the historical-liturgical Commission and the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican Edition of the Gregorian liturgical books, His Holiness has wished to direct that the first of these said Commissions be represented in the second by Msgr. Giovanni Mercati, and to that end His Holiness has named him member of the latter Commission, since he is already a member of the first. This is solution deemed preferable by the majority of votes.” (This entire note is taken from the minutes of the meeting.)

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 349

being sent for information and guidance to the Right Rev. Father Pothier, President of the above-mentioned Commission for the liturgical books containing the Gregorian melodies. R. Cardinal Merry del Val.

Then, after the reading of the Minutes of the preceding meeting,

Msgr. Respighi presented the letter that he had sent to His Eminence:

The Commission approved with satisfaction the proposal that the Most Eminent Cardinal Secretary of State, who has the chief supervision of the printing of the edition, will in future, by his high protectorate, greatly facilitate the work of the Commission itself.

The meeting ended with an examination of the proofs of the Easter-

tide Mass and the Kyrie Fons bonitatis.

A brief discussion arose concerning free variants (defended by Dom Janssens), that could legitimately be introduced in view of the letter from the Cardinal Secretary of State. Father de Santi said that this authorization is not found in the motu proprio. If one were to open the door to such fantasies, there would be no telling where they would end, and there would be no effective way of preventing them.

To our knowledge, the Minutes of the meetings stop here, and so

there were no further meetings of significance. Father de Santi clearly

shows a meeting for May  as being the last, but it was doubtless not

recorded in the Minutes (cf. Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra, , note

). Dom Mocquereau’s Journal (i.e., the letters of Dom Mocquereau and of Dom Cagin) will now be our main source of information, and

the Regulation that was being prepared became, from this point on, the

sole focus of that correspondence.

The Document

The printed Regulation was sent to Dom Mocquereau on May .

Dom Cagin wrote (May ): “I believe that the proofs of the Regulation

that Father Prior received are first proofs, and that the members resid-

ing in Rome did not receive them. Otherwise, it is quite likely that [the Regulation] will be discussed at the meeting.” Father de Santi had sent it to the Cardinal Secretary of State on May . In a long cover letter, Father de Santi explained that he had received instruction from the Com-

mission by unanimous vote to prepare this document. Then he gave the

reasoning behind it, namely the opposition toward the Editors by the

President and the minority, sostenuto dalla minoranza della Commissione.

350 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

The intent of the document was to indicate exactly the rights and the

obligations of the Commission and the Editors, their relationship, and

the scientific criteria that ought to govern the restoration of the Gregorian chant, as the Holy Father wanted it.

Father de Santi added that he had shown his draft to competent per-

sons capable of clarifying it, especially to two Benedictines from

Solesmes present in Rome, and that they had approved it. He scarcely

hoped that the majority of the Commission would also approve it. He

was pessimistic about its chances, and did not conceal his discourage-

ment:

I have some very good reasons to fear that if the Regulation is offered for examination during the regular meetings of the Commission, regrettable and absolutely useless discussions will start all over again, once again losing precious time. I am inclined to abandon the work of the Commission and to toss out the hundred or more pages already composed and typeset.

He also requested permission to submit his draft Regulation to an ad hoc Commission composed of three well known men of science: Father Ehrle and Don Mercati of the Vatican Library, and Father Grisar of

Civiltà Cattolica. A few days later, Dom Mocquereau noted:

In reply to Father de Santi’s letter, the Cardinal Secretary of State instructed him to shoulder the responsibility himself of having the Regulation examined by the priests he had named. He preferred not to insist on such an examination.

The outcome would still be the same. The Cardinal asked for written com-

ments from the members of the Commission, and will make his decision after that. (May )

The original text of the Regulation was in French (Father de Santi, who spoke and wrote French very well, was assisted by Dom Mocquereau and Dom Cagin). It was fourteen large handwritten pages

long. It mentioned the Brief Ex quo tempore, addressed to the Abbot of Solesmes on May , , which praised the method of work in the

scriptorium at Solesmes, as well as the motion of confidence in support

of the Benedictines at the plenary session at Appuldurcombe. The Editorial Board was composed of a President and four monks of Solesmes chosen by the Father Abbot; it had a consulting and deliberative vote.

The draft read in part as follows:

XV. The editing of the manuscript of the Vatican Edition is directly and exclusively consigned by the Holy See to the Benedictines of Solesmes, according to THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 351

paragraph b) of the motu proprio and the Brief Ex quo tempore addressed to Dom Delatte. As a result, all the melodies that will be brought together in this edition ought to be presented by the Editorial Board, or at least accepted and approved by it.

Section XXV stipulated that the responsibility for the definitive text

devolves upon the Editorial Board, while responsibility for publication

rests with the Commission. Section XVIII read as follows: “The correc-

tions proposed by the Commission ought to be submitted to the Edito-

rial Board which shall then make the corrections as requested, or shall

explain the reasons that militate in favor of the early reading adopted.”

Section XXIII states that the comments of the reviewers ought to be

based on specific documents, with an indication of their date, value,

and origin, and that they should not deviate from legitimate tradition.

The document also stated specifically that during the regular meet-

ings, the President ought to present correspondence concerning the

Commission without delay; that he should make no final decisions

without first mentioning the proposal during regular meetings, nor

without authorization by a general resolution; and that he should not

send any official communication regarding the Commission and the

work of the Commission that had not previously been discussed, ap-

proved by a majority of votes, and marked with the Secretary’s coun-

tersignature (XI).

The translation into Italian added a few corrections to the text, for example: “The melodies ought to be presented by the Editorial Board not

as material to be worked on, but as work already carefully prepared and

completed, and as a consequence ready for printing” (XV). And espe-

cially:

This Regulation nullifies any provisions that run more or less to the contrary that may have been adopted during the meetings of the Commission; it cannot be changed or modified in any part without the authority of the Holy See.

(XXX)

Therefore, the text of the Editorial Board was to be presented in a

form that was ready for the printer. On May , Dom Cagin wrote: “The

last paragraph declared null and void anything that had been decided

upon at the meetings held so far that runs counter to the provisions of

the Regulation” (Dom Cagin, May ).

352 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

The opinion of Don Mercati and of Father Ehrle

So the document was sent to Don Mercati and to Father Ehrle, for a

more careful reading for, as you will recall, Don Mercati had already examined it.

Now, Don Mercati found it “too wordy”, and in the letter he sent on

May  to the Cardinal Secretary of State to present his observations, he pointed out its “procedural difficulties, omissions, and contradictions.

.l.l.” Nonetheless, his own comments went on to fill fourteen large

handwritten pages, and on May , Don Mercati added two more sup-

plementary comments ( page).

Dom Cagin summed up Don Mercati’s position on May :

To clear up the inaccuracies that bother Don Mercati on the issue of the members, the consultors, the Commission, the Editorial Board, this is how he views things: There is a Pontifical Commission under the honorary presidency of the Cardinal Secretary of State. The Commission has two Committees: the Editorial Committee, which he calls the Recension Committee, a term commonly

used in philology, which is chaired by Dom Mocquereau; and a Review Com-

mittee, an exclusively Roman entity. Its sole purpose is to see whether the Recension Committee has completed its work according to the scientific criteria imposed on the various groups, and it does not agree that it can do anything else, i.e. edit on its own account. It receives the organ, and states whether the organ is or is not the organ that was ordered. If that is true, then the Recension Committee would simply submit its recension, without having to vote on what it receives, any more than it does on the organ builder. In its turn, not only does the Review Committee have nothing to do with establishing the text at any point, it is also forbidden to withhold its approval when the work that has been submitted meets the conditions provided for in the criteria. So it is on these criteria that Don Mercati, too, focuses all his attention, but resolutely eliminating all the vague expressions that have previously stirred up so many storms and errors, his spirit freed from having to mince words with regard to the prejudices of the left, and to the Cardinal’s letter and to the unsuitable terms of the motu proprio.

Don Mercati felt that the Editorial Committee could not be the

judge of its own work, but Dom Mocquereau, in a Note (undated), in-

sisted on his right to attend the meetings to defend his work, although

he did not take part in the voting. This was to be included in the definitive printed text, and not in the initial proofs (cf. no.  of the Regulation).

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 353

Father Ehrle’s memo was very severe toward the Commission. He

did not recommend a definitive Regulation, but one that would be ad

experimentum for a year to a year and a half. At the end of the copy he made of it on May , Dom Mocquereau appended this note, dated

May , which will give a clear idea of the Regulation:

These comments by Father Ehrle were accompanied by a letter to the Cardinal Secretary of State that was so strongly worded that his Eminence did not want to send it on to Father de Santi. However, he did read it to Msgr. C. Respighi. In it, among other things, Father Ehrle requests that the Commission be over-hauled, the first to be ousted being the President, D.J.P., then the useless members; to belong to it, one must be a philologist, an editor, and a paleographer.

It should be pointed out that this letter from Father Ehrle was erro-

neously attributed to Don Mercati, and it was falsely surmised that Fa-

ther de Santi and Dom Mocquereau had inspired it. This matter will be

addressed in greater detail below.

Father de Santi also prepared a memo that ran to six large handwrit-

ten pages, signed May , entitled On the comments of Rev. Ehrle and Don Mercati concerning the proposed Regulation of the Pontifical Commission.

Similarly, Msgr. Respighi wrote a brief note of five small pages to Dom

Mocquereau. In it, he said:

As I see it, (a) the Mercati Regulation seems adequate, but the topics we wish to reserve for the general review must be spelled out more clearly. (b) The de Santi Regulation does not displease me either: it gives those living in Rome a freer hand; he gives the vote to Editors, as well, and to the other members, on questions that are not purely editorial matters, and it seems to guarantee standards of procedure, with the request for the written opinion of absent members.

. The “Mercati Regulation”

Overhauling the document

On May , Dom Mocquereau informs us that the Cardinal had sub-

mitted the Regulation to Msgr. Respighi, and that Father de Santi had to redo the whole statement, in a sense even more favorable to the Editors:

354 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

.l.l. the Cardinal gave him the Regulation and Don Mercati’s comments. He put everything back in Father de Santi’s hands, but poor Father de Santi must recast the entire Regulation in a sense that is even more favorable to the Editors. The Cardinal has approved Don Mercati’s comments. I believe that Father de Santi is pleased ( sic) with the suggested improvements. We will find out what they are tonight.

Father de Santi’s text was the memo mentioned above, signed May ,

in response to Don Mercati’s comments.

There was a meeting on May  at Don Mercati’s residence.226 Don

Mercati expounded his point of view with the greatest clarity. Dom Ca-

gin writes (May ):

For him, the Editorial Committee is everything. He wants to put the Editorial Committee and its criteria ahead of everything else. When I spoke to him about the pain he had caused Father de Santi, Dom Cagin wrote: “I grew angry about it,” he answered, “because I like Father de Santi very much, but for me, the honor of the Church is more important than anything else. The Holy See must not place itself in a compromising position by taking ambiguous measures.l.l.”. In another passage, he writes, “A legislative text is not a literary exercise. It should contain only what must be said, everything that must be said, and it should do so clearly and without beating around the bush.”

On May , Dom Mocquereau wrote:

Yesterday evening at : I went to Father de Santi, who gave me his second version of the Regulation. We went over it yesterday evening and this morning, then we went to bring it to Msgr. Mercati, with my comments. That good man wants to strengthen the Regulation even more in our favor, so as to reduce the revising role of the Commission as much as possible.

On May , the Journal of Solesmes points out a few more improvements by Don Mercati:

So there had been no provision for timely notice of the meetings, a written agenda, holding the meetings in strict accordance with the written agenda, orderliness in the debate, internal rules of order, any member being able to recall the rules of order, or the order of precedence in the voting. What is more, Don Mercati chairs nearly all the meetings. (Dom Cagin, May )

. Those in attendance were Respighi, Father de Santi, Dom Mocquereau, Dom Cagin, and Don Mercati. The Pope would be displeased, but could the Regulation have been prepared in any other way than by prior agreement among all those who had felt the urgent need for it?

(Cf. Bauducco, Civiltà Cattolica , , ).

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 355

So Don Mercati wanted to make additional changes to the Regulation,

even though the cardinal was giving carte blanche to Msgr. Respighi to send the document to the printer at the same time, knowing only that it

had been entirely redone (Dom Cagin, May ). Msgr. Respighi was de-

lighted with Don Mercati’s new ideas, who made such quick work of

the matter that the document was ready for the printer on June  (Dom

Cagin, June  and ). On June , Msgr. Respighi delivered it to Dom

Mocquereau: “Msgr. Respighi brought us the printed Regulation this morning. He left it with us so that we could make some comments.l.l.l.”

(Dom Mocquereau, June ).

Dom Mocquereau found some of Don Mercati’s clauses excessive:

one provided internal rules of order applicable to the Editorial Com-

mittee; another was relatively secret:

Don Mercati would like the Revision Commission to be bound to secrecy, as well as the entire Editorial Committee, with respect to any discussion of the musical text supplied by the Editorial Committee. We would not even have the right to consult the minutes of meetings where matters of approving or rejecting our text were discussed. (Dom Mocquereau, June )

The viewpoint of Don Mercati and Father Ehrle was quite uncom-

promising. Don Mercati wanted the Editorial Committee “not to be

present for the revision work,” while Father Ehrle wanted to get rid of

all those in opposition (Dom Cagin, June , and Dom Mocquereau,

June ):

We have arrived at this very specific point: Don Mercati, in an extremely radical position, does not want the revision board to be involved in the editing, but he also wants the members of the Editorial Committee not to be able to attend the meetings of the Revision Council. We reject that article entirely: we have the right to attend the contentious debates on our musical text, at least as advocates. We agree not to vote, but we wish to be present, we want at least to have that right, for it will be quite rare that we will have the opportunity to attend those meetings .l.l. (Dom Mocquereau, June )

On June , Dom Mocquereau noted once again: “The fight is still be-

tween Don Mercati and Father de Santi as far as the Regulation goes .l.l.

Respighi intervened yesterday evening .l.l. after a long meeting, he managed to bring the two adversaries closer together.” A little further on, he writes:

356 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

An article was drafted more or less in the following wording: The Editors shall be able to attend the revision meetings in order to provide the explanations that may be requested of them, but they shall not vote. This evening, Respighi is to see Don Mercati once again, to hammer out with him the text that will be submitted tomorrow morning to the Cardinal by Respighi.

On June , Dom Mocquereau noted that our friends had not yet

come to an agreement, and that the definitive text had not yet been es-

tablished. In any event, he added: “.l.l. it is impossible to submit the first draft in any dignified manner to the cardinal, owing to the corrections; it will have to go to the printer again.” Finally, on June , Msgr.

Respighi brought the Regulation to the Vatican Press, and all the corrections were made on the spot. Then he gave Dom Mocquereau the re-

quest to Pius X asking for approval of the document, a request he said

he would present to the Pope on June : “Tomorrow evening, he [Fa-

ther de Santi] is to see the Holy Father and present the Regulation to

him” (Dom Mocquereau, June –).

Finally, on June , Dom Mocquereau notes that Msgr. Respighi was

able to see the Cardinal and give him the document. Then Msgr.

Respighi wrote to the Pope to inform him of the four votes (in addition

to the vote of Dom Mocquereau) submitted by the Editorial Commit-

tee: Dom Blanchon, Dom Ménager, Dom Maurice, and Dom Beyssac.

At the last minute, there was some question of additional changes by

Father de Santi, but Msgr. Respighi, in a “very strong” letter, managed to convinced him to leave things as they stood (Dom Mocquereau, June 

and ).

The next step was to have the Regulation reviewed by the members

of the Commission, whose comments were to be made in writing, ac-

cording to the instructions of the Cardinal Secretary of State (cf. Dom

Mocquereau, May ). Here are the main ideas of the document, which

runs to fourteen large printed pages:

The Internal Regulation of the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican Edition of the Liturgical Books of Gregorian Chant contains five chapters.

I.— Concerning the Commission in General. This chapter mentions the motu proprio of April , , and the Brief Ex quo tempore sent to the Abbot of Solesmes on May , .—The Commission comprises an

Editorial unit, made up of monks of Solesmes, and a Revision board,

under the direction of the Cardinal Secretary of State. The composition

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 357

and specific activities of each of these units were spelled out in chapters II and III.

With regard to the restoration of the Gregorian melodies, the docu-

ment states: “They [the melodies] shall all be restored in accordance

with the great number of manuscripts, especially the oldest and incor-

rupt ones, without changing anything, under the pretext of some local

variant or a later development, regardless of how beautiful it may be,

even less for doubtful reasons of personal taste or similar reasons.”

II.— Concerning the Editorial Committee. The Editorial Committee

comprised four monks of Solesmes appointed by the Abbot of that

monastery who were confirmed in their role by the Sovereign Pontiff.

The Chairman of the Editorial Committee was also selected from

among the monks of Solesmes and appointed by the Sovereign Pontiff

at the recommendation of the Abbot of Solesmes.

The task of the Editorial Committee was to edit the musical text, and

to that end, to do all the research necessary, to classify and collate the melodies, to write supplementary notes listing variant readings, to prepare the manuscript for publication and an explanatory memorandum,

to correct the proofs, to gather the corrections from the revisers, and to accept substantiated improvements, to provide the melodies for the new

Offices, and to participate in the work of reviewing the proofs whenever it should prove necessary to consult the manuscripts once again.

III.— Concerning the Board of Revision. The Board of Revision comprised a President, a vice-president and a secretary, a recording secre-

tary, a corrector, and experts selected and appointed by the Sovereign

Pontiff .l.l. Its role was to determine, with the greatest possible diligence, whether the musical text from the Editorial Committee corre-

sponded to the standards that had been established, to issue the nihil ob-stat, and to oversee the printing process .l.l. The steps involved in this work were described in the greatest possible detail.

IV.— Concerning Meetings. Note paragraph , which was added to the final proofs: “At the private meetings of the Revision Committee, the

members of the Editorial Committee may speak in order to explain

their reasons more conveniently; but they shall have no right to vote,

except for the matters covered under article , with regard to which

they shall cast their own personal vote.”226bis

bis. Here is the original text of the two passages cited: (I) Si ristabiliranno tutte secondo la 358 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

V.— Various Provisions: Confidentiality, Archives.

VI.— Status of the Regulation. The Regulation is mandatory. Compliance with it is overseen by the distinguished presidency of the Commis-

sion (the Cardinal Secretary of State) and the presidents of the two

committees which comprise it. The Regulation must be considered the

legitimate interpretation of the motu proprio of April ,  and of the Brief Ex quo tempore to the Abbot of Solesmes dated May , : “As to the section in which the principles and institutions contained in the

motu proprio of April ,  and in the Brief Ex quo tempore, the Regulation must be considered the legitimate interpretation.”

The situation grows worse

The efforts made by Father de Santi, Dom Mocquereau, and their

friends will come as no great surprise. It was Respighi and Father de

Santi who had conceived the idea of a Regulation, and one might say

that they and their friends were the only ones with a sincere desire for one. We have seen how essential it was that this Regulation should

come about. In , Father Holly wrote a memorandum for Dom

Mocquereau (a memorandum discussed several times in this book),

which is quite harsh on the Commission. However, our friends had lost

a great deal of time in their procrastination, and their opponents man-

aged to use that precious time to mount a defense. One might have

guessed as much, seeing musicians who were not members of the

Commission arriving in Rome, as well as other individuals who were

neither musicians nor members of the Commission. They, too, had au-

diences with the Pope or the Cardinal Secretary of State. Gastoué, for

his part, wrote a harsh letter to the Cardinal (Dom Cagin, June  and

June ).

The rumor was circulating that Dom Pothier was thinking of leaving

Rome at one point (Dom Mocquereau, May  and May ). This is con-

firmed in a letter that Dom Pothier wrote on May  to the Prior of

Saint-Wandrille:

grande massa dei manoscritti, specialmente dei più antichi ed integri, senza alterarvi nulla, nè col pretesto di qualche variante locale o d’un posteriore sviluppo, sia pure specioso, nè molto meno per ragioni incerte di gusto individuale e simili.

(IV) Alle adunanze particolari del Consiglio di revisione potranno intervenire anche i membri della Redazione per ispiegare più comodamente le loro ragioni: essi però non avranno diritto al-cuno di voto ad eccezione delle faccende accennate nell’art.  .l.l.l, nelle quali essi potranno dare il loro voto personale.

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 359

Just a little note, but an important one, nonetheless: to let you know that I am packing my bags. Stay calm, I won’t be slamming any doors as I leave. I am leaving because I must: my presence in Rome has become useless under the new conditions in which the work of the Commission is proceeding, even

though I remain its President. That is all I can tell you .l.l. (quoted by Dom David; manuscript kept in the Archives of Saint-Wandrille)

Dom David adds (ibid.):

While he was “packing his bags,” and when Dom Lucien [Dom David] was

with him to help him, suddenly the Right Reverend Father Abbot Primate arrived. He had gotten wind of this business, no doubt through the Rector of the College [Dom Janssens]. Surprise and astonishment: “What? You’re packing your suitcases? But you cannot leave like this. It would be a sort of scandal that would have an impact on the entire Benedictine Order. At the very least, the Holy Father must be told about this before you go.l.l.l.”

That same evening, the Right Reverend Abbot Primate went to see the Car-

dinal Secretary of State, who would speak to Pius X about it, who, in turn, enjoined the Right Rev. Dom Pothier to put off his departure.

Dom Pothier’s backers have dwelt at great length on this incident

and have accused Dom Mocquereau of having pushed Dom Pothier to

such extremes. In any event, if this attempted departure is linked, as is asserted, to a factum that allegedly indisposed the Pope, Dom Mocquereau had absolutely nothing to do with it. He was not the author of

that factum. He never even knew anything about it. Similarly, it is inaccurate to allege that it was at the instigation of Father de Santi and Dom Mocquereau that this factum was written (cf. Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra, , p. , note ). Thus Father de Santi came to Dom Mocquereau’s defense at the Congress of Strasbourg in August  (cf. infra). Nor was Don Mercati the author of the factum, and Father de Santi, who initially and incorrectly held him responsible for it, later issued a retraction and sent a Note to the members of the Commission about this matter on October , . Father Bauducco and Msgr. Moneta-Caglio are resolute in their affirmation that it was the letter from Father Ehrle, discussed above in relation to the De Santi Regulation, which was the cause of this reversal (cf. infra, Congress of Strasbourg; Father de Santi to Dom Mocquereau, September  and , and November ,

).

On Wednesday, June , after a visit to the Cardinal, Respighi

brought the following news, which Dom Mocquereau sent along to

360 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

Solesmes: (a) the Regulation that had been prepared was being rejected,

and Dom Pothier was charged with preparing another one, which

would be imposed:

This time, the matter is something new and serious. Respighi came at half past noon; he saw the Cardinal this morning. The Regulation has been rejected, and D.J.P. is responsible for preparing a third one! The Cardinal accused poor Respighi and all of us of maneuvering; he put up a valiant defense, showing and proving that the Cardinal had been kept up to date on everything, day by day

.l.l. (Dom Mocquereau, June )

(b) Dom Mocquereau added that Wagner, Dom Horn, Perosi, Gastoué

and Dom Janssens had defended the President, orally or in writing. The

same day, he wrote to Father Baralli, telling him that Dom Pothier had

been charged with preparing a third Regulation.227

However, it seems quite clear that it was Camille Bellaigue, in whom

Pius X had great confidence, who had the most influence over him as

far as music, properly speaking, was concerned, taking the defense of

the living tradition (but he was a great friend of Solesmes and of Dom

Mocquereau). He had an audience around May  (Dom Cagin, May ),

an audience of which he speaks in the letters published after his death

( Revue des Deux Mondes, July , ). In considering these letters, Dom David informs us that the Abbot Primate of the Order of St. Benedict

also intervened in support of the President of the Commission ( Revue du Chant Grégorien, , pp. –). He, too, had an audience with the Pope on May .

Msgr. Respighi had said “clearly to the Cardinal what the Vatican

Edition would be in the hands of the Commission” (Dom Mocquereau,

June ), and Father de Santi attempted—fruitlessly—to obtain an audi-

ence with the Pope (Dom Mocquereau, June ). On June , Dom

Mocquereau wrote:

Father de Santi is thinking of asking the Holy Father to intervene directly, by means of a Brief to the Commission, in which he would ask that the members make peace, and request that work begin again, affirming that the editorial work was reserved for the Editorial Board alone, and that revision was up to the Commission.

. “This morning, Msgr. Respighi saw the Cardinal. Mercati’s Regulation has been rejected, and Dom Pothier has been invited to prepare a third, simpler one” (Dom Mocquereau, June ,

, quoted by Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra, , p. ).

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 361

Since he was unable to see the Pope, Father de Santi explained his point of view to Msgr. Bressan by telephone. In response, Bressan assured

him that the Pope was still very much disposed in his favor, but that he was tired of the whole business, for which he did not see any solution

(Dom Mocquereau, June –).228

Thus our friends determined to send a Declaration in support of the

Editorial Board to the Holy Father. Msgr. Respighi took charge of ob-

taining signatures for the declaration. He, too, suggested writing to

Msgr. Bressan (Dom Mocquereau, June –). It is sure that Father de

Santi, Holly, and Msgr. Rella signed the declaration, but there were others, as well. On June , Dom Mocquereau wrote: “We have the majori-

ty here in Rome, and even on the Commission as a whole.” Among the

opponents, some were sincerely sorry at the turn of events, including

Perosi, who had a long conversation with Dom Cagin a few days later

(Dom Cagin, June ).

Here is the text of the Declaration submitted to the Pope:

The undersigned members of the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican

Edition feel that it is their absolute duty to declare that the monks of Solesmes, charged by the Holy Father with editing the Gregorian melodies that will be used for that edition, merit their full confidence in this work, despite the difficulties raised against them in recent days.

The incomparable scientific means that the monks have at their disposal, the serious and truly critical method that they use, the esthetic sense that they have demonstrated, confirmed by their daily performance of the liturgical offices, the total disinterest that they have shown in all things and in circumstances that are singularly difficult for them, are arguments that cannot be outweighed by anything else in the world.

Since the School of Solesmes, consequently, offers such a set of guarantees and since, to the contrary, the difficulties raised in opposition are without substance, even to the point of lacking any scientific basis, the undersigned members declare that they are ready firmly to uphold the authors of a work undertaken for the honor of the Church, a work that, until now, not only justifies, but surpasses the hopes that the Holy Father has expressed.

. From Father de Santi’s Journal, dated June : “I telephoned Bressan, wishing to speak to the Holy Father about the matters of the Commission. He told me that it was better to keep a respectful distance, as the Holy Father was unhappy. I remain fearful... The Pope has been told that we wanted to pull one over on Dom Pothier, by drawing up a Regulation without his knowing anything about it. And then, the Holy Father is unhappy at the fact that, after we were all in agreement with Dom Pothier, now we have declared war on him” (quoted by Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra, , note ).

362 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

It would be most regrettable if the difficulties raised should now stand in opposition to the rapid execution of the work entrusted to us, or, an even more painful consideration, should entirely compromise the work itself of the edition, by violating the honor of the Holy See and dashing the great hopes fostered by the Holy Father.

For all these reasons, the undersigned members humbly present their declaration before the Pontifical throne, in the confidence that it will be welcomed with benevolence and that work will be started up once again without further delay on the unshakable basis of the motu proprio of His Holiness and of the Brief Ex quo tempore.

For his part, Dom Mocquereau advised the Abbot of Solesmes to

write to the Pope (Dom Mocquereau, June ), but it was too late. On

June , he telegraphed Appuldurcombe to say that a new document

was going to be issued. This document was the letter from the Cardinal

Secretary of State dated June , , addressed to Dom Pothier. This

letter was supposed to remain secret, and the Cardinal refused to allow

it to be published in the Osservatore Romano, but all the newspapers carried it on June . All the copies of the letter emanated from St.

Anselm’s. Thus Dom David sent a copy to L’Univers, with an explanatory note which the newspaper did not include, just as it refused a com-

mentary from Msgr. Battandier (Dom Mocquereau, June , Dom Ca-

gin, June ; cf. Dom Logerot, July , sending the letter of Dom David

dated June  and the commentary of Msgr. Battandier).229

. The Second Letter from the Cardinal Secretary

of State, June , 

The letter from the Cardinal Secretary of State to Dom Pothier, dat-

ed June , , announced a simplification of the work of the Editori-

al Board. After expressing praise for the monks of Solesmes, the letter

stated, in effect, that the Vatican Edition would be based on the

Solesmes edition of , the work of Dom Pothier, yet still taking into account the valuable paleographical studies undertaken at Solesmes.

Here is a translation of the letter:

. It was Dom Logerot who sent Dom David’s note to Solesmes, along with the commentary of Msgr. Battandier. He himself had obtained them from the Editors of L’Univers.

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 363

Very Reverend Father:

The preparatory work of the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican Edition of the Gregorian liturgical books has clarified the many advantages to be gained by simplifying the work of the editors, which will make it possible to gain greater profit from the results achieved so far by those who initiated the Gregorian restoration.

Accordingly, the Holy Father, after having once more paid a due tribute of praise to the Benedictine monks, particularly those of the French Congregation and of the monastery of Solesmes, for their enlightened and fruitful labors toward the reform of the sacred melodies of the Church, has deigned to decide that the forthcoming Vatican Edition should be based on the Benedictine edition published at Solesmes in , thus recognizing the just value of that well-executed reform.

To Your Reverence, then, as President of the Pontifical Commission, the

Holy Father entrusts the delicate task of revising and correcting the edition in question. In this work you will ask the assistance of the different members of the Commission, availing yourself, when necessary (all’uopo), of the precious palaeographical studies carried out under the wise direction of the Right Reverend Father Abbot of Solesmes. And in order that this important work may be carried out with greater alacrity and concord, His Holiness proposes to appeal to the various members of the Commission to apply their researches more directly to those liturgical books, the reform of which is as yet not far advanced.

To guarantee the execution of these provisions, the Holy Father has also deigned to make the following decisions, which I make known to you in the name of His Holiness:

. The Holy See will take under its supreme authority and its high protection the special edition of the liturgical books which it recommends as typical, whilst at the same time leaving free scope for the researches of scholars competent in Gregorian studies.

. To avoid the possibility of any monopoly, whether of law or of fact, the Vatican typical edition may be freely reproduced by publishers provided they fulfill the conditions set forth in the motu proprio of April , .

. The members and consultors of the Commission shall readily lend them-

selves in aiding the President in his task by their insights and their scientific knowledge. They shall also be at the disposal of the Holy See for other tasks of a similar nature, and to examine the publications submitted to the Congregation of Sacred Rites for approval.

. In order to safeguard both now and in future the indisputable rights of the Holy See to the plain chant which is an integral part of the patrimony of the Church, general direction of the work involving the composition of the liturgical books and the approval to be granted to the various liturgical publica-364 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

tions, specifically the Propers and the new Offices, is entrusted to His Eminence the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, who shall take counsel with the President of the Commission regarding the opportune dispositions and measures to be taken. These shall then be put into execution with the consent of the undersigned Cardinal Secretary of State.

. The copyright of the Holy See, namely, proprietary rights concerning the printing by the Holy See itself and by the publishers whom it has already authorized to reproduce the Vatican Edition, are guaranteed by the nature of the publication, by the special physical characteristics of the Edition itself, and by the formal renunciation so generously made in favor of the Holy See by the Father Abbot of Solesmes and by Your Reverence, of all the previously published results of their and your preceding labors.

. These provisions, particularly that by which the edition done at Solesmes in  is taken as the basis for the Vatican Edition, will serve to safeguard the letter and the spirit of the previous pontifical documents, including the letter addressed to the Abbot of Solesmes on May , , and to bring about the best scientific and practical solution.

In making known to Your Reverence these dispositions of the Holy Father

with the perfect assurance that you will, with your wonted zeal, devote your most earnest solicitude to the task of carrying them out, I avail myself of this opportunity to declare myself again, with most sincere sentiments of esteem to Your Right Rev’d Paternity,

Affectionately yours in the Lord,

R. Card. Merry del Val,

Rome, June , 230

Clearly this letter was not at all in the spirit of a Regulation, nor did it announce any future rules of order. Msgr. Moneta-Caglio has commented on this situation as follows:

So it was decided to set aside the Mercati Regulation and to draw up another, simpler one, a euphemistic way of saying that they were giving up on having the Commission actually function. The outlines of the document were provided by Dom David. ( Musica Sacra, , p. )

Dom David did supposedly boast that he drew up the Cardinal’s letter,

but it seems more likely that Dom Janssens wrote it (that is the opinion of Father de Santi, in a letter to Dom Mocquereau dated July ), ex-

. Translation from: Tablet  (London, July , ) p. . Here is the original wording of the key passage of this letter: “Alla si fara coadiuvare dai diversi membri della Commissione, val-endosi all’uopo dei preziosi studi paleografici eseguiti sotto la sapiente direzione del Rmo Abate di Solesmes.”

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 365

cept, perhaps, for the introduction and the conclusion, which the Cardi-

nal likely added (Dom Marini to Dom Mocquereau, September , ).

In September, Father de Santi confided the following information to

Dom Mocquereau:

At first, the Holy Father wanted to give up completely on this edition, which was off to such a bad start. His Holiness wanted to get rid of it all: the Commission, the edition, and all the rest. Mr. Scotti saved the edition, by helping him understand that it was impossible to go back on the commitments that had been made. (September , )

As for the effect it produced, needless to say that the letter caused

quite a sensation in the musical world.

The attitude of Solesmes

On June , Dom Pothier sent the Cardinal’s letter to Dom Moc-

quereau, and added that he had been within his rights to propose

changes to the  edition, but that he had been too intransigent in doing so, and that in any event, the new document reestablished unity

within the Commission.

On June , Father de Santi informed Dom Mocquereau of the fol-

lowing lines, which Dom Pothier had written to him on June : “I have

just received a new document: it is a reaffirmation of the broad under-

standing to be applied to the motu proprio, and I hope, also a means for managing to bring out something more quickly, and well.” Father de

Santi added:

Let’s have a good look at what this is really all about. There is no need to hurry, and in any case, if you do not believe that you can make a decision before consulting with Father Abbot [Dom Mocquereau was planning to leave], you can tell that to the Cardinal and to the Holy Father. At the same time, you will have the means to explain your reasons. I have done everything that was in my power to defend justice and truth. We have failed, it seems, and in any case, the confidence that they had in me is lost, and I can no longer do anything directly.230bis A letter from Dom Mocquereau to Father Baralli explains the reaction at Solesmes in great detail. It is dated July  at Appuldurcombe, after the return of the monks of Solesmes (letter published by Msgr.

Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra, , pp. –):

bis. On the same day, Dom Molitor sent this singularly laconic telegram to Dom Mocquereau: “What more is there to be done?”

366 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

Dear Baralli. Your letter of June  has reached me here. Here is our story. On the evening of the th, I received a letter from Dom Pothier telling me of a document from the Cardinal, a hard letter, at once triumphant and syrupy. On the th, foreseeing a great disaster, I went to say Mass at St. Cecilia’s. When I came back, at : AM, I found the document on my table. Respighi arrived at the same time. “A great iniquity,” he told me. He is truly sorry. I sent a telegram to the Abbot of Solesmes, telling him of the document, and I gave him our address at Poppio Mertato, St. Valentin, the country residence of the French Seminary. We have been here since Tuesday, the th. On the th, in the evening, we received a telegram from Father Abbot: “Return immediately.” On the th, the Feast of St. Peter, after saying our Masses, we left for Florence, Milan, Basel, Paris, etc. On Sunday morning we arrived at the Isle of Wight, at the residence of our sisters of St. Cecilia, where Father Abbot was receiving the profession of a religious sister. Finally, I returned to Appuldurcombe. I need not tell you how stunned we are at this outcome. What will we decide to do? I have no idea. The only thing I can tell you is that our Right Reverend Father Abbot has written to the Holy Father and to the Cardinal. What will come of all this?

The Commission will do nothing; they are all dismayed. This morning, I received a letter from Dom Pothier, who invites me to assist him in his task. I shall no longer answer him. He is asking for the proofs of the Kyriale and the comments from the members. I left everything with Msgr. Respighi. You can ask him for the proofs and tell him not to give them to Dom Pothier. If you think it worthwhile to write to the Cardinal or even to the Holy Father, through Msgr. Bressan, you can do so right away, telling them what you have seen, of course.

The President of the Commission had obtained authorization to

consult the members and consultors in writing, that is, by correspon-

dence ( Monitum of July , ). Several would never respond again.

This was, in fact, a dislocation of the organization established by Pius X

in . However, it must be acknowledged that it was no longer possi-

ble to work together seriously after the incidents of the previous few

months.

Yet, in the thinking of the Pope and the Cardinal, nothing had

changed. Now, it is important to note the resolution adopted by the Ab-

bot of Solesmes, which was never a secret. Dom Delatte believed that

he was personally targeted in the opposition raised against his

monastery, and he had good reason to think so,231 especially recalling

. For the background leading up to this crisis, see Dom A. Savaton, Dom Paul Delatte, Plon

, pp. –; pp. – of the first edition.

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 367

the heavy sacrifices that he had made in favor of the Holy See in 

(No. ). Following the Letter of June , Dom Delatte offered his resignation to Pius X, on June . In his letter, he recalled in passing that Solesmes “has worked in accordance with the principles of the motu proprio and of the Plenary Assembly of the Vatican Commission at Appuldurcombe.” On July , the Cardinal responded that nothing had

changed, and therefore his resignation was not accepted:

Nothing has changed, therefore, with respect to the previous provisions made by His Holiness for the Typical Edition at issue, and consequently the conclusions that you have drawn from the publication of my Letter, as referenced above, crumble away, as they are utterly unfounded. The Holy Father maintains without change his benevolent regard for the Monastery of Solesmes, and his full confidence in the Abbot of that Monastery.

Nonetheless, on July  Dom Delatte repeated his offer of resignation to

the Cardinal, and on July  to the Holy Father. He was reelected on Oc-

tober . We will dwell no further on this delicate subject.232

Father de Santi wrote, in the Rassegna Gregoriana:

Nonetheless, this singular opinion of Father Janssens [the alleged attack by Solesmes against Dom Pothier] must have served as the pretext for the up-heaval that has recently occurred in the Commission, following the Letter of June  from His Eminence, the Cardinal Secretary of State. As a pretext, we repeat, for, if one wanted to speak the truth, it would seem that other things are at stake here, monastic issues that have nothing to do with the Gregorian edition; a look back at the last five years would show us that this is a disagreement among the Benedictines themselves. (, col. –)

On July , Dom Pothier wrote to Dom Mocquereau, saying that he

had always applauded the research of Solesmes, and again on July ,

saying that he had not wanted to do without our assistance, and he was

counting on our useful and valuable cooperation.

The interventions of Father de Santi

Father de Santi was attempting to straighten out the situation. On

July , from Arezzo, he told Dom Mocquereau that he had sent a mem-

orandum to the Pope on July . In it, he dwelt at length

. Cf. Bauducco, Civiltà Cattolica, , I, .—Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra, , p. .

368 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

especially on the monastic question,l.l.l. on the copyright issue (for the chant editions), and on the commitment made by the Holy See to the monks of

Solesmes .l.l.l, on the maneuvering, plotting, and calumnies used to present matters in a false light,l.l.l. on the exclusion [from the Commission] of the motu proprio and of the Brief (to Dom Delatte).l.l.l. The Holy Father prepared a draft response which Msgr. Bressan copied and sent to me on July . [In it, the Pope said] that there was no deceit or maneuvering, [except perhaps on the part of the friends of Father de Santi], that the letter from the Cardinal was limited to prescribing what the Commission [itself] had decided by unanimous resolution

[an allusion to the Commission’s resolution to use the Solesmes edition as the basis], that absolutely nothing had changed with respect to the motu proprio and the Brief Ex quo tempore,—and that I should rest easy and continue in my former Gregorian thinking.

Father de Santi added that he had an audience on July :

The Holy Father was exceptionally good to me, laughing at my fears. He told me that, after he read my memorandum, he wanted to reread the motu proprio and the Brief, and that truly he had found nothing changed. He affirmed with the greatest possible insistence that the Editorial Board of Solesmes remained intact with all its right, as the Commission remained intact with its rights, that Dom Pothier simply was to take the votes into account, make the corrections that were suggested, and reach a decision in case of uncertainty.

Then the Pope spoke of a letter from Don Mercati, which the Pope

found too harsh, in his opinion (cf. infra, No. , Congress of Strasbourg).

Regarding this audience of July , Msgr. Moneta-Caglio quotes the

Journal of Father de Santi: “Audience with the Holy Father. He stated categorically that nothing has changed with the motu proprio and the Brief; that he became convinced of this in rereading the documents à propos of my memorandum” ( Musica Sacra, , p. , note ).

In the same letter of July , Father de Santi said that he had planned

to present the Pope with a Declaration intended for the Osservatore Romano

in which he would affirm that nothing had changed with respect to the provisions of the motu proprio, etc. However, my audience was interrupted when another person was announced. I left everything in the hands of Msgr. Respighi, and so far I have had no news about what he did or what he was planning to do.

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 369

Finally, Father de Santi said—still in the same letter—that

the Holy Father had given the order to abandon the whole business of the edition, but that (Scotti) had raised serious objections about that, with regard to expenses already incurred and commitments made to publishers. So the

arrangement that we have come to know was made. Of course, Dom Janssens

managed to seize the opportunity to present what he had prepared a long time ago.

In conclusion, Father de Santi wrote: “I remain firm in my intention to

abandon the question of the chant for good, so long as one will not

reach a suitable agreement.”

Finally, on July , and again from Arezzo, Father de Santi wrote to

Dom Mocquereau once more:

On July , I made once last attempt, thinking that I could do so after the statements the Holy Father had made to me at his last audience. So I wrote, referring to the letters arriving from all sides, and the various interpretations that were being given to the Letter of June , even in the newspapers. I said that it would be appropriate to make the Holy Father’s declaration public, both to calm tempers and to have Dom Pothier understand that, although there is an Editorial Board and there is a Commission, there is also a desire for control of the work of the President, so that matters can function in a regular manner.

The Holy Father had a response sent to me on July , in these exact terms: The Holy Father has read your letter, and has asked me to tell you not to be alarmed, not to respond to the letters from partisans or adversaries, to have full confidence in Dom Pothier, who will take into account the vote of the consultors, without sending the sheets for a second and third revision, which would delay the edition until the Last Judgment.

.l.l. and yet, we could still salvage something, perhaps, if the Holy Father entrusted to Solesmes the formal editing of the Liber Gradualis, in just exactly the same way that he did with Dom Pothier for the Kyriale, and with the same method indicated by him in his most recent Monitum. After all, doesn’t the Letter of June  say that the Holy Father reserves the right to entrust one part or another of the work to certain members of the Commission?

I have received your letter of the st. I understand why you do not believe that you can submit any longer to a Commission such as ours. Given the anti-scientific principles that have been manifested within the Commission, what has happened—dissension—was bound to occur.

Father de Santi concluded the letter by saying: “As far as I’m concerned, all revision work has been completed, and any proofs they send me shall

370 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

go unanswered.” He even wanted to discontinue his work with the

Rassegna Gregoriana—as did Msgr. Respighi, as well (cf. infra, letter of August )—and asked Dom Mocquereau for his opinion on the matter.

However, if he was to remain with the periodical, he demanded that it

publish a critique of the Vatican Kyriale: “After all, the Cardinal’s letter does leave the door open for better work, and assures the Congregation’s approval for other editions.”

Finally, his opinion on the edition could be summed up in this sen-

tence, written to Dom Mocquereau on August :

No one can keep me from judging the things that have happened in accordance with the knowledge that I have of those events, and according to a forthright conscience; but as to the outcome of these events, I must accept the edition as it is given by authority. So, before the public my attitude must be this alone: that the edition is good, perhaps even relatively the best among the many editions available, but certainly less perfect than was initially supposed. No one can say anything contrary to this reservation.

It is important to note that Father Baralli visited Appuldurcombe

from early August until the first days of November . Those were

unforgettable days for him. He was able to work with the team in the

scriptorium, and the older monks had very warm memories of him. Fa-

ther Baralli wrote an account of the paleography atelier for the Ameri-

can periodical Church Music ( The atelier of Solesmes at Appuldurcombe House, in Church Music, Philadelphia, , pp. ff. and pp. ff.).

. The International Gregorian Chant Congress

of Strasbourg ()

Things had reached a point where it was no longer possible to plan

an official meeting of the Vatican Commission at the Congress of Stras-

bourg, as had been decided initially at Appuldurcombe in September

. Dom Pothier sent word to the Commission about this in the fol-

lowing letter, dated at Rome, August :

The President of the Commission is honored to inform the Members that,

in light of the special difficulties encountered by several members in going to Strasbourg for the period of the Congress, it will not be possible to hold official sessions of the Commission on that occasion, as was discussed at the Appul-THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 371

durcombe meeting. He hopes, however, that as many Members of the Com-

mission as possible will be able to meet there.

The Congress of Strasbourg, which was conceived, in fact, at Appuldur-

combe as a result of the desire to provide better support for the Pope’s wishes by advancing the movement of the Gregorian restoration, will give the Members a happy opportunity to contribute to the success of the Gregorian cause, and will enable them to engage in exchanges of views that will greatly benefit the work of the Vatican Edition.

Note: The information contained in this communication may be shared

with others, without restriction.

In November , Dom Mocquereau had been invited by Dr. Wag-

ner to take a position on the Preparatory Committee, an offer that Dom

Mocquereau accepted (Wagner, November , ). However, one

might rightly assume that he did not take part in the Congress. Our

friends, as well, were hesitant to attend. Nonetheless some did, as we

shall see.

Father de Santi decided to go, so that his absence would not be inter-

preted in a negative light. On August , he wrote from Arezzo:

The decision is in the hands of Father General, and I have not been told yet what that decision will be. If it is affirmative, I will go, but as a representative of the periodical (Civiltà Cattolica), and I will not participate in the Congress at all.

I will observe, I will assess the Congress, I will write a summary, and after all, it will not be a bad thing to have some eyewitness account of what goes on there.

However, the local committee, at least in the private letters that have been sent to us, has always been supportive of Solesmes and pained by the change that has taken place .l.l.

The Congress was held August –. Bas gave a long account of it in

the Rassegna Gregoriana, the essential points of which are presented here.

The author underscored first the significance of the Congress, which

was put under the patronage of Cardinal Fischer, Archbishop of

Cologne, and of Cardinal von Skrebensky, Prince-Bishop of Prague, and

under the protection of Msgr. Fritzen, Bishop of Strasbourg. He also

listed twenty-one bishops, and many others sent representatives. Some

 people attended the Congress, from all over the world. Dom Poth-

ier was appointed President of the Congress. All the members and con-

sultors of the Vatican Gregorian Commission who were present were

named vice-presidents attached to the president, as were Msgr. Franz

Haberl, President of the Cäcilien-Verein, and the other diocesan presi-372 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

dents who were in attendance. Thus the quality of those attending the

Congress contributed to giving the meeting a truly scientific and artistic stamp.

Of course, there were solemn ceremonies, concerts, conferences,

and private sessions. There were even some practical exercises that

“made clear the relative easiness of traditional Gregorian chant, as well as the excellence and natural quality of our method of performance.”

The author also noted the addresses by Msgr. Foucault, Bishop of St.

Dié, who was known for his mensuralist approach. With regard to the

performance of the Abbé Fleury, who had the Christus factus est sung according to the method of Father Dechevrens, he noted the silence of

the assembly, a mark of its disapproval, whereas the same melody, sung

using free rhythm, won the approval of everyone. The performances by

the cathedral choir, under the direction of Mr. Victori, provided perfect examples of Gregorian chant sung by an ensemble.

However, there was another side to the Congress, one that was less

apparent but no less important. The presence of Msgr. Haberl was a

sign of the Germans’ loyalty to the Gregorian restoration (recall that

none of the Germans invited to Appuldurcombe in September 

came, cf. No. ). Msgr. Haberl had stated that the Congress was prema-

ture, since the official Gregorian books were not yet available. Similarly, he had stated that recent events concerning the Vatican Commission

were a sign that the Pope had broken with science in this area. Despite

all this, at the Congress he said that he was prepared to accept the Vatican Edition because “it came from authority.” So in this sense, the Con-

gress was a triumph for the Gregorian cause.

This Congress had been desired by all those who were following the

trials and tribulations of the Vatican Commission and wanted some ex-

planation of the most recent positions adopted by the Holy Father. The

Pope had clearly demonstrated his desire for the Vatican Edition to be

justified in scientific terms, and Solesmes had agreed to provide that justification.

Yet at Strasbourg, not only was the issue not on the agenda, but a speech by Dr.

Wagner announced in the agenda of the general session of August , under the promising title Sul Canto tradizionale e l’edizione vaticana, was cancelled at the last minute, at the urging, word was, of the local Committee.

(That speech was to be a discussion of the ideas that Dr. Wagner had ex-

pressed in a pamphlet distributed during the Congress.) The name of

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 373

Solesmes, the place where the Gregorian restoration began, was scarce-

ly mentioned. But the role played by Solesmes was mentioned, as Bas

himself relates:

Nonetheless Solesmes was not forgotten. On August , in the second public session, Father Holly, a consultor of the Pontifical Commission, aimed to remedy this painful silence by proposing a resolution of congratulation and tribute to the Gregorian School of Solesmes. But .l.l. Dr. Wagner, who was chairing the sessions, opposed it, saying that the same thing was going to be offered the following day at the initiative of the President. In the afternoon of that same day, a meeting was held of the members and consultors of the Pontifical Commission who were in attendance. These were the Right Rev. Dom Joseph Pothier, Dr. Wagner, Dom Michael Horn, Father Moissenet, Professor Gastoué, Father Perriot, Dom Amelli, Father de Santi, Father Grospellier, and Father Holly—barely half the Commission. The apparent result of the meeting was the announcement read the next day by Dr. Wagner in the last public session.

Here is a translation of the text: “The Pontifical Commission for the Vatican Edition of the books of liturgical chant has the honor of bringing to the attention of the Congress that the sheets of the Kyriale of the Vatican Edition have received the final approval for printing. The Commission can also announce that this work, while based on the  edition, and in accordance with the dispositions of the Holy See in this regard, represents the fruit of the patient and enlightened research of the Reverend Fathers of Solesmes.”

An examination of the Kyriale will show, in due course, just how close to the truth this announcement is. Whatever the case may be, this announcement

seemed to be a declaration of fidelity to the rules set forth in the pontifical documents, rather than a tribute by the Commission to the Abbey of Solesmes.

That is why Father Holly asked for the floor. At first, Dr. Wagner seemed determined not to recognize him, citing some rule or other. Finally, faced with the insistence of the assembly in support of Holly, and thinking perhaps that it would be a serious matter to prevent a vice-president of the Congress from speaking, Dr. Wagner gave in. Father Holly then offered the resolution of tribute that had been turned down the day before. He was greeted with loud and sustained applause. No sooner had the applause died down than Dr. Wagner felt compelled to express regret that such a resolution had been presented by a member of the Pontifical Commission. We do not know what those who were

hoping to hear a word of guaranty concerning the working methods for the editing of the new liturgical books were thinking at that point.233

. Giulio Bas, Il secondo Congresso Internazionale di Canto Gregoriano, in Rassegna Gregoriana

, col. –.—On this Congress, see also Acta Generalis Cantus Gregoriani Studiosorum 374 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

In a letter to Dom Mocquereau written in Venice on September ,

Bas wrote:

As for the sessions of the Commission, I know that Father de Santi set forth the events as they happened, showing how they had been twisted .l.l. All that was said, I was told, with a singular sense of calm and dignity. Of course, no one responded and, to the contrary, the speech by Wagner on tradition and the Vatican Edition was not given, even though it was announced in the program,

printed, and for sale.

In November, he added that Wagner’s statement concerning the Kyriale was not to Dom Janssens’ liking: “Dom Janssens told me that, if he had

been present at the Congress, it would not have happened” (this is a reference to Wagner’s mention of Solesmes; cf. Bas, November , ).

The statements by Bas were confirmed or expanded upon for Dom

Mocquereau by Father C. Gaborit and Mr. Eloy, Desclée’s agent. One

particularly important document is a precious letter from Father de

Santi, dated September . Here is the passage concerning the unofficial

meeting of the Commission:

.l.l. We were invited to a meeting on Friday, August , at : PM. Dom Pothier said that the Kyriale was ready and that he had sent the approval for printing from Strasbourg. Then he spoke of the Preface, but without entering into detail. I had not yet received it from Msgr. Respighi, otherwise I would have registered a protest. Wagner suggested that a declaration should be made to the Congress in the name of the Commission that the Kyriale was ready, and that it contained the results of the latest work of Solesmes. I commented that I could not judge, in good conscience, whether the latest work of Solesmes had been adopted broadly enough to affirm what Wagner was proposing. But the others approved, and the resolution passed.

Then I asked permission to make a few comments in the presence of the

Commission, on a personal matter:

. I told the story of the Regulation, and I protested vigorously against the lie being spread that we had wished to impose this Regulation without its first being discussed by the Commission, and in such a way that it was pleasing to His Eminence, Cardinal Merry del Val.

Conventus Argentinensis, – Aug. , Strasbourg, printed by F. X. Le Roux, ; H. Villetard and A. Grospellier : Le Congrès international de chant grégorien de Strasbourg, in Revue du Chant Gré-

gorien, August–October , p. . On page , we read that the chants “had been carefully printed in a special collection, in accordance with the editions of Solesmes” ( Cantus varii ad usum Conventus cultorum cantus gregoriani collecti, Argentorati, August , Rome, Desclée,  p.). See also in Revue du Chant Grégorien, January–February , p. , March–April, p. , July, p. .

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 375

. I said how the Pope had attributed [responsibility for] Msgr. Mercati’s Memorandum (cf. infra) to me, and once again I objected with the greatest firmness to the hateful lie that said that I had suggested this Memorandum, even though I had no knowledge of it. I stated that the Commission was my own work, that I had recommended the members and consultors, and that I was incapable of doing anything to destroy the work of my hands by excluding Dom Pothier and other members from the Commission.

. I stated that, to my knowledge, neither Your Reverence nor Dom Cagin

had worked on that Memorandum, even though that lie had been believed by the Holy Father.

. Finally, as a logical deduction from my statements, I said openly that the Holy Father had been deceived in a hateful manner, and that, consequently, all the new arrangements were based on a lie. I added that I was not accusing anyone, because I would not know whom to accuse, but the person who caused

this deplorable misunderstanding would answer for it before God and before history. These words made a great impression: everyone declared, Dom Pothier first among them, that they had never thought that I inspired the Mercati Memorandum!

Next I spoke of the withdrawal of the monks of Solesmes from the Editori-al Board, and of the sad consequences that would result for the Vatican Edition.

I then saw that they all regretted this withdrawal. Dom Pothier said that he was prepared to go to Appuldurcombe, to consult with Your Reverence and to consult your archives. Wagner then suggested that, in the name of the Commission, the monks of Solesmes should be asked to continue their cooperation with the Commission. Dom Pothier took responsibility for communicating this resolution, sincerely accepted by everyone, to all appearances. Then the session was adjourned.

At Strasbourg, I was treated with the greatest possible coldness by all of Solesmes’ opponents. They even pretended not to know me, I who was once

the mainstay of the restoration movement. For the rest, it is of little importance to me. The only thing that bothers me, what truly pains me deeply, is the ruin of the edition that began under such great auspices, with such love and, on your part, such great sacrifice. [The letter is dated September , from Terme di Salice.]

Since the Commission had charged Dom Pothier to tell Solesmes

that the Commission continued to count on its precious cooperation,

Dom Pothier wrote to Dom Mocquereau about this matter on August

:

I have been charged to inform you that everyone wishes and hopes that you will continue to assist the Vatican Edition with the precious fruits of your colla-376 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

tions of manuscripts (there is no longer any question of editing), as, indeed, the Holy See supposes and demands in its most recent provisions. These provisions do not do away with any of the organizational machinery previously established, and are intended merely to regulate the operation and the driving force of that machinery.

But the letter of June  specifically gave no instruction on the steps to be followed in practice, and it was not the Regulation for which everyone had felt such an urgent need!

Finally, a correction must be given regarding the memorandum then

attributed by Father de Santi to Don Mercati (de Santi, September ). It was the Pope who spoke to Father de Santi about a memorandum of

Don Mercati (cf. de Santi, July ), but he was confusing it with the Comments of Father Ehrle, and particularly with the letter that accompanied those comments (cf. De Santi Regulation, supra). Father Ehrle was so widely known as the author of that memorandum that Mr. Eloy, Desclée’s agent, mentioned it to Dom Mocquereau in his report on the

Congress. Being better informed, Father de Santi addressed the follow-

ing correction to the members of the Commission, dated October ,

and sent to Dom Mocquereau on November :

To the Members and Consultors of the Pontifical Commission of Gregorian

chant, assembled in Strasbourg on the occasion of the meeting of the Commission on August , .

Msgr. Giovanni Mercati, a member of the Commission, firmly and categor-

ically states that he knows absolutely nothing about, still less is the author of, the memorandum that he is said to have sent to the Holy Father last June, a memorandum that allegedly caused the immediate change that has occurred in the business of the Commission, in consequence of [ in forza] the Letter of His Eminence the Cardinal Secretary of State dated June , .

It was the absolute duty of the undersigned to make this statement, in light of what was reported during the meeting in Strasbourg mentioned above, even though, at that time, he was in possession of information that, in good faith, he believed he had to accept.

Rome, Via Ripetta , October , , Angelo de Santi, member of the

Pontifical Commission.

Don Mercati did draw up a memorandum to present his Regulation

to the Pope—as reviewed earlier in this book—and he insisted on show-

ing it to Dom Cabrol, who was passing through Rome on October ,

, but that memorandum did not include anything contained in the

accusations (Note from Dom Cabrol).

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 377

Father Ehrle was also defended by Father de Santi, who reprinted in

the Rassegna Gregoriana (, col. ) an article from the Kölnische Kirchenzeitung of December , , which stated that Father Ehrle’s judgment had been given in an entirely private capacity. This is what Father Bauducco expresses so clearly in Civiltà Cattolica:

An accusation of high treason was present within the Commission, and Father de Santi was designated as the author, even though it all came down to a private judgment of Father Ehrle [the future cardinal] who, when asked by Cardinal Merry del Val, had said that a Commission appointed for scientific work should be composed of scientists. ( Civiltà Cattolica, , I, —cf. Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra, , p. )

. The Vatican Kyriale

In a letter dated September , Father de Santi told Dom Mocquereau

that on August , he had informed the Pope that the Preface prepared

for the Kyriale had been rejected by the majority of the Commission, which did not accept the principles expressed in it (those of the living tradition):

I am sending you what Msgr. Respighi wrote to me on August  about the

Preface. On August , I wrote to the Holy Father from Luxembourg, entreating him in visceribus not to allow such a serious error. I told him that it was a true and clear insult to the majority of the Commission, which does not accept these principles, some of which are inaccurate, other absolutely false, all the more so in that everything in them is presented in the name of the Commission, even though it had not even been consulted on such a serious matter. I did not receive any response, and I do not expect to receive one. We are utterly powerless.

Then, on September , he added the following additional details

about the same matter:

The Kyriale is now printed.l.l.l. The question of the Preface dragged on with orders and counter-orders right up to the last minute. In the end, the matter was referred to the Holy Father, who clearly ordered it not to be published, since it had not been reviewed by the Commission. Thus the letter that I wrote to the Holy Father on August  from Luxembourg did have an effect. Moreover, Dom Pothier was ordered to consult the Commission about the Liber Gradualis and, if I have understood correctly, to present the rejected Preface for 378 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

the judgment of everyone. If Your Reverence receives this notice, be sure to respond, taking advantage of the opportunity to say what you think. The rest of us intend to send our responses not to Dom Pothier, but to the Cardinal. Msgr.

Bressan even advised me the other evening to suggest the idea to some of the most competent Gregorian scholars that they should write to the Cardinal about recent events, expressing their fears for the success of the edition.

Msgr. Bressan seems preoccupied with the workings of our Commission.

He has assured me that the Holy Father read the letter I sent him from Luxembourg. I conclude from this that the order not to publish the Preface was a consequence of that letter .l.l.

As soon as the Holy Father learned that I was back, he wished to see me. He spoke to me of the Catholic Congress, so that I could adroitly move right on to the Gregorian Congress. But I remained determined not to speak to the Holy Father any more about chant matters. I clearly told Msgr. Bressan: Since the Holy Father no longer has the confidence he once had in me, it is not up to me to broach the subject, except in the event that I should see his honor compromised, as happened regarding the Preface.

The Preface, which was prepared by Wagner,234 runs three printed

pages in length. Of particular interest is the following remark:

Now that the previous error has been overcome, because of which, indeed, the ancient musical monuments of our fathers were consigned to oblivion or held in contempt, we must take care not to err in the opposite extreme, we should be more balanced and less meticulous in investigating the more ancient manuscripts.

This was, in fact, a recalling of the painful quarrels of the previous

months, all the more so in that the text dwells, at other places, on subsequent tradition:

With regard to what is called the Gregorian tradition, it is not right to compress it within the limits of some number of years, nor to consider it as the work of some individual author, seeing that it embraces all centuries which, indeed, cultivated the Gregorian art with greater or lesser zeal and success.

Msgr. Respighi, for his part, kept Dom Mocquereau up to date on

everything. He, too, was thoroughly exhausted. He no longer went to

the Vatican, and he did not go to Strasbourg (August  to Dom Moc-

quereau). He approved of Dom Mocquereau’s attitude. He said that if,

. “Father de Santi has instructed me to tell you that the author of the famous Preface of the Gradual is the very learned Doctor Wagner.” Bas to Dom Mocquereau, October , .

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 379

after the Letter of June , Solesmes was to continue its cooperation,

“this fact should be stated publicly; otherwise it is more than just for Solesmes to keep its distance.l.l.l.” He invited Dom Mocquereau to

publish whatever Dom Pothier did not accept for the Kyriale (August

).

Msgr. Respighi wrote another letter to Father de Santi on August ,

asking him to pass the letter along to Dom Mocquereau, the same letter

to which Father de Santi referred above. In it, Msgr. Respighi said that the Pope and the Cardinal had approved the Preface of the Kyriale, but that Msgr. Piacenza and Msgr. Sardi thought it unacceptable. He himself felt that it was unacceptable for the Preface not to include any allusion to the difficulties inherent in the Kyriale, and no mention at all of the Editorial Board. Finally, he said that if the Preface were published, he would resign from the Commission.

On September , he also told Dom Mocquereau that Msgr. Bressan

was preoccupied with the way things were going, and he invited “the

various sides to write about the matter to the Cardinal Secretary of

State to keep him informed.” Finally, he, too, stated that the Preface had been suppressed: “The Kyriale will appear without a Preface. The Pope has said that the Commission must review the Preface, because he supposes that nothing has changed with the exception of broader powers

given to Dom Pothier.” There was, no doubt, another reason why Pius

X decided to reject this Preface: was it not too openly referring to the quarrels of recent months?

Msgr. Respighi and Father de Santi were continuing to discuss with

Dom Mocquereau various questions relating to the chant. Decrees

were in preparation regarding the Vatican Edition, namely the decrees

of August  and August , , imposing a ne varietur edition, and making it mandatory for all the Churches of the Roman rite. Although

these new provisions were specifically aimed at the editions of

Solesmes, they assured Dom Mocquereau that there was no animosity

at the Congregation of Sacred Rites against the Abbey. All the Congre-

gation had done was to approve the texts submitted to it. These decrees

will be discussed in greater detail below (No. ).

Articles by Dom Janssens on the Vatican Commission published in

Germania, the Kirchenzeitung, and the Giornale d’Italia, were also of concern to Msgr. Respighi and caused him great displeasure. He added that

Perosi, Kanzler, and Dom Gaisser shared his discontent (letter to Dom

380 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

Mocquereau dated the Feast of St. Andrew, ). He also wrote to

Dom Amelli about this matter on December :

I also would have liked to discuss the res gregoriana with you. I don’t know how to create mysteries. I will tell you frankly that I find the esthetic theories presented by Father Janssens and Dom Pothier ridiculous and unacceptable, and there will be at least ten other members of the Commission with me .l.l. I say at least, because I know how those ten think for certain; I have not troubled to find out what the others are thinking. With these new theories, the Gregorian restoration will come to a halt, as it did during the sixteenth century, but under the special conditions of today. Frankly, I bow to the manuscripts, but I have no intention of submitting to the personal taste and esthetics of Dom Janssens.l.l.

Dom Janssens’ article is truly an unfortunate and misplaced thing: it has produced a disastrous impression even among his supporters, which, of course, I am not. I don’t know if you have read the other article by Dom Gaisser. The eleven of us subscribe to it completely, because it is in keeping with the proper ideas for the Gregorian restoration. Furthermore, it is calm, composed, and may perhaps open the door to a solution .l.l. ( Musica Sacra, , , p. , note

–)235

Father de Santi, for his part, was harsh in his assessment of Wagner’s

articles on the same topic:

We must suppose that he does not really know the facts, for they are too different and, at certain points, entirely contrary to what he writes, to the extent that we could prove it with documents and unimpeachable authorities. Wagner’s publication is singularly inopportune, and clearly written in a partisan spirit. It neither defends nor favors the truth, but rather discord, which everyone, without exception, wishes to see abated, in truth and justice. ( Rassegna Gregoriana,

, col. ;—Moneta-Caglio, Musica Sacra, , p. , note ) In this respect, it is also interesting to note what Father Dechevrens

wrote to Dom Mocquereau on July , : “I have been told that dis-

agreement has already broken out between Dom Pothier and Wagner;

Wagner wants, at all costs, to return to his idea of a Gregorian edition based solely on the German manuscripts, St. Gall excluded.l.l.l.”

. The reference is to an article by Dom Janssens published in the Giornale d’Italia (November , ) and reprinted in the Giornale di Roma on November , . Dom Gaisser’s article was published in the Katholische Kirchenzeitung and was reprinted in the Giornale di Roma on December ,  and in the Rassegna Gregoriana , col. –.—See also an article by Dom Janssens, which was published in De Tijd on March ,  (excerpt from the Deutsche Revue, April ), in which the Reverend Father justifies his actions, but which, written long after the events, does not seem to us to correspond to reality (cf. Nos. , , , and ).

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 381

The Vatican Kyriale was published in October .236 Msgr. Respighi liked to comment that the Kyriale of the Editorial Board was already prepared in March, and so it had taken more than six months to publish

it after it was modified (September ). It had the decree of August ,

, at the front, but it bore no title. It contained the Ordinarium Missae and, in the Appendix, a large selection of pieces prepared at Appuldurcombe. The book was deeply criticized and Msgr. Moneta-Caglio re-

ports a variety of harsh assessments that appeared in numerous places

in Germany, Italy, and in England ( Musica Sacra, , p. ). The critiques of Father H. Bewerunge, a professor at St. Patrick Seminary in

Maynooth (Ireland), were especially effective and unleashed the anger

of his opponents. Msgr. Respighi invited his friends to send a letter of protest to the Pope. We have the letter of Mr. H. Worth, who complained that the Solesmes version had been set aside, despite the ap-

proval that the majority had given it:

Although certain individuals who are allegedly authorized to speak in the name of the Commission publicly declared that the official Kyriale represented the work and science of the entire Commission, it never received the approval of the majority of the members of the Pontifical Commission (letter to the Holy Father).

Worth specifically cited the Kyrie Fons bonitatis, studied by Dom Beyssac in the Rassegna Gregoriana, and from which the version of the Kyriale diverged. On January , , he wrote that he “no longer agreed to ex-

amine the sheets of any edited text in which Solesmes did not have a

role.” Father Holly was of the same view, for he sent a very harsh mem-

orandum to Dom Mocquereau in , which we have touched upon

several times above. Holly, too, was no longer reviewing the proofs of

the Liber Gradualis (cf. letter to Dom Mocquereau dated December ,

).

Father Baralli, too, was preparing a memorandum intended for the

Pope, but it may never have been sent. This memorandum (seven hand-

written pages of  lines) was written at Appuldurcombe, during his

stay there in summer  (cf. No. ) to consult the work of the Editorial Board. It is well known that his skills in paleography were such that

. The edition of  (the complete Liber Gradualis) made about forty corrections to it. Cf.

Dom Jean Claire, Dom André Mocquereau, Cinquante ans après sa mort, in Études Grégoriennes XIX

(Solesmes, ), p. .

382 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

he could judge the work for himself. Dom Mocquereau and Dom Cagin

made some small changes to it, perhaps the very few corrections writ-

ten into the manuscript (in this case, twenty-six words added or crossed out). The memorandum is dated October , , but a note from Father Baralli at the top of the documents states that it had not yet been sent to the Pope as of December , , and that it might never be

sent, “for the hope of success is becoming more and more problemat-

ic.” However, it is possible that the memorandum was sent, when Msgr.

Respighi invited the members of the Commission who were faithful to

the Editorial Board to write to the Holy Father in late . Father Baralli did state in the document (and the tone is firm, yet even-handed),

that in April , the vast majority of the Commission was supportive

of the Editorial Board, and that this was not taken into account at all.

He also emphasized that the published Kyriale was not the Kyriale of the Editorial Board. Finally, he objected consequently that he could no

longer cooperate in a work that is no longer in keeping with the think-

ing of the Pope. Here are the two main passages:

Last April in Rome, I took part in various meetings of the Commission, in which, by a great majority [emphasis by Father Baralli], the scientific criteria that served as the rules for editing were accepted; several practical standards were established, and various significant musical teachings (which I could enumerate, if necessary) were admitted in conformity with the most highly respected manuscripts and pure Gregorian esthetics. (P. )

Most Holy Father, in publishing an edition created in this way, I feel that Your Holiness has been compromised. This is my heartfelt conviction. And so I could not keep silence, I could not allow others to believe that I was an accom-plice in a work that strives toward a goal that is utterly contrary to the ends for which you wanted this work undertaken. (P. )

Finally, of the twenty members of the Commission, only six contin-

ued to work with Dom Pothier, namely: Dom Janssens, Dom Horn, Fa-

ther Grospellier, Abbé Perriot, Dr. Wagner, and Professor Amédée Gas-

toué. Later on, Pothier placed Dom R. Andoyer on the Commission,

whom he had known at Solesmes before he went to the Abbey of

Ligugé, as well as Dom L. David.

In November , Dom Pothier again asked Dom Mocquereau for

his continued cooperation. The request came at the very moment when

the quarrel against the rhythmic editions of Solesmes was beginning, a

quarrel that was to occupy music journals for several years. So this was THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 383

not the best time to speak of cooperation, particularly since the situa-

tion in the Vatican Commission had not improved at all. Nonetheless,

there was a monastic meeting in Rome in December between the

Abbeys of the Congregation of France, chaired by the Abbot Primate of

the Benedictines, a meeting attended by Dom Delatte and Dom Poth-

ier. One issue that arose was the fact that Solesmes was preparing a critical edition, since Dom Pothier’s edition was necessarily temporary:

The monks of Solesmes will continue the work of collating the various manuscripts that they have gathered, in order to establish an absolutely critical edition of the Gradual and of the Antiphonal. This edition will take at least five full years to complete, without the approval of the Sovereign Pontiff. This edition will not be used in opposition to the Vatican Edition .l.l. (Minutes)

The Abbot Primate presented the project proposed by the Abbot (of Solesmes): temporary edition by Dom Pothier, definitive edition by Solesmes (Solesmes Notes, December  and , )

At first, the project pleased Father de Santi, it seems, but he soon ex-

pressed strong opposition to it—and the business went nowhere. The

Journal of Father de Santi is dated December :

Dom Delatte came. He told me that it had been agreed among the Abbots that a temporary edition would be prepared, which would be left up to Dom Pothier, while the critical edition would be prepared at Solesmes.l.l.l. The Abbot Primate will propose this plan to give the Holy See a way out of this imbroglio.

But Father Bauducco, who quoted this passage, adds the following note:

“There is a typewritten copy of the long note that Father de Santi sent

to Cardinal Merry del Val against the plan for a temporary edition.”237

We have referred to an article by Father H. Bewerunge: The Vatican

Edition of Plain Chant, A critical study, published in The Irish Ecclesiastical Record, January  (French translation: L’Édition Vaticane du PlainChant, Étude Critique, Brest, Kaigre,  pages). The author had worked on the tables at Appuldurcombe, and his critique is certainly a most judicious one, aside from the strong, polemical tone that was in such fa-

vor at the time. His critique echoes, to a certain extent, that of the paleography atelier of Solesmes. Here is the conclusion that he came to,

despite his criticisms:

. Cf. F. M. Bauducco, Il. P. Angelo de Santi, s.j., e l’edizione vaticana dei libri gregoriani dal 

al , in Civiltà Cattolica, , I,  and , note . The first quote was repeated by Moneta-Caglio, in Musica Sacra, , p. , note .

384 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

If we compare it [the Vatican Edition] to the Kyriale of the Liber Gradualis

[Solesmes ] or of the Liber Usualis [Desclée ], we find not only that their melodies have been significantly improved, but also that a considerable number of new melodies has been added, among which some are exceptionally beautiful, especially the most ancient and simplest forms of the Asperges me and of the Kyrie de Beata and Kyrie in Dominicis per annum. The work of the monks of Solesmes has not been in vain. But I still hope that it will not be long before the return to the tradition, without conditions or mixtures, which was so happily begun by the acts of our reigning Pontiff, is completed.

. Paleographical Wanderings in Spain and Germany

The paleographical research undertaken in Italy by Dom Moc-

quereau in , for the Vatican Edition, continued into . A trip

through Spain began in April . To that end, Dom Mocquereau had

obtained a letter of recommendation from the Cardinal Secretary of

State, dated February , for Dom Maur Sablayrolles and Dom Michel

Gabin, monks of En-Calcat. Dom Romain Banquet, who had taken

refuge with his community in Parramon (Catalonia) had graciously

made them available to the Abbot of Solesmes. Thus the team of the

Solesmes scriptorium could continue its task of transcribing the manu-

scripts. Dom Maur Sablayrolles came to Appuldurcombe from January

 to , to seek Dom Mocquereau’s advice. Dom Dominikus Johner, of

Beuron, was there at the same time, as was the choirmaster of Maria-

Laach (both of them were supposed to be laying the groundwork for a

tour in Germany by two monks from Solesmes). Dom Johner had in-

sisted on meeting with Dom Mocquereau before putting the final

touches on his work on Gregorian chant.

The trip to Spain was done in two parts. The first trip, which began

on April  and lasted until July , brought the monks in their search for manuscripts to Barcelona, Vic, Gerona, Montserrat, Lerida, Huesca,

Zaragoza, Burgos, Las Huelgas, Leon, Oviedo, and Valladolid. The sec-

ond trip took place from October , , to January , , with

stops at Madrid, Toledo, Cordoba, Seville, Valencia, Tortosa, and Tar-

ragona. This time, to ward off some of the problems encountered dur-

ing the first trip, Dom Mocquereau had asked for a letter of recommen-

dation from the King of Spain. The King responded through Count de

Andino, on November , , stating that he was acceding to the re-

THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1905 385

quest, and that he recommended the travelers to the Archbishop of

Toledo.

Dom Maur Sablayrolles wrote two accounts of this paleographical

travel, one in Catalan (in the Revista Catalana –), the other in French: A la recherche des manuscrits grégoriens espagnols, Iter hispanicum (in Sammelbände der Internationalen Musik-Gesellschaft, April–June , pp. –, and July–September , pp. –). The trips procured

for Solesmes , double photographs. In addition to its primary goal,

the trip also made it possible to identify the Catalan notation, which

Dom Mocquereau had already glimpsed in  in a manuscript from

Tech.

In the meantime, Dom Paul Blanchon, who had already made a tour

through England and Italy in , had taken off for Germany, accom-

panied by Dom Benoît de Malherbe. They remained there from July 

to December , , passing through Antwerp, Cologne, Koblenz,

Darmstadt, Wurzburg, Munich, Salzburg, Nonnberg, Mehrerau, Inns-

bruck, Beuron (where, at Dom Mocquereau’s request, Dom Johner had

collected manuscripts from Colmar, Karlsruhe, Metz, Trier, Dresden,

Zurich, Einsiedeln, Graz, and Vienna, and even from Bamberg and

Stuttgart, where the travelers were scheduled to visit), Stuttgart, Bam-

berg, Frankfurt, Wiesbaden, Maria-Laach (where the choirmaster had

gathered manuscripts from Cologne and from Aachen, and from Col-

mar, Zurich, Bamberg, and Trier), Andenne, and Brussels. The travelers

were unable to secure manuscripts—at least this time—from Berlin,

Leipzig, and Wolfenbüttel.

Of the long chronicle that the travelers kept, we will cite only this

melancholy remark:

At X .l.l.l, the manuscripts were not long in coming, but here, as nearly everywhere else, many of the manuscripts that had been judged unreadable have been sacrificed to be used as bindings or for other more profane uses: of all the ancient riches of X .l.l. all we have left is a large fourteenth-century Antiphonal and a hymnary, several more recent books which we are not going to consider.

Finally, there are fragments, protective sheets or book covers, which show that neumed manuscripts of the eleventh to twelfth centuries once existed at

X.l.l.l.238

Their efforts brought a harvest of , double photographs.

. Cf. Revue du Chant Grégorien, March–April , p. .

VI ■ T H E VAT I C A N C O M M I S S I O N

F R O M 1 9 0 5 T O 1 9 1 3

. The Quarrel over Rhythm

At the time when the two monks returned from Germany, Solesmes

was no longer involved in the task of editing the Vatican Edition, which was being done without its cooperation or that of its friends and defenders. In  and over the following year, several attempts at reconciliation were made between the Commission and the Editors, without re-

sult. But before mentioning anything more about this, a word must be

said about the relentless wrangling directed against the Solesmes rhyth-

mic editions, for the monks were challenged even with respect to the

rights that had been graciously given them by Pius X, as thanks for the

publication benefits generously consigned to the Holy See in the matter

of establishing the Vatican Edition. As we shall see, the facts that will be presented had some influence on the decision made by Pope Pius X in

 to entrust the editing of the Vatican Edition of Gregorian chant to Solesmes. Based on the unimpeachable testimony of Father de Santi

and of Msgr. Carlo Respighi, it is clear that the Holy See never allowed itself to be intimidated by the violence of the attacks made against the rhythmic editions.

Decrees of August 

In August , two decrees from the Congregation of Sacred Rites

appeared back to back. The first, on August , demanded specifically

that the traditional form of the notes and other signs, their intervals, their grouping, and the correspondence of the notes and syllables, be

retained in the Vatican Edition. Furthermore, the decree stated that it

386

THE VATICAN COMMISSION FROM 1905 TO 1913 387

is up to the Ordinary to give the declaration of conformity to the typi-

cal edition, on the testimony of authorized examiners. The second de-

cree, on August , promulgated the Vatican Edition as the typical edi-

tion, and stipulated that nothing should be added to it, deleted, or

changed: Nihil prorsus addito, dempto vel mutato adamussim sint confor-mandae etiamsi agatur de excerptis ex libris iisdem. Further, it declared that the Pope’s wish is that all other editions of Gregorian chant of the Roman Rite already approved, even for religious, should be removed

from the Churches little by little, gradually, but as soon as possible, in such a way that “use is made only of the liturgical books of Gregorian

chant composed according to the preceding rules and in complete con-

formity with this typical edition.” (All the documents discussed here

are found in F. Romita, Jus Musicæ Liturgicæ, Rome, Desclée, , pp.

ff.)

This last decree especially, by imposing a ne varietur edition, canceled out one intention of the motu proprio of April ,  (paragraph d), which permitted reproducing the Vatican Edition containing varying

melodies taken legitimately from ancient manuscripts. The Vatican

Commission of Gregorian chant, meeting at Appuldurcombe, had

made a decision (decision no. ), expressing the hope that the Vatican

Edition would be declared obligatory in all churches of the Roman

Rite, yet at the same time, another decision (no. ) had upheld the paragraph of the motu proprio of April , .

Father de Santi had wanted this paragraph d of the motu proprio especially to be aimed at the Solesmes editions already in use (cf. Rassegna Gregoriana, May–June , col. ), and which had been declared in conformity with the motu proprio of November ,  (approbation of February , ). At that time, these editions were the only ones to enjoy this privilege. Frankly, this arrangement could have nullified the unity of Gregorian chant, but it was uppermost in the mind of Pius X, who

valued the idea that each major Church could have its very own chant,

drawn from its own manuscripts (cf. supra Nos.  and ).

According to the testimony of Msgr. Carlo Respighi and Father de

Santi, the Congregation of Sacred Rites did not want to target the

Solesmes editions in particular by approving the decrees of August 

which were submitted to it, and which practically imposed on all a uni-

form edition of Gregorian chant (Respighi, September , and Father de

Santi, September , , to Dom Mocquereau; these references apply

388 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

to all letters cited here unless otherwise noted).239 On the other hand, the Vatican Commission, divided as to the criterion for the restoration

of the Gregorian melodies, feared that Dom Mocquereau might pro-

duce an edition that would be in competition with the typical edition.

Even less did the Congregation of Sacred Rites wish to take aim at

the rhythmic indications themselves in the Solesmes editions, because

the nihil prorsus addito, dempto vel mutato (absolutely nothing may be added, removed, or changed) applied to the very substance of the Gregorian melodies, i.e. to the melodies themselves, to which nothing whatsoever

may be added, removed, or changed. Moreover, the Congregation of

Sacred Rites quickly issued its imprimatur for the Kyriale of Solesmes, as soon as the Vatican Kyriale was published. In fact, the Kyriale of Solesmes came out first with the imprimatur of the Bishop of Tournai on October , , then with the imprimatur of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, on November , .240

Solesmes had not sought this last approval, and had even strongly

suggested to its publishers not to seek it, but to stay with the bishop’s approval, as the matter had been settled at the meeting of the Vatican

Commission at Appuldurcombe (decision no. ). It was Desclée’s agent

in Rome who had gone to great length to obtain the approval of the

Congregation of Sacred Rites.

This approval, of course, made the opponents of the rhythmic edi-

tions quite unhappy. In particular, the musician Widor wrote to the Car-

dinal Secretary of State to complain about the Solesmes Kyriale. Dom Pothier responded to him in a public letter dated January , , in

which he stated that, on the one hand, the rhythmic editions altered the typical edition, and on the other hand, the “concordat” of the Congregation of Sacred Rites had been withdrawn. There followed a series of

violent polemics in the journals and reviews, some taking sides against

. De Santi, September , : “And even at the Congregation they do not understand this, seeing that they send requests to Msgr. Respighi so that he might recommend answers, and he, of course, knows less than they do, or more, as you will.”—Respighi, September , :

“They sent me a curious question: what is the meaning of the famous decrees! I do not know whether I can answer them, for the very simple reason that there is no one in Rome who could do so conscientiously and with certainty.”

. Note that a “draft agreement was drawn up and suggested to the Benedictines by the Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith. It entrusted to the monks of Solesmes .l.l. the preparation and correction... of a reproduction of the Vatican edition planned by that Congregation” (Cardinal della Volpe to Dom Delatte, February , ).

THE VATICAN COMMISSION FROM 1905 TO 1913 389

the editions, other favorably interpreting the most recent decision of

the Congregation of Sacred Rites. Aside from all commentary, the deci-

sion merely stated that in the future, the Congregation would no longer

approve such editions, but that the editions had to be approved by the

Ordinaries under the usual conditions. This interpretation would be

confirmed, in fact, by a decree then in preparation, which came out on

February , .

Decree of February , 

This decree governed the conditions for approval by bishops of edi-

tions of liturgical books of Gregorian chant. The typical edition had to be reproduced without any alteration or modification. As for rhythmic

or other signs, they had to be written in such a way that they were clear-ly distinct from the typical notes, and that there could be no possible

confusion with those notes. Thus, the decree upheld the principle of

rhythmic editions, and even alluded to the approval granted in February

 for the Solesmes editions (Whatever other edition may be recognized by the Ordinary or by the Congregation of Sacred Rites itself).

Msgr. Respighi and Father de Santi were involved in bringing about

this success. Knowing that a decree had been in preparation since Janu-

ary,241 they had taken on the responsibility of illuminating the authorities on the harmless nature of the rhythmic indications, and on their

usefulness. Father de Santi wrote to Msgr. Bressan on February , , and Msgr. Respighi wrote to the Cardinal Prefect of Sacred Rites on

February . Father de Santi said, among other things:

All those who purchase the rhythmic editions are perfectly well aware of what the signs mean, and there is no risk of misunderstanding. Furthermore, they help greatly in the proper performance of Gregorian chant, and in the past, they were an excellent aid in spreading the chant. Here, in the colleges of Rome, Msgr. Rella has introduced them everywhere, as I did in my own day, so great was the benefit that we experienced for an easy and rapid introduction of the chant, and for the uniformity of performance.

Dom Mocquereau himself had thought, at one point, of writing to

Msgr. Bressan to remind him of the authority spontaneously granted to

Solesmes by the Holy Father with respect to the rhythmic editions, and

. An initial text is said to have been signed on January  (Zucconi, Desclée’s agent, February , ).

390 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

to protest against the accusation that these editions altered the typical edition. In the end, he decided not to write.

The decree of February , , was commented on favorably in the

Giornale d’Italia and the Rassegna Gregoriana. 242 It stirred lively debate, so much so that it is hard to know what to admire more: the obstinacy of

the opponents of the rhythmic editions, or the wisdom of the Congre-

gation of Sacred Rites, which did not allow itself to be intimidated. At the Vatican Commission, the friends of Solesmes said that they were

prepared to provide any favorable statement legitimately requested by

the Ordinary of Tournai, in conformity with the decree.243

Later, in May , the Paris publishers obtained a statement from

the Congregation of Sacred Rites affirming that the Vatican Edition is

perfect in and of itself, but without prejudice to the principle of the

rhythmic editions, which were tolerated (the word is not used in any pe-jorative sense, it is simply contrasted to officially approved). This document appeared in all the reviews of sacred music (Msgr. D. Panici to Mr.

Biais .l.l. May , . Cf. Romita, op. cit., p. ).

What were they going to do in practice at Solesmes, because the

Benedictine editions used signs that attached to the notes (and some

special neumes, such as the apostropha and the oriscus)? Despite the advice of his Roman friends, who told him not to change anything, Dom

Mocquereau preferred to modify the signs in the Solesmes editions by

detaching them entirely from the notation of the typical edition. He ex-

plained his viewpoint in a pamphlet published in August : Le Décret du  février  de la S. Congrégation des Rites et les signs rythmiques des Bénédictins de Solesmes (Desclée ,  pages). In passing, Dom Mocquereau noted that in March and April , the Holy See granted

Solesmes the authority to use its rhythmic indications in reproductions

of the typical edition (p. ). (See Plate , the Gradual Universi, in the rhythmic editions; the St. Gall neumes have been added by hand above

the staves to enable the user to see that the rhythmic indications translate nuances that are actually expressed in the notation of the ancient

manuscripts.)

A few months later, in November, Msgr. Dubois, Bishop of Verdun

(and future Archbishop of Paris), who had adopted the rhythmic edi-

. Rassegna Gregoriana, February , col.  (quoted in the Giornale d’Italia of February ,

).

. The Censor Deputatus said that he was prepared to give his Imprimatur, as he had done previously for the latest Solesmes editions (Bas, March , ).

THE VATICAN COMMISSION FROM 1905 TO 1913 391

tion of the Kyriale for use in his diocese, received full assurance on this matter from the Pope, on November , and from the Cardinal Secretary of State: “For us, this was the most authentic and surest practical interpretation of the decree of February , ,” he wrote in a letter to the choirmaster of his Cathedral, on March ,  (this letter was

included in the second edition of the pamphlet by Dom Mocquereau,

cited above, pp. –).244

Congresses of Padua (), Sables-d’Olonne, and Pisa ()

For several months, Father de Santi had been thinking about having

a decree issued that would be more favorable to the rhythmic editions,

and that would put an end to all the polemics. One day, he even went to

the Pope with a draft in hand, but he kept it to himself (Bas, July ,

). The Congress of Padua (June –, ) afforded him the op-

portunity to do something along these lines.

At the Congress, Father de Santi gave a lecture, after Professor

Cheso, on the rhythmic editions, and he proposed the following resolu-

tions: the ad instar editions of the typical edition should present the text without additions of any kind, but private editions could add signs for

the use of the chant schola. On June , he wrote to Dom Mocquereau

that upon his return from Padua, on June , he had informed the Pope

of these resolutions, and that the Pope had seemed quite happy with

the solution, hoping that all opposition would end. On June , again,

Father de Santi explained that he had prepared a summary report on the

Congress for Civiltà Cattolica (of July , , p. ),245 the text of which had been presented to the Pope, and approved by him. Nonetheless, Father de Santi noted, the Pope was not inclined to issue an official com-

muniqué on the matter, because he had already had to say and retract

so many things on the whole subject.

On July , Father de Santi announced that the solution had been

greeted with enthusiasm by the Congregation of Sacred Rites:

. It seems that the following note, which the Vatican Press sent to publishers of pontifical documents, was directed particularly at the Benedictine editions, which had the great misfortune of being too successful: “The edition reproduced by a publisher may bear only the name of that publisher, because the authorization was given to it alone: consequently, it is expressly forbidden to add, as front matter to the edition, any other names or titles of companies whose owners have not subscribed to the conditions imposed on each individual publisher” (cited by Bas, August , ).

. Cf. Rassegna Gregoriana, , col. –.

392 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

Msgr. Piacenza was very happy with the resolutions, and will have them included in the next issue of Ephemerides Liturgicae, which is the quasi-official publication of the Congregation of Sacred Rites.

However, there were still some reviews and journals that rejected the

distinction drawn by Father de Santi, and once again an all-out battle

ensued. After an inaccurate article in the Osservatore Romano, Father de Santi wrote to the Pope to remind him that he himself had approved

the article that appeared in Civiltà Cattolica:

No sooner had I received the article from the Osservatore Romano (April : Per le edizioni di canto gregoriano) than I wrote a Memorandum immediately, which was given to the Holy Father and read by him.l.l.l. In it, I pointed out .l.l. that before publishing the Padua resolutions, I had submitted them to His Holiness, who approved them in a most explicit fashion, stating that they perfectly expressed his own thinking, and that he had never had any intention of forbidding the rhythmic indications and the editions containing them, or of having them forbidden, and finally that His Holiness had even read and approved the article in Civiltà Cattolica in the printer’s proofs, specifically approving the brief commentary that provides assurance of his august approval. ( July , ) Finally, Rome demanded silence on the matter. On September  the Director of the Bien Public de Dijon notified one of his editors: Dear Father:

Thank you for your letter dated yesterday, regarding the chant. It is quite interesting. Unfortunately, as a consequence of a letter from Rome (specifically intended for us), Bien Public has promised the pontifical authorities not to print anything, one way or the other, any more (R.M. = René Moissenet, included). I hope that you will not hold it against me for speaking frankly to you about this decision. Very truly yours .l.l. signed: L. Dumarché, Secretary of the Editorial Board.

In August, nonetheless, Dom Mocquereau submitted the changes to

Dom Pothier that he had envisaged since the decree of February ,

, and in October, Dom Pothier sent a response stating that he ap-

proved of the changes (letter of Dom David, October , ). Yet in

August, Dom David had already taken note of an item published in the

Rassegna Gregoriana on the rhythmic editions ( Rassegna Gregoriana, July–

August , col. ). As Dom David pointed out to Desclée: “From an

official perspective, the editions made in accordance with this specimen will not encounter any obstacles” (Dom David to Desclée, August , ; the emphasis was added by Dom David himself ).

THE VATICAN COMMISSION FROM 1905 TO 1913 393

In his study Il padre de Santi, s.j., e la questione dei “segni ritmici” dal

 al , Father Bauducco includes the following comment on the audience of June , , according to the Journal of Father de Santi: Audience with the Holy Father. We spoke at length about Padua, the Congress

.l.l. specifically, I informed him of my resolutions on the rhythmic indications.

The Holy Father praised them highly, and approved of them as an expression of common sense, saying that he had always thought along these lines, and that he never dreamed of condemning these signs. (P. )

In , the first volume of Nombre Musical Grégorien was published.

Father de Santi wrote a review in Civiltà Cattolica, expressing some reservations, and thus demonstrating that he was capable of maintaining his independent judgment ( Civiltà Cattolica, , pp. –).245bis Similarly, the Liber Gradualis appeared in the early part of the year.

The decree of publication is dated August , , but the edition did

not come out until March  (The tribute sent to Dom Mocquereau is

dated March , ). (See Plate , the Gradual Universi in the Vatican Gradual: it is an exact reproduction of the version in Dom Pothier’s Liber Gradualis, Solesmes, , Plate .)

In , Dom David went even further than in . Following a trip

to Quarr Abbey in June—the second place of refuge for Solesmes in

England—he spoke with great benevolence of the rhythmic editions in

the Revue du Chant Grégorien ( July–August , p. ). Immediately, through the offices of Msgr. Bressan, Father de Santi shared the article with Pius X, who was very pleased with it. The response came back that

his letter to Msgr. Bressan was “most opportune” (de Santi, September

). Yet Dom David did not care for the article by Father de Santi in the Rassegna Gregoriana (September–October , col. : Ritrattazioni; cf.

col.  of November–December ), in which Father de Santi noted

the new position, the cause of much contentment at the offices of the

Secretary of State: “The Cardinal Secretary of State and Msgr. Canali

have expressed their satisfaction regarding the article in the Rassegna on the Ritrattazioni” (de Santi, November , ).

It was during that same summer of  that the Congress of Sables-

d’Olonne was held ( July –). Despite the resolutions made there, the

bis. An English translation of this first volume was provided by Mrs. Aileen Tone and Mrs. Justine B. Ward in  (Part I) and  (Part II).—In , the start of a Dutch translation was published in De Koorbode, under the title Theorie en Praktijk van den Rythmus van het Gregori-aansch. See above, note .

394 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

Congress was far from peaceful, even though Father de Santi consid-

ered it “a sort of withdrawal.” Not only was Dom Mocquereau not in-

vited to attend, “neither he nor his signs,” but there were various at-

tacks against the rhythmic editions. With respect to the melodies, as

well, someone demanded that the () Solesmes improvements to the

Paroissien Romain be banned from the Roman Antiphonal then in preparation (Le Roy letter, July , and August , ).246 In contrast, the following Resolution was passed at the Congress of Pisa in October. Dom

Mocquereau had been invited to attend the Congress in person (al-

though he did not go), or at least to send the Congress his thoughts on

the questionnaire sent to the bishops of Tuscany (letter of Father

Athanasius, C. Sc., promotor of the Congress, September , ).

. With respect to anything having to do with the Gregorian melodies at Mass and at Vespers, at Matins, etc., the Vatican Edition shall be imposed absolutely, and the method of performance of the School of Solesmes ( Rassegna Gregoriana, , col. ff.: Pisa. Il Congresso sinodo toscano di Musica sacra; cf. L’Univers, October , , Le Congrès de Musique Sacrée à Pise).

Father de Santi was elected acting President of the Italian Cecilia Society at that Congress, as well.

Letter of Cardinal Martinelli ()

In , Father de Santi had regained the Pope’s trust in matters of

Gregorian chant, which had fallen off after the events of June . He

had already given Dom Mocquereau several demonstrations of the in-

fluence he had regained. The Holy Father now entrusted Father de San-

ti with the task of drawing up the letter which Cardinal Martinelli, Prefect of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, would send to Msgr. Haberl,

President of the St. Cecilia Society of Germany, on February , , to condemn mensuralism in the performance of Gregorian chant. In

France, there has been a trend to view this letter as a condemnation of

the rhythmic editions of Solesmes. Not only is this opinion contrary to

the truth, but in the letter, Father de Santi managed to include a discreet word of praise for the work of the Abbey, as he explained to Dom Mocquereau himself,247 and as is clear from the confident commentary that

. Nonetheless, the Graduale retained an imposing number of improvements taken from the Liber Usualis (or Paroissien Romain). Cf. below, Conclusion, and note .

. The letter sent to Dom Mocquereau has been lost, but we have the testimony of Don Julio Franceschini, of the School of Sacred Music in Rome (May , ). Above all, the letter THE VATICAN COMMISSION FROM 1905 TO 1913 395

he published in the Rassegna Gregoriana (March–April , col. ). He wrote:

We must say, rather, that the letter contains something in favor of rhythmic indications. What are the new and useful studies in which the best Gregorian theoreticians are currently illustrating the free rhythm of the Gregorian melodies?

We really do not know which are the new and useful studies produced by the opponents of the monks of Solesmes, whereas the monks have published entire volumes, and continue, in the Paléographie, to show the value and correct-ness of their signs by dint of the romanian “codices” .l.l. Nevertheless, we affirm, with full confidence (emphasis added) that neither through its tone nor through the purpose for which it was written can the pontifical Letter be interpreted or twisted as the opponents of Solesmes, with incredible stubbornness, are intent on doing.

This last sentence was addressing the end of Cardinal Martinelli’s letter on the Gregorian restoration,

as the Holy Father understood it, and, as far as rhythm goes, as it has not only been admitted and increasingly well clarified thanks to new and useful works by the most renowned Gregorian theoreticians, but also practiced with full and encouraging success by countless choirs in all parts of the world.

This statement clearly echoes what Father de Santi had written to Msgr.

Bressan on February , , a sure sign of Father de Santi’s authorship of the letter.

Despite everything, the opponents of the rhythmic editions mar-

shaled their forces once again to obtain a condemnation. In June , at the urging of Professor Gastoué, “the Typographers of Paris sent a

memorandum to His Eminence the Secretary of State to protest the

rhythmic indications, calling for their official condemnation” (de Santi, May  and June , ).248 But this time, the Cardinal asked that the memorandum go without a response ( June ). To the contrary, on September , Father de Santi added:

We can be sure that the Holy Father will not allow such a condemnation, and I have had his express word on this. His Eminence, the Cardinal Secretary of State has already responded to the Typographers of Paris, saying that their desent to Msgr. Haberl bears the hallmarks of Father de Santi, who often returned to the fact that the Solesmes editions achieved a full and encouraging result. Cf. infra, Letters to Msgr. Bressan and Rassegna Gregoriana, January–February , col. –.

. In the letter of June , Father de Santi explained to Dom Mocquereau that they had wanted to stop the printing of his popular Manual in modern notation, at the Vatican Press.

396 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

mands will not be met. Msgr. Piacenza is on our side, and the new Secretary of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, Msgr. La Fontaine, has also told us that the matter is settled, and that there is no reason to return to it any more.

Father de Santi added:

There is also the attitude adopted regarding this matter by the St. Cecilia Society. I told the Holy Father, and I repeat it to everyone who speaks to me about it: the condemnation of the rhythmic indications would be a disaster for our Gregorian propaganda in Italy, because nearly everything that we have

achieved so far, which is quite a lot, has been accomplished thanks to the rhythmic indications, which are an enormous help in teaching and performance.

In the Bolletino Ceciliano, Father de Santi explained how Solesmes had been authorized to publish its own editions in March–April  (,

August, p. ) (cf. supra, No. ).

The groundwork for founding the Revue Grégorienne was done in

, as well. The first issue came out in January . Similarly, the College of Sacred Music in Rome, founded by Father de Santi, opened on

January , .248bis On September , , he told Dom Mocquereau:

We are working tirelessly to open a school of sacred music. For the moment, the Holy Father is not inclined to provide the necessary funds. We have approached two American millionaires, but we have not had any reply yet. In the meantime, we have been offered a magnificent study organ for the school, if it opens this year. We do not want to lose this gift. So, I have proposed to the Holy Father that we open, for the time being, a course of sacred chant of only four months, from December  to April , for practical, theoretical, and scientific teaching of Gregorian chant.

This is evidence that the Pope’s confidence in Father de Santi was fully restored, and it goes a long way toward explaining the Pope’s determined attitude with respect to the opponents of the rhythmic editions.

The book by the Abbé Rousseau, co-founder of the Revue Grégori-

enne, on the École Grégorienne de Solesme s, was also published by Desclée in . The book presented the fundamentals and principles of the

Solesmes rhythmic approach.

bis. See Dom P. Combe, Les origines de la Revue Grégorienne, in Études Grégoriennes, V, , pp. –. That article outlines the impact of the events of January .— L’Édition Vaticane, in Études Grégoriennes, VIII, , p. . One interesting detail regarding the College of Sacred Music: at one point, Father de Santi wanted Solesmes to take charge of the school, or at least of a chair of studies. Two letters from Father de Santi to Dom Delatte bear this out, one dated April

, , from Padua, the other dated May , , from Rome.

THE VATICAN COMMISSION FROM 1905 TO 1913 397

Decrees of January  and April , 

Yet the founding of the Revue Grégorienne was to arouse a more violent assault than the earlier ones against the rhythmic editions. Even as Msgr. Dubois, who had become Archbishop of Bourges, was seeking

the Pope’s blessing for the new review—without Solesmes’ knowl-

edge—on December ,  the opponents, including Professor A. Gas-

toué, deeply alarmed by the announcement of the first issue (which

would be dated January ),249 was seeking the condemnation of our

edition in Rome. They suggested that the editions already in the mar-

ketplace should be left alone, but that the reproduction with rhythmic

indications of the Vatican Antiphonal, which was in preparation, should be forbidden (Father de Santi, January , ; and, to Abbé N.

Rousseau, January , ), and finally that all new rhythmic editions

should be forbidden. The decree of January , , would answer

these attacks.

Yet Father de Santi had already informed Dom Mocquereau and

Msgr. Dubois that the Pope had assured him that nothing would be

done against our editions (cf. supra, September , ). Obviously the life of the Revue Grégorienne depended entirely on this issue. Thus Msgr.

Dubois, who remained very devoted to Solesmes, wrote to the Cardinal

Secretary of State to inform him of the true reasons behind all this op-

position (Msgr. Dubois to Dom Mocquereau, January , ). For his

part, Father de Santi alerted the Pope, through Msgr. Bressan, on Febru-

ary , reminding him, on his oath (see supra, No. ) of the role that he had played in March  as the intermediary between the Holy See and

Solesmes. Moreover, he told the Pope that all these quarrels were not

based on any scientific foundation, and that the Benedictine editions

were widely distributed throughout Italy, thanks to the St. Cecilia Society:

Nearly all of Italy is using these editions with the rhythmic indications. They have been adopted by the Pontifical Choir, by nearly all the seminaries and colleges in Rome, and by all the seminaries in Italy. All the propaganda now being done in many regions of Italy to get the people to participate in the liturgical chant is being done with the rhythmic editions. Without them, it would be

. “Msgr. Piacenza told me that Professor Gastoué sent a Memorandum to the Cardinal Secretary of State seeking that the signs be abolished in the Antiphonary. It seems that they will win this stupid concession, and that we will just have to make do.” Msgr. Baudrillart, Rector of the Catholic Institute of Paris, was also approached.

398 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

much more difficult to achieve the harmony that is so important between the teachers doing the teaching and the various groups of the faithful who are preparing to sing together in a public church. (Father de Santi to Msgr. Bressan, February , )

At the same time, Msgr. Dubois informed Solesmes that “the increasing

success of the rhythmic editions was the primary cause of this whole

business,” because the rhythmic editions were being used in opposition

to the typical edition, or at least the two were being confused with each other (Msgr. Dubois, February , ).

The Desclée company could not remain on the sidelines. Its agent in

Rome was extremely zealous under the circumstances, and he, too, re-

ceived assurances that nothing would be done against the rhythmic edi-

tions, but that an effort had to be made not to have them come across as the official editions (Desclée, February , ).

Baron d’Erp, the Belgian Minister, contacted the Cardinal Secretary

of State. On the eve of the publication of the decree of January , , he received the reply that nothing had changed with regard to previous

dispositions, and that the decree of February , , remained in full effect (Desclée, February , ). A few days later, however, the decree was issued that forbade the rhythmic editions in the future contrariis non obstantibus quibuscumque (anything else to the contrary notwithstand-ing). The reason given was that these editions altered the typical edi-

tion, even though Dom Pothier himself had acknowledged that this was

utterly untrue (cf. supra). Thus Father de Santi wrote, in the Rassegna Gregoriana (, col. –) that

on this point, the Solesmes editions with the rhythmical indications have nothing to fear, for they do not alter the traditional notation in any way, as it is found in the Vatican Editions, and they contain the strictly Gregorian traditions, taken from the very best manuscripts. On this same point, the publishers have received, in the most explicit and broadest manner, assurances that they are perfectly within the rules. (French text in the Revue Grégorienne, , pp.

–)250

Father Bauducco reports many other steps taken by Father de Santi,

of which we were unaware, in approaching the office of the Secretary

of State and Dom Pothier. A note sent to Desclée, which Desclée men-

. Obviously the School of Sacred Music founded by Father de Santi and opened in January

 used the rhythmic editions in its instruction ( Revue Grégorienne, , p. ).

THE VATICAN COMMISSION FROM 1905 TO 1913 399

tions (April , ), cast doubt on the authorization granted to

Solesmes in . It is interesting to discover that this note was written by Dom Janssens, a fact that Msgr. Respighi had already hinted at

(Respighi, March , ) (cf. Bauducco, op. cit., p. ).

The controversy was in full swing, and it was the solution that Father

de Santi proposed at the Congress of Padua that provided a way out.

Father de Santi and Msgr. Respighi drew up a text, with the full agree-

ment of Msgr. La Fontaine, Secretary of the Congregation of Sacred

Rites, and Father Haegy, consultor of the Liturgical Commission (Abbé

Rousseau, May , May  Note). The text consisted of two declara-

tions that would enable the bishops to approve reproductions of the Vatican Edition with rhythmic indications, and to acknowledge the use of

these signs intended to facilitate the performance of Gregorian chant.

N. Rousseau, as director of the Revue Grégorienne, was invited to ask the questions that were intended to elicit these responses, i.e. the declarations mentioned above (Desclée, April ; Abbé Rousseau, May 

Note). The text of the declarations was finished on April , and Abbé

Rousseau notified Dom Mocquereau, on April , from Rome (Respighi,

April , to Abbé Delaporte, secretary of the Revue Grégorienne; Abbé Rousseau, April , to Dom Mocquereau).

But what had happened? We have information from those who were

in on the behind-the-scenes maneuvering. Msgr. Respighi wrote:

The decree was truly published in error, without the knowledge of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, which had planned either to suppress it, or to modify it fundamentally. Of course, someone maliciously led those who gave the order to publish it astray. (March )

It is true that the text had been submitted to the Belgian Minister.

However, it is probable that he did not see its full import. It is also possible that he did not see the definitive version of the text, a view shared by Msgr. Respighi (March , ).

For his part, Abbé Rousseau learned the details given below from

Msgr. La Fontaine in person, when he met him in Rome in April.

Rousseau immediately sent word of these details to his brother, a

Carthusian monk, in a letter dated April . As soon as Desclée’s repre-

sentative received assurances that no action would be taken against the

rhythmic editions, he wrote hastily to Dom Pothier to express his satis-

faction. Dom Pothier—the author of the decree—played on the ambi-

guity and brought the letter to the Secretary of State, assuring him that 400 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

Desclée and Solesmes were now agreeing with the conclusions of the

document, and the order was given to publish it. Yet when the Secretary

of the Congregation of Sacred Rites learned of the matter, he was in-

dignant. In concert with several consultors, he prepared the declara-

tions discussed above, to annul the decree.

An inquiry was ordered, and was entrusted to Father Haegy. At the

order of the Holy Father, the file on the rhythmic indications was given to him, and his conclusion was as severe as possible: “everything has

been dictated by jealousy, contrary to justice and truth,” and in the

name of science. It was Msgr. La Fontaine who brought Father Haegy’s

report to the Pope, along with the declarations that the Pope approved immediately. This was on April  (Father Haegy, July , , to Dom

Mocquereau).

Here are the key points of the letter that Father Haegy wrote to

Dom Mocquereau on July , :

I must tell you that, were I not in this position, I might well have been indifferent to this issue. But in performing my duties, I had to examine this issue as thoroughly as possible. I was the judge, and in that role, I had a very large file at my disposal, which the Secretary of State was required to give me. So I read a succession of essays and lengthy letters sent to the Holy Father, to the Congregation of Sacred Rites, and to the office of the Secretary of State. I saw that everything had been dictated by jealousy, contrary to justice and truth. One document, in particular, ill treated the venerable religious of Solesmes, attributing false intentions to them with regard to the rhythmic indications. My indignation reached new heights. Thus my conclusion was as severe as possible, and at my express request, it was included in the large file. My memorandum to the Holy Father clearly set forth the depraved means employed by your opponents. In substance, it said that the motive for their conduct could only be jealousy, which was aimed at men whose sole concern was to work for the glory of God in their contemplation, and whose exceptional competence was

widely recognized.

Providence stepped in to help the cause of justice to triumph. I dictated, or rather composed, the two declarations with which you are familiar. In light of the famous decree, on which no one was consulted and that was hatched by a small group, the Liturgical Commission did not want to approve publication of my conclusions. So I strongly urged the Secretary to bring them to the Holy Father’s attention, along with my memorandum. That was done, and the Holy

Father approved my text, and gave permission to publish it. That is how I came to be involved in this business, which has been so unpleasant for you, from which you have emerged victorious. I am happy to have been the instrument of THE VATICAN COMMISSION FROM 1905 TO 1913 401

your success, and you may be assured of my full devotion in the future. Your opponents are moving the heavens and the earth, and would like an official response to the January decree that abolished the previous declarations, but their efforts are in vain.

The official declarations to which Father Haegy refers were sent to

Abbé Rousseau on April  (the date of the official text: S.R.C., L.C.N.

/ Prot.). Received at : AM by Msgr. La Fontaine; he had the declaration by : PM that same evening (Desclée to Dom Mocquereau, April , ). However, the second response concerning in-

struction was in answer both to Abbé Rousseau’s request and later to a

similar request from the Bishop of Padua dated April ,  (cf. Revue Grégorienne, , pp.  and ). Msgr. La Fontaine went so far as to show Abbé Rousseau “the Pope’s handwritten placet” given at the audience on April  (Desclée, April , ).

For the moment, Msgr. La Fontaine did not think it possible to pub-

lish the Declarations in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, since the text was in such “disharmony” with the decree of January ,  (Rousseau, Note

of May ). The Declarations were not published there until , but

they were included in the Decreta authentica S.R.C. in  (Vol. VI, Appendix, no. ,), bearing the date of the Holy Father’s April  audi-

ence. The decree of January ,  was published in the Acta, but

Msgr. Respighi noted that “the commentary in the Rassegna concerning the decree is the only one that is correct and authentic,” meaning Father de Santi’s commentary, discussed above (Respighi, April , ).

Moreover, the text of the decree of April , included in the Decreta authentica, was issued ad majorem declarationem Decreti no. ,  Januarii vertentis anni.

Thus the plot had failed, a plot summed up by Abbé Rousseau in

these terms:

The Gastoué report was an accusation against the rhythmic editions—the decree of January  was the crushing blow that was supposed to finish off the accused—and the Congress of Paris [June –, ] was to be the solemn burial, to the cries of joy from all the Paris chant scholae. Unfortunately, the corpse had the bad taste to rise up, once again, on the eve of the burial. ( June , ) Regulation on Sacred Music—Vatican Antiphonal ()

In early , a Regulation on Sacred Music was issued in Rome, signed by the Cardinal Vicar on February . It was clearly inspired by the Pope 402 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

(“It is His Holiness’s express wish .l.l.” etc.). The Regulation recom-

mended the rhythmic editions:

For greater uniformity in the performance of Gregorian chant in the various churches of Rome, they may be adopted with the addition of the rhythmic indications of Solesmes (no. ). ( Revue Grégorienne, , pp. ff. and ff.) Of course, Father de Santi was involved. On March , he told Dom

Mocquereau:

The recommendation to adopt the editions with the rhythmic indications is not at all intended as a polemic; it is merely the result of practical necessities, and of the fact that in Italy, the rhythmic indications pose no problem because absolutely everyone, from the Alps to the Gulf of Sicily to Libya, has adopted the rhythmic editions. Here, singing with other editions could very simply lead to the ruin of our chant.

In April (April –), the Italian St. Cecilia Society held its Tenth

Congress of Sacred Music. The chant was sung from the books of

Solesmes, and not otherwise. The Revue du Chant Grégorien published an article stating that the Congress had not used the books of Solesmes,

and Father de Santi sent a correction on this point. The Revue Grégorienne published it in French translation ( Revue Grégorienne, , p. ).

By the end of , Dom Pothier had finished editing the Vatican An-

tiphonal, which he dedicated to the Pope on December  (letter from Father Franck, December , ). The book was published without a

preface. The preface that had been prepared for it was rejected at the

last minute (Father Franck, December ; Father Haegy, December ;

cf. de Santi, November , ).250bis It was introduced by a decree that echoed the decree of April ,  (the declaration concerning authorization of the rhythmic editions, approved by the Pope on April ). No

mention was made of the decree of January , . This time, in fact,

the Congregation of Sacred Rites was not going to be taken unawares,

even though an effort in that direction was made while the Secretary

was away (Father Franck, October , ). Given three wordings for ap-

proving this decree for the Antiphonal, the Pope rejected one that was unfavorable to the rhythmic editions, and a second one. He chose the

third one, which was more favorable than the second:

bis. “It is certain that D. P. did not manage to have adopted either his preface or the decree that he prepared for the new Antiphonary” (de Santi, November , ).

THE VATICAN COMMISSION FROM 1905 TO 1913 403

The Pope placed his placet at the bottom of this last page. What more loyal deed could the Congregation of Sacred Rites possibly have done? (Abbé

Rousseau, April , , from Rome)250ter

Yet a Bulletin pastoral (cf. Revue Grégorienne, , p. ) discussing this decree of the Antiphonal, saw it as “an abrogation of the rhythmic indications.” It was quite the contrary, since the decree of January , , was not mentioned in it, and the decree of April , which was mentioned, had been confirmed in the Decreta authentica, along with the

wording quoted above, ad majorem declarationem Decreti no. ,  Januarii vertentis anni ().251

Thus, on repeated occasions, the opponents sought to have the

rhythmic editions of Solesmes condemned. We have seen that, thanks

to the critical testimony of Father de Santi and Msgr. Carlo Respighi,

the Holy See opposed those efforts consistently. Father Haegy wrote:

Let us allow our opponents to hatch their plots. We are on the alert here, and will keep a watchful eye. Once again, it is true, they have fooled us. But now we see their spirit, and we understand that they are not motivated by feelings of the spirit of faith. (to Abbé Rousseau, June , )

. The Commission’s Tribulations

In July —immediately following issuance of the June  letter

from the Cardinal Secretary of State (cf. No. )—Dom Pothier sought

the assistance of Solesmes:

ter. The decree of the Roman Antiphonal is dated December , .

. Father Bauducco notes that the Instruction of the Congregation of Sacred Rites dated September , , on Sacred Music and the Holy Liturgy in accordance with the spirit of the En-cyclicals Musicae Sacrae disciplina and Mediator Dei of Pope Pius XII, did not mention the decree of January , : “Can we rightly conclude that this decree was abrogated? This is not improb-able, because in this Instruction, the Congregation seems to be manifesting its intention to gather—into a sort of Code—the legislation in force concerning the chant books” ( Il Padre de Santi, s.j. e la questione dei “segni ritmici” dal  al , in Bollettino Ceciliano, , pp. –, note ).

But that is not all. The text of the Instruction explicitly states that the so-called rhythmic indications introduced under private authority into Gregorian chant are permitted under ordinary conditions: “However the signs, known as rhythmic signs, introduced by private authority into the Gregorian chant are permitted provided that the size and shape of the notes found in the Vatican books of liturgical chant are maintained” ( Instructio .l.l.l, nos. –).

404 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

Personally I have always applauded your research, and I have viewed your collations as extremely valuable .l.l. I also intend to take full account of the comments and information already provided by the members and consultors of the Commission. (To Dom Mocquereau, July , )

Therefore, as in the past, I am counting on your devotion to the cause and to the Holy Father, and on the support of the members of the Commission. (To Dom Mocquereau, July , )

After the Congress of Strasbourg, Dom Pothier wrote to Dom Moc-

quereau on behalf of the members and consultors who were present

(there were ten of them), saying that they hoped “that you will contin-

ue to allow the Vatican Edition to benefit from the valuable fruits of

your collations of manuscripts” (August , ). Dom Pothier repeat-

ed his request, on November , to Dom Delatte himself. Dom Delatte

responded that cooperation was proving to be as difficult as before

(which Dom Mocquereau had explained at length to Msgr. Respighi on

September ). Besides, the campaign against the rhythmic editions had

just begun, and was not creating the most ideal environment for an un-

derstanding. Finally, the monastic meeting at St. Anselm in December

 ended in failure particularly because Father de Santi opposed the

concept of a temporary edition.

Attempts at rapprochement

In early  ( January  and February ), Dom Pothier again sought

the cooperation of Solesmes. Dom Mocquereau answered him on Janu-

ary , repeating the same message. A long Note from Msgr. Respighi, Secretary of the Commission, printed in Italian on seven large-format

pages, also was published around the same time ( January , ). In

the Note, Msgr. Respighi criticized the work of the Commission harshly, and outlined its responsibilities. Dom Pothier responded to the publication in Quelques Remarques à propos d’une Note (six printed pages, no date), which was received at Appuldurcombe on February . These two

documents gave clear proof that tensions remained high within the

Commission and that, for lack of a Regulation governing its operation,

there was no reason to hope that the situation would improve. The crit-

icism leveled against the Kyriale as soon as it was published in October

 once again showed that Dom Mocquereau was right to keep his

guard up.

On December , , Father de Santi was afraid that the Gradual

THE VATICAN COMMISSION FROM 1905 TO 1913 405

would suffer the same fate as the Kyriale. He wrote to Dom Delatte and Dom Mocquereau. Father Minetti, S.M., the corrector of the edition,

had already written on December , and wrote once more on Decem-

ber . The pontifical publisher was dragging out the schedule for printing, and said that he was prepared to enter the corrections sought by

the Editorial Board himself (which seems to indicate that the initiative for this action came from Scotti, director of the Vatican Press). Finally, on December , Dom Gaisser wrote to Solesmes, as well. The word

from Solesmes was that they were prepared to cooperate, but under

certain essential conditions of impartiality. They proposed that, while

awaiting the definitive edition, one of the Solesmes editions should be

used (filling in what was missing from the  edition, intended for

Sundays and feast days). On January , , Father Minetti told Dom

Mocquereau that he had spoken about the matter with the Cardinal

Secretary of State from the beginning, and that it was the Cardinal who

had selected Dom Gaisser as the intermediary. Dom Gaisser went to see

the Cardinal three times, who referred him to the Pope. Yet the Pope

wanted to keep the status quo, since he foresaw that new complications would inevitably arise. Father de Santi had written to the Holy Father,

and had received the same response through Msgr. Bressan (de Santi,

January , , to Dom Delatte).

Father Minetti concluded:

The outcome of these discussions has not been the result we hoped for. Be patient! This business did not depend on us. Besides, they will always be able to say that the monks of Solesmes were prepared, once again, to work together with the Commission and with the assistance of Dom Pothier, on behalf of the Vatican Edition. This attitude is and will always be to the honor of the monks of Solesmes, whom I love with all my heart. I am sure that this position will gain the sympathy of all those who, later on, will understand their generosity.

( January , )

Father de Santi had suggested a solution to reach an understanding

among Gregorianists with respect to the rhythmic editions at the Con-

gress of Padua in . He tried again to achieve a rapprochement with-

in the Commission on January , . This time, the initiative certain-ly came from Scotti at the Vatican Press, who was fearful that the

criticism of the Kyriale would hurt the edition. So, following Scotti’s advice, Father de Santi had agreed to meet with Dom Pothier’s secretary,

Dom David, who had informed Father de Santi on January  of what

406 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

the Abbot of Saint-Wandrille was looking to achieve. The proposals

were as follows:

The Editorial Board must have the right to present the manuscript for the edition; the manuscript must be examined and discussed fairly, and definitively accepted by the Commission. Then, everything depends on an amicable and con-ciliatory understanding between the office of the President, the Editorial Board, and a small group of arbitrators, as necessary [Dom Pothier suggested three members elected by the President, the Editorial Board, and the Commission]. Only then, after the manuscript has been studied and discussed in this way, is it presented for printing and given to each reviser on the Commission.

Once Dom Pothier had agreed to this plan, Father de Santi asked Dom

Mocquereau to say what he thought of it (Father de Santi, January ,

, to Dom Delatte). On February , Father de Santi repeated his re-

quest. But Dom Mocquereau had already sent his reply on February 

(February , according to the Minutes). His answer reached Rome on

February , and Father de Santi shared it immediately with Dom David,

on February . In it, Dom Mocquereau said that the failure of previous

discussions, even though the Pope and the Cardinal Secretary of State

were aware of them, and the Pope’s determination to maintain the pro-

visions created in the Letter of June ,  (i.e. staying with Dom

Pothier’s Liber Gradualis as the basis for the work), obliged Solesmes to remain very reserved. The project was all the more doomed to failure

as the initiative came from the pontifical publisher, who had no official role within the Vatican Commission. On February , Dom Delatte

made the same comments to Dom David, who had written to him di-

rectly. Dom Delatte noted, advisedly (after all, Dom David was reported

to be the author of the Letter of June ), that since Solesmes had been asked to step aside, it would have to remain there. Of course, Father de Santi regretted this refusal on the part of Solesmes (to Dom Cagin, February , ), but he added that he very well understood the reasons

given.

There were no more attempts at cooperation between the Commis-

sion and the Editorial Board until . By then however, the involve-

ment was unofficial, and conditions had changed considerably.

It is true that on January , , Msgr. Respighi told Dom Moc-

quereau that Dom Pothier wanted to renew contact with the Commis-

sion, and was planning to send a circular letter to the members of the

Commission who were scattered all over; but nothing was to happen.

THE VATICAN COMMISSION FROM 1905 TO 1913 407

Dom David even went to Quarr Abbey in June. He published an article

at the time that would not make matters any easier. Dom David later

argued that he did not ask for Dom Mocquereau’s assistance at that

time (cf. Revue du Chant Grégorien, , p. ). Dom Delatte and Dom Mocquereau, however, are quite clear on this point (the letter from

Msgr. Respighi mentioned above is dated January , ).

Meanwhile the situation was improving gradually for Father de San-

ti. At the Pope’s request, he drafted the letter from Cardinal Martinelli to Msgr. Haberl dated February , . The letter condemned mensuralism in the performance of Gregorian chant and, with the Pope’s ap-

proval, Father de Santi undertook to found the School of Sacred Music

in Rome later that year. At the same time, the credibility of Dom

Janssens, whom the Pope used to consult readily on the Gregorian ques-

tion, was on the wane. During the trip of former United States Presi-

dent Theodore Roosevelt to Rome, he lost the Pope’s confidence, as he

himself admits, in going to visit the President, while the President was not scheduled to visit the Vatican ( Msgr. Janssens, éloge prononcé par Dom H. Quentin, le  juin , direct quote from Dom Janssens himself ). As we have seen, Dom Janssens could hardly be counted as one of Dom

Mocquereau’s supporters.

The Edition in —Research in Germany and Austria

Starting in , following publication of the decree concerning the

rhythmic editions, Solesmes (then at Quarr Abbey) began to realize that

the situation had changed. The consequences of the decree of January

, , have been addressed above. It was from that point on that a variety of events showed a renewal of confidence in and good will toward

Solesmes.

In June , Dom Mocquereau was consulted on various matters re-

lating to the chant by the Congregation of Sacred Rites itself (for example, on the interrupted mediants, the Martryology, psalmody, etc.). He

was asked to prepare the chants for the Pontificale (Dom Mocquereau’s reply is dated June , ). In August , it was announced at

Solesmes that the Declarations of Padua had been confirmed in the

form of a decree ad meliorem declarationem Decreti no. ,  Januarii vertentis anni (). This new decree dated April , , the date of the audience with the Sovereign Pontiff, allowed the bishops to approve the

printing of the Vatican Edition with rhythmic indications ( Decreta au-408 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

thentica S.R.C., no. ,, Appendix I, vol. VI, p. ). That is what Father de Santi had requested at the Congress of Padua in .

Besides, the Pope’s thinking with respect to Solesmes and its abbot

were now known:

Msgr. Dubois, Archbishop of Bourges, told me something that was very consoling for me, and certainly for Your Reverence, as well. The Holy Father, in the audience granted to the Archbishop, spoke with high praise, esteem, and affection, of Your Reverence. Thus I hope that the enormous prejudice leveled against your excellent monks through human misfortune will begin to dissi-pate. We have a saying: lies have short legs. Truth will outpace the lies eventually, and stride to victory.l.l.l. (Father de Santi to Dom Delatte, November ,

)

On February , , Father de Santi had written to Dom Mocquereau

to say that the Pope had said to him:

Why do the Benedictines of Solesmes not have recourse to the Holy Father?

Why do they remain silent? They are wrong to act in this way. I responded: How can they do so, when they feel so humiliated, and even in disgrace with the Holy Father!

On January , , Father Haegy had sent a confidential question-

naire to the Abbot of Solesmes, on behalf of Msgr. La Fontaine, Secre-

tary of the Congregation of Rites, with the following remarks:

As the enclosed letter has official status .l.l. the importance of the invitation that is extended through my good offices does not escape me .l.l. The strict secrecy that the Secretary is requiring of you does not provide dispensation for informing Dom Mocquereau of this matter [concerning the chant].

Father Haegy visited Quarr Abbey from August –, . (His visit

was preceded by one from Father Franck, another consultor of the

Congregation of Sacred Rites, on August –, .) Father Haegy

said that from then on, he was responsible for chant at the Congrega-

tion and that he had been personally delegated by Msgr. La Fontaine to

examine all questions relating to the chant. At Quarr Abbey, Father Ha-

egy received a lengthy explanation of how the Gregorian melodies

were being restored. When he returned to Rome, he reported on it to

Msgr. La Fontaine, and he, in turn, discussed it with the Pope (Father

Haegy, November , ). A few days later, August –, the Very Rev-

erend Dom Maur Serafini, Abbot of Subiaco, came to Quarr Abbey. He

spoke at length with Dom Mocquereau, and with Dom Delatte starting

THE VATICAN COMMISSION FROM 1905 TO 1913 409

in the second session. Minutes of these conversations were prepared,

and Dom Serafini asked for a summary of the minutes on September .

Dom Serafini immediately declared that he had come at the urging

of the Pope and the Congregation of Sacred Rites, and that he was car-

rying an official letter from Msgr. La Fontaine. Then he stated that the Vatican Commission, which had not existed de facto for a long time, now no longer existed officially. He said that Solesmes was being asked to continue the work of the Gregorian restoration begun by Pope Pius

X (as a formality, he first asked them to work with Dom Pothier, but he

did not stress the point). Then the Offices of Christmas and Holy Week

were discussed. They had already been prepared by Dom Pothier (cf.

Abbé Rousseau, April , , from Rome, to Dom Mocquereau). Msgr.

La Fontaine had already written to Dom Delatte about the Offices of

Christmas and Holy Week, on April , , and Father Haegy had writ-

ten on May . A little later, the Abbot-Primate of the Order of St. Benedict also asked Solesmes to prepare a new Monastic Antiphonal, with the authorization of the Congregation of Sacred Rites (letter of November

, ).

The Abbot of Solesmes said that he was happy to refer to a message

that he had received from the Abbot of Subiaco. He expressed a few

wishes: that we would work alone, that we would not receive any finan-

cial compensation, and that there would be no question of our being of-

ficially involved.

Consequently, on June , , the Right Rev. Dom Ferretti, professor

at the School of Sacred Music in Rome—Father de Santi was ill—wrote

to Dom Delatte to tell him that the Congregation of Sacred Rites had

entrusted him with the publication of Holy Week. Therefore, he would

have to visit Quarr Abbey because he was seeking our cooperation in

his work. On June , after receiving the response from Solesmes, Dom

Ferretti noted that the Congregation of Sacred Rites was in complete

agreement with him, and that he would come to Quarr Abbey during

the summer (he visited from July  to August , ). From Quarr

Abbey, he sent a Memorandum to the Congregation on August .

Dom Ferretti wrote the following to Dom Delatte in a letter dated

June , , which provide a good summary of the situation:

I would like the Abbey of Solesmes to have a role in this work, a role that, although it does not emanate directly and officially from the Congregation of Sacred Rites for reasons of tact that are readily understood, remains a true, real 410 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

and key role, so that all the merit of the work would reflect on the good and wise Fathers. [The emphasis was added by Dom Ferretti himself.]

It must be made clear that on his return to Quarr Abbey, Dom Serafi-

ni had gone to Belgium where Dom Pothier sought refuge with his

community (owing to the anti-religious laws in France). Dom Serafini

had met with Dom Pothier at Maredsous and had requested a memo-

randum from him, and from Dom Mocquereau. Dom Pothier declared

himself ready to collaborate with Solesmes, and Rev. Haegy had again

written to him on June ,  to ask him to prepare the chants of Holy Week. The result was that the fate of the Vatican Commission was not

definitively settled until after Fr. Ferretti’s trip to Quarr Abbey in August

. However, from the beginning of , Fr. Haegy (January ), Fa-

ther de Santi ( January ), and Msgr. Respighi (February ) had warned

Dom Mocquereau that the recent Motu Proprio Quanta semper of January , , had suppressed all the Commissions and that this suppres-

sion had been aimed most especially, “precisamente per excludere,” at

the Vatican Commission for the chant books (Respighi, January , )

(Archives of Solesmes and of Saint-Wandrille).251bis

The search for manuscripts that ceased in late October  immedi-

ately began again. This time, the main objective was the Antiphonal.

Dom Paul Blanchon-Lasserve and Dom Amand Ménager traveled

throughout Germany, Austria, and a part of Italy not visited in ,

from April  to August , . Archduchess Zita, future Empress of

Austro-Hungary, was so gracious as to recommend the travelers to the

librarians of the Empire. The photographs could not be forwarded to

Quarr Abbey until after the Great War, around . The main stages of

their travels, which encompassed a number of monasteries with rich li-

brary collections, were: Cologne, Maria-Laach, Koblenz, Trier, Stutt-

gart, Karlsbad, Tepl, Prague, Brno, Raigern, Vienna, Zwettl, Göttweig,

Klosterneuburg, Melk, Seitenstetten, Wilhering, Linz, St. Florian,

Kremsmünster, Admont, Vorau, Graz, St. Paul im Lavanttal, Gorizia,

Cividale, Udine, Venice, Vicenza, Verona, Brescia, and Milan.

The Gregorian books of the Vatican

The Commission presided over by Dom Pothier published the Kyri-

ale in , the Liber Gradualis in , the Officium pro Defunctis in ,

bis. Dom Pothier was received one last time by the Pope on December , , as discussed above ( Jean de Valois, Le Chant Grégorien, Paris, , p. ).

THE VATICAN COMMISSION FROM 1905 TO 1913 411

the Cantorinus seu Toni Communes in , and the Liber Antiphonarius in

. Professor Gastoué set forth the principles that guided the editors in Société Internationale de Musique (Paris): L’Édition Vaticane, , vol. , pp. –. He lists the instances where they followed the textus receptus, and not the oldest variants, and adopted the later tradition of Do rather than Si.

After , Solesmes published the Cantus Passionis in , the Officium Majoris Hebdomadae et Octavae Paschae in , the Officium et Missae in Nativitate Domini in . It also published the new Offices or Masses that the Holy See requested directly from Solesmes, necessarily following the principles used in the Gradual and the Antiphonal. These included, for example, the Offices and Masses for the Feasts of the Sacred

Heart, Christ the King, the Assumption, etc., as well as the new

melodies required under the current liturgical reform. They did not

produce Offices or Masses that already existed in the diocesan or reli-

gious Propers (such as those of St. Therese of Lisieux, for example).

The Commission also published three books for use of the Monastic

Order, which were actually new, revised, and corrected editions of the

corresponding Vatican books: the Antiphonale Monasticum in  (and the Antiphonale Solesmense in ), In Nocte Nativitatis Domini juxta ritum monasticum in , and In Agendis Mortuorum juxta ritum monasticum (except for the Mass, which necessarily followed the Vatican Edition) in

. These three books included a variety of improvements in terms of

the neumes, the melodies (the ancient modal recitations were re-estab-

lished), and the rhythm (cf. J. Jeanneteau, L’Antiphonaire Monastique, in Revue Grégorienne, , pp. –; see Plate , for an example of a response with a great deal of text in the Antiphonal of Solesmes; the St.

Gall neumes have been added by hand above the staves). Dom Gajard

later explained his point of view on modal recitation in the office in Les récitations modales des e et e modes et les manuscrits bénéventains et aquitains in Études Grégoriennes I, Solesmes , pp. – and some  tables of  manuscripts.

After the Second Vatican Council

Ever since the Second Vatican Council, Solesmes has been officially

assigned to oversee the editing and even the printing of Gregorian chant books. Dom Eugène Cardine, professor at the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music in Rome, was first named President of the Coetus XXV, one

of the commissions for the application of the Conciliar Constitution on

412 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

the Sacred Liturgy. Coetus XXV was concerned with Gregorian Chant

and includes a variety of persons, not only Solesmes monks. It is thus

that the Kyriale Simplex appeared in , and, in  the Graduale Simplex for use in small churches, but composed for the most part of short and ancient Antiphons. Several editions of these two books were printed by the Vatican’s Polyglot Press. On the other hand, the Graduale Romanum, the former Vatican Edition, adapted for the new Ordo Cantus Missae of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Ordo Missae in cantu (prefaces and chants for concelebration) were published by Solesmes in  (Gradual) and  (Ordo), as well as the second volume (Tomus Alter) of the Antiphonale Romanum, namely the Liber Hymnarius cum Invitatoriis et aliquibus Responsoriis in . The first volume, which will be more extensive—the reason for issuing the publication in two

volumes—and contains all the other chants of the Liturgia Horarum

(Sundays and Feasts for the A, B, C Years and Ferials for the Years  and

), is in preparation. There are also the Psalterium Monasticum (Solesmes

) and the Missel Grégorien (Sundays and Feasts, Solesmes ). As in the time of Dom Pothier, but with success this time, there was difficulty in including ancient texts which do not correspond to those of the Liturgia Horarum.

All these tasks are carried out in full accord with the Congregation of

Divine Worship, which offers suggestions and gives approval. The Coe-

tus XXV has been in session at Solesmes several times. Msgr. Bugnini

and Msgr. Noé, successive secretaries of the so-called Consilium, came

to the Abbey later. Very soon, a book will appear containing specially

the Passions according to the Neo-Vulgate, and with two melodies as

options. The work was done at Solesmes, but the publication will be is-

sued by the Vatican Polyglot Press.

Since , Solesmes has also been commissioned officially to over-

see the critical editions of the Gregorian chant books requested by the

Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (nos. –). The work is enor-

mous, and the preliminary tasks completed. They comprise hundreds,

and doubtless more, of single sheets and tableaux: forming a basic cal-

endar, the disposition of the Masses, critical literary texts and critical music texts (for this last, there are exactly , tableaux, with  musical lines in staffless neumes or on lines, selected from  ancient Graduals after their variants and genealogical relationships were estab-

lished). Three volumes have already been published, but the continuing

THE VATICAN COMMISSION FROM 1905 TO 1913 413

work requires first, a profound study of the neumes, which was under-

taken by Dom Cardine and continued by other musicologists.

Here is the list of books published so far: Graduel Romain, Edition critique [Roman Gradual, Critical edition] (Solesmes) Part I. Les Sources

[The Sources] (), Part IV, Vol. I, Le Groupement des manuscrits [The Grouping of Manuscripts] (), Vol. II. Les relations généalogiques des manuscrits [The Genealogical Relationships of the Manuscripts] (), all out of print. Then there are the books by René Jean Hesbert: Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex, Vroment , and the six volumes of the Corpus Antiphonalium Officii, Herder, after . Also La Sémiologie Gré-

gorienne [Gregorian Semiology] () by Dom Eugène Cardine, translated into various languages, the Graduale Triplex (), and the volumes of the Études Grégoriennes (Solesmes), especially Volume XV by Dom Jean Claire: Les répertoires liturgiques latins avant l’Octoéchos I. L’Office ferial Romano-franc, [Latin Liturgical Repertoires before the Octoe-chos I. The Franco-Roman Ferial Office], . It is interesting to recall that Dom Mocquereau had undertaken a (semiological) study of the

neumes, the first few pages of Volume III of the Paléographie Musicale—

not for sale—which was interrupted by pressing demands from choir-

masters wishing a deeper study of Gregorian rhythm, since the one

published by Dom Pothier in the Mélodies Grégoriennes was deemed insufficient for practical application.

Conclusion

In the course of this lengthy discussion, we have set forth the facts as impartially as possible. Now, in retrospect, let us take a quick glance at what transpired.

The reform of the chant and the chant books began at Solesmes in

, initiated by Dom Guéranger. Its effects were felt shortly after , or thereabouts, thanks to the work of Dom Jausions and especially of

Dom Pothier, with the collaboration of Gontier.

By publishing the Paléographie Musicale, Dom Mocquereau hoped to prove the authenticity of Dom Pothier’s restorations, whose  Liber Gradualis had elicited lively opposition. At the same time, he hoped to destroy the prestige of the Ratisbon “Medicean” edition, which had en-414 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

joyed official status since . With the help of Father Angelo de Santi and Monsignor Carlo Respighi, Dom Mocquereau forced the adoption

of the reform of liturgical chant undertaken at Solesmes, in Rome it-

self, and throughout the universal Church.

As soon as he became Pope, Pius X joined the cause by giving his

support to the restoration of the sacred chant with the motu proprio of November , , and that of April , , and by creating a Papal

Commission to prepare the Vatican Edition of the liturgical books of

Gregorian chant.

The work of this Commission was impeded by dissension that divid-

ed its members. The first signs of discord surfaced in , as soon as Father de Santi raised the question, in March , of assigning the editorship of the Vatican Edition to the Abbey of Solesmes. The dissension

did not center on the rhythmic indications, which Dom Mocquereau

had already renounced for the official edition, but on the fundamental

principle that would act as a guide in the restitution of the melodies:

should this principle (as Dom Mocquereau conceived it) of adopting a

scientific methodology focus on the evidence of the most ancient man-

uscripts? Or, on the other hand, should this criterion be practical (as

Dom Pothier wished), one that would take into account the musical

preference of modern ears and accept the changes that were made in

the melodies over the centuries as improvements arising from a “living

tradition”?

Given the emotional tension of the situation, the Commission could

not accomplish serious or effective work unless a precise principle could be used to define the melodies, and to indicate a procedure to be followed. Dom Mocquereau and his friends understood this better than

the others, but they could not prevail until an accord could be reached

on the wording of the Regulation indispensable to the future success of

the endeavor. The misunderstanding was irreconcilable: an impasse had

been reached.

The only way out of the dilemma, and of saving the Vatican Edition,

was to be content with using as a model the second edition of the Liber Gradualis, published by Dom Pothier in  (?). The decision to do this was promulgated in a letter from the Cardinal Secretary of State,

dated June , . Father de Santi was not the instigator of the docu-

ment, but had already thought of this as a solution, and he was right in anticipating this decision as the only possible solution.

THE VATICAN COMMISSION FROM 1905 TO 1913 415

In order to exclude Dom Mocquereau, his opponents pretended that

his work was not sufficiently advanced, despite the fact that he had al-

ready presented the Kyriale to the Commission in , that the neumatic tables of the entire Gradual were already finished, and that the melodic charts were already underway. So he could easily have completed the

work in the time allotted. However, the delays that they reproached

him for were merely a pretext for excluding him. In all of this, as often happens, the real cause of the dissension was not a technical matter,

and personality conflicts played a dominant role.

After , the Vatican Commission ceased to function in the form in

which it had been created in , but its work was not interrupted, and the negotiations that continued until  made it quite clear that it was vain to hope for a collaboration between Solesmes and Dom Pothier.

The Commission was formally disbanded toward the end of , actu-

ally at the beginning of .

At that time, a new Commission was formed, which reassigned the

editing task to Solesmes.

Does this mean that the project of the Vatican Edition failed? Cer-

tainly not. In fact, it had some very appreciable positive results. Particularly at Solesmes, it gave rise to labors on a grand scale which will not have been in vain. The crisis which the Commission underwent in 

also led to some fortunate consequences: it settled immediately the

matter of potential criticism that would not have been wanting had the

work been too poorly prepared. Instead, there was rejoicing on all sides when the Kyriale appeared. From then on, the new editors became more diligent, especially Dom Andoyer, a former companion of Dom

Pothier and Dom Mocquereau at Solesmes, whom the Chairman invit-

ed to come to Rome for the preparation of the Vatican Antiphonal. As for the Gradual, did not Dom Pothier himself write to Dom Mocquereau on January ,  that “he had taken a careful note of the

many variants in the Liber Usualis of ”? The number of borrowings taken from that book is estimated at more than two thousand.252

Better than Dom Pothier’s previous editions, the Vatican Edition still

had room for improvement, especially in the area of modality. This can

be noted by comparing the Vatican Antiphonal with the Monastic An-

. T. Laroche, Le Graduel Romain et le Liber Usualis de . Contribution à l’histoire de l’Édition Vaticane (Desclée, n. d.,  p.), taken from the Rassegna Gregoriana  and .

416 THE WORK OF ST. PIUS X

tiphonal published by Solesmes in . It was to bring about improvement of the liturgical chant books, need of which is felt so much today, that the Second Vatican Council asked for an editio magis critica. The post-conciliar Commission on Liturgy confided this critical edition of

the Roman Gradual to Solesmes, where use is made for this purpose of the immense collection of manuscripts which Dom Mocquereau had

previously photographed for the Vatican Edition. The edition by the

Solesmes monks is published by the Libreria Editrice Vaticana, which officially assumes the responsibility for a task at first undertaken by private initiative. Thus, Vatican II continues and follows the work of Pius X.

Looking back over the years, and considering Dom Mocquereau’s in-

tolerance for half-measures, Msgr. Moneta-Caglio wrote in Musica Sacra (, p. ):

If we ask ourselves what Dom Mocquereau would have gained by an attitude of complacent condescension, we would have to recognize that he would have been a thousand times better for it. In those days, when exploration was rife, anyone who wanted to prepare a Gregorian edition had to undertake the project and accept compromises without end. Dom Mocquereau, who refused to

play that game, failed in terms of tactics, but conquered as a strategist, because today he appears to us as the very symbol of fidelity to the manuscripts.

A P P E N D I X I . R E S O L U T I O N S O F T H E

A R E Z Z O C O N G R E S S

[Conclusions and resolutions adopted by the Arezzo Congress Commission

(from the brochure by Dom P. Cagin, Le chant grégorien au Congrès d’Arezzo, Poitiers, Oudin, , pp. –), cf. No. .]

The European Congress, meeting at Arezzo for the purpose of honoring

the memory of Monk Guido, of promoting the improvement of liturgical

chant, after having undertaken its tasks in the spirit of the most filial submission to the Holy See and opened its meetings under the auspices of the Apostolic Blessing, is happy to be able to tender its most unreserved respect for the supreme authority and its complete filial surrender to the fatherly kindness of Him whom Jesus Christ has chosen to rule over His Church.

Having concluded undeniably, not without anguish, that for a long time, in the various parts of Europe, with few exceptions, the sacred chant has been neglected and is in a deplorable condition, a condition that is due to:

. the divergent and incorrect choir books being used in the Churches;

. the difference in modern theoretical works and the variety and paucity of teaching methods in the seminaries as well as in musical organizations;

. the neglect with which the music instructors of our times treat plainchant, among whom are numerous members of the clergy too little concerned about this subject;

. forgetfulness of the true tradition for the good rendition of liturgical chant;

the Congress sets forth the following resolutions:

I. That the choral books in use in the churches should conform as closely as possible to the ancient tradition;

II. That the greatest encouragement be accorded and the widest distribu-

tion be given to studies and theoretical works already done and to be done, which bring light to bear on the masterworks of the liturgical tradition; 417

418 APPENDICES

III. That a suitable place for the study of plainchant be given in the education of the clergy, thus re-establishing and applying with the greatest zeal the canonical instructions on the subject;

IV. That for the performance of plainchant with equal and hammered-out

notes should be substituted the rhythmic rendition that conforms to the principles set forth by Guido d’Arezzo in Chapter  of his Micrologus; V. That to this end, every method of chant shall include the principles of Latin accentuation.

A P P E N D I X I I . B R I E F S A D D R E S S E D T O

D O M P O T H I E R

[Here is the text of the two Briefs addressed to Dom Pothier, to which reference was made in No. . We provide translations of these two documents because it is not easy to gain access to them now, especially the second one, which is rarely cited in the periodicals of the time. The translation of the second Brief is taken from the Musica Sacra of Ghent, May . Finally, remember that the decree Romanorum Pontificum sollicitudo mentioned in the Brief of May , , is dated April , , but that it was not confirmed until April , the date usually given. (These documents are found in F. Romita, Jus Musicae Liturgicae, Rome, , pp. , , I and II.)]

Brief “Redditum Fuit Nobis” of March , 

To our dear son Joseph Pothier, religious of the Order of Saint Benedict, at the monastery of Solesmes, France.

Leo XIII, Pope. Dear son, greeting and Apostolic benediction.

Our venerable brother, Jean-Baptiste Cardinal [Pitra, professed at Solesmes], Bishop of Frascati, has delivered to Us the book of sacred chant which you have published. We have received your homage with pleasure and thanks, and because of the value of the work and also from that which the Very Reverend Cardinal has told us, We know, in fact, dear son, with what intelligence you have applied yourself to interpret and explain the ancient masterpieces of sacred music, and how you have put all your zeal into showing those who cultivate this art the very nature and exact form of these ancient chants, as they were composed in ancient times and which your fathers have preserved with great care. We think, dear son, that in this matter not only are your efforts to be commended in pursuing a work fraught with difficulties and labor, requiring several years of dedicated work, but also your love for the Church of Rome that has inspired you, which has considered it worthy always to hold in high es-419

420 APPENDICES

teem this genre of sacred melodies bearing the name of St. Gregory the Great.

For this reason We keenly desire that Our letters should be a testimony of Our recommendation for the remarkable studies which you have consecrated to the history, the discipline, and the beauty of the sacred chant. We wish to give you this testimonial all the more in that, overcoming the adversities of these evil days, you bravely struggle in the service and for the honor of religion and for the Church (an allusion to the religious persecutions in France). Imploring, then, most clement God to strengthen your courage by the power of His grace, so that His light may shine forth more each day before men, and in the love of the Lord as a pledge of heavenly gifts and in testimony of Our fatherly tender love, we accord you, dear son, and your brothers in the religious life, the Apostolic Benediction.

Given at Rome at St. Peter’s on March , , in the seventh year of Our Pontificate.

Leo XIII, Pope.

Brief (Counter-Brief ) Quamquam Nos of May , 

Leo XIII, Pope. Dear son, greeting and Apostolic Benediction.

Although in the response which we made to your letter of December th

of last year we praised the competence with which you and your brothers have explained and commented on the ancient masterpieces of sacred music, We

were considering the Gradual edited by you solely as a work about the historical science of sacred music and written from the point of view of erudition, and this explains the tone of Our letter; nevertheless, in order to avoid having this letter be the occasion of false interpretation, We have decided, very dear son, to let you know by the Present that in the Letter mentioned above, which We addressed to you, We were not thinking of ignoring what is found in the decree published in virtue of Our authority, April th of last year, by our Congregation of Sacred Rites and beginning with the words Romanorum Pontificum sollicitudo, and that Our intention was not to approve for use in the Sacred Liturgy the Gradual which was offered to us, the same would necessarily have to be submitted to a careful examination by the same Congregation according to the custom of the Apostolic See in similar cases.

Now that this explanation has been given, by which We wish to declare that the force of this decree mentioned above should be full and complete, We accord to you with affection in the Lord, dear son, and to your brothers, as a sign of Our paternal love and as an omen of heavenly protection, the Apostolic Benediction.

Given at Rome at St. Peter’s on May , , in the seventh year of Our Pontificate.

Leo XIII, Pope.

A P P E N D I X I I I . T H E 1 8 9 3 VO T U M O F

C A R D I N A L S A RT O

We must say a little more about the  votum mentioned in sections  and

.

Here is how light gradually came to be shed on this votum, and on its relationship to the motu proprio that Pius X issued on November , .

First, the Revue Grégorienne published a letter sent by Father de Santi to Dom Mocquereau on January , , in which Father de Santi stated that he himself had used this votum of Cardinal Sarto to draw up the motu proprio of November

, , but he failed to mention that he himself was its author (cf. Dom P.

Combe, “Aux sources du Motu Proprio,” Revue Grégorienne , pp. –; cf.

Part , No. ).

In , Msgr. F. Romita, in an anonymous article published in the Bollettino Ceciliano (March–April , pp. –) and in Azione Ceciliana (Rome, Desclée

, p. , note ) confirmed the identical nature of the v otum of  and the motu proprio of  “in their substantial and dispositive portion”. In doing so, in fact, he referred to statements of Father de Santi himself ( Bollettino Ceciliano

, p. ), and to a comparison of the two manuscripts which he had been able to do in person (but at the time, he said nothing of the role played by Father de Santi in writing that document).

It was Msgr. E. Moneta-Caglio who first proved the influence of the writings of Father de Santi on the thinking of Cardinal Sarto in matters of religious music, by means of detailed comparisons and a philological study of the texts.

He proved that Cardinal Sarto’s  Venice Pastoral Letter is a tributary of the writings of Father de Santi, whose involvement is even more evident in the motu proprio: “without wishing to, Father de Santi placed his signature on the wording of the pontifical document” ( Le fonti del motu proprio di S. Pio X, in Musica Sacra, Milan , , , ). Msgr. Moneta-Caglio also deduced that the motu proprio must be a re-working of the  votum.

In , Father F. Bauducco, S.J., of Civiltà Cattolica, published two letters of 421

422 APPENDICES

Cardinal Sarto that furnished proof of what Msgr. Moneta-Caglio had an-

nounced. In the first letter, written from Mantua on July , , Cardinal Sarto asked Father de Santi to prepare a memorandum for him that he said he wanted to repeat word for word and submit to the Congregation of Sacred Rites, in response to a circular letter sent to the bishops of Italy. In the second, also written from Mantua, on July , the Cardinal thanked Father de Santi for the work he accomplished so quickly. Father Bauducco also stated that he knew this votum and was convinced of its total conformity with the motu proprio ( Il P. Angelo de Santi e la fondazione della Scuola Superiore di Musica Sacra in Roma, Civiltà Cattolica, September , , pp. –).

Finally, also in , Msgr. F. Romita’s book was published: La preformazione del motu proprio di S. Pio X sulla Musica sacra (Desclée, Rome ,  pp.). This book published the  votum and explained, furnishing the evidence for the claim, how things had come to pass, using for this purpose, in fact, the three letters mentioned above ( Revue du Chant Grégorien and Civiltà Cattolica). The book also provides various information that could not derive solely from a comparison of the documents (cf. Dom P. Combe, Le Motu Proprio d S. Pie X du

 novembre  : Études historiques, in Études Grégoriennes V, , pp. –).

(Cf. Part , No. .)

A P P E N D I X I V. T R A N S L AT I O N O F T H E

T H E O R I G I N A L I TA L I A N T E X T O F

T H E D O C U M E N T S * R E L AT I N G T O T H E

O R I G I N S O F T H E VAT I C A N C O M M I S S I O N

Letter from Father de Santi to Dom Mocquereau, Civiltà Cattolica, October , 

.l.l. the publication of the Liber Usualis has been announced to us, too, as accomplished. Thank God that we shall finally leave behind the difficulties of the books and shall be able to satisfy the many friends who are requesting them.

Now let us hope that Desclée will not get them to us until after Christmas.l.l.l.

The state of affairs and hence the look of the future appears to be growing more definite. Since the Pope knows the question and decides by himself, he himself thus continues to make clear his ideas without having others suggest them to him. Both to Msgr. Respighi and to me, in the audience that I had on September , the Holy Father has said that he would be displeased if we would simply pass from one monopoly of liturgical books to another. He suggests that the principal dioceses which have good manuscripts should publish them in practical hand editions, thus everywhere resurrecting the ancient melodies. “They will be,” he said, “a bit different amongst themselves in some small parts of the melody, but when all is said and done we will have the traditional chant in every diocese.”

Last Sunday, the Holy Father received Count Lefebvre and he is pleased

with the chant editions which are being prepared by yourself and the Benedictine Fathers. The Pope added that it would be good to publish the choir books also in folio because, he said, in many cathedrals and collegiate churches they

* Note: The original Italian texts are presented in the  French edition of this book.

423

424 APPENDICES

use such books in the large size and the canons would have a rather hard time adapting to smaller hand-held editions.

The same day, the Holy Father also received Mr. Pustet from Ratisbon. His Holiness’ statement was as explicit as could be. He declared that he had no preferences for anyone and that every publisher would be equally favored by him, but he added, “As far as Gregorian Chant is concerned, the Holy Father, Pope Leo XIII, has opened a new horizon, has laid down a new path, and this is the road that must be followed. In the Church’s chant, we must look for truth and art. These two qualities are possessed only by the ancient traditional chant and it is this chant which must now be restored.” Afterwards, he urged Mr.

Pustet to join in publishing books of the traditional chant, taking the melodies, if he wished, from manuscripts of the German dioceses.

I learned all this from the lips of Msgr. Bressan that very evening and it tallies with the notes which exist of this audience, also from other sources. If the Holy Father’s advice be accepted, the race between publishers will be under way. Blest is he who will know how to get out in front first.l.l.l.

Father de Santi to Dom Delatte, Civiltà Cattolica, December , 

Most Reverend Father! Please accept my wishes for the approaching Christmas feast. I write to bring you some news which doubtless will be most consoling to yourself and all your monks. Truth to tell this news is not yet to be made public, but I trust myself to your discretion, since public documents will not confirm it.

During the Christmas holidays, the Holy Father will publish a solemn motu proprio on the restoration of sacred music. In it is taken, at last, the final step in favor of Gregorian chant according to the manuscripts, which is expressed each time the chant is mentioned. This motu proprio is given the force of law as to a juridical code of sacred music which is why the affirmations made regarding Gregorian chant take on an extraordinary significance.

The Holy Father communicates the new document with a very beautiful

letter to the Cardinal Vicar of Rome in which he enjoins in paternal but yet strong terms the observance of his regulations in all the churches and basilicas of Rome. The conclusion is directed to the colleges and seminaries of Rome, and praises Gregorian chant splendidly, recalling its happy restoration through the labors of illustrious personages who have served the cause of sacred art long and well. At the end, he imposes ( enjoins) upon all the institutions at Rome the study of traditional Gregorian chant, expressing a desire that just as in the past this chant had been spread from Rome throughout the Church, so too the young students educated in the seminaries and colleges of Rome might in their turn go back from Rome to their dioceses. As you see, Father Abbot, the

change is total and profound, the return to tradition solemnly affirmed by the APPENDICES 425

Supreme Pontiff in a most weighty document. The formal revocation of the decrees of the Congregation of Rites is a self-evident conclusion and we have requested the Holy Father to add such a declaration to the documents; all the more because in order to avoid an avalanche of requests to the Sacred Congregation it seems necessary to state that the Ratisbon editions can be maintained, in those places where they are being used donec quamprimum fieri poterit—until the earliest possible moment that the traditional chant replaces them.

However, I cannot deny to you that the question of the books is exceedingly important. If a cathedral or collegiate church wishes to introduce the traditional chant, where does one find the texts? The small books we have at present are completely unsatisfactory for great churches, although most useful for seminaries and colleges. In addition the Holy Father complained to Dr. Haberl that these books are rather poorly printed in type which is too small, and he advised Herr Pustet to print the chant in larger type. We earnestly beg you, Father Abbot, to restrain the efforts of the excellent Dom Mocquereau and to order that work be started at once on larger books with larger type, as the Liber Gradualis was originally. The rhythmic signs are certainly excellent for instructional purposes, but since they also present at the very least an occasion for doubt, we earnestly entreat you and beg that for now, in the typical edition of the chant books, such signs be omitted. Otherwise you will never obtain ecclesiastical approval and indeed will furnish a reason for taking other measures if the monks of Solesmes do not agree. It is absolutely necessary that we receive this promise from Solesmes in order thus to assure the Holy Father that we shall have as soon as possible the typical edition of the chant books as he desires them, and in order to reply to the requests which the various dioceses might make as to which books they should buy. I entreat you with the greatest insistence that in the decisions which are taken regarding the chant, you hear also the view of Rome and not leave us in the lurch, ignorant of your undertakings. You will pardon the liberty we are taking, but believe that nothing else motivates us except the desire to see the triumph of a cause for which so much has been endured. Kissing your hand and presenting my humble wishes to you, Father Abbot, and all your dear monks, I repeat that I am your most devoted servant in Christ,

A. de Santi S.J.

426 APPENDICES

Note: In the third paragraph of this letter, the word imposes is written in above the word enjoins , which it replaces.]

Father de Santi to Dom Mocquereau, Civiltà Cattolica, December , 

Very Reverend and dear Father!

At present the pontifical documents will bring some joy to the bitter exile of the good Fathers of Solesmes. Worthily and much sooner than one could have reasonably expected, the Lord has crowned your learned labors. And all of us congratulate you from the very depths of our heart. An explicit mention of Solesmes or at least of the Benedictine order might perhaps have been desirable. We had made that request to the Holy Father, since he had deigned to entrust the revision of the document to a few of us who therefore met together with Father Janssens on the Aventine. But His Holiness replied that it was not needful, that there would be no dearth of opportunity for him to show his pleasure at the work of the Benedictines, but that in documents of this type it was necessary to avoid any personal reference, also in order that there would not be the slightest chance of claiming that the Pope showed any preference for particular publishers. Perhaps it will be good to have Rev. Father Abbot write a letter of thanks to the Holy Father in his name and on behalf of the monks.

However, they should see that they send it through Msgr. Respighi, for otherwise it might run the risk of falling into the dead letter box at the Secretariat of State.

(Preparation of the Feast of St. Gregory the Great)

The Holy Father has complained to Father Haberl that the current editions of Solesmes are too small both as regards the musical type and the print of the texts. We adjure the Fathers of Solesmes (and I have already written this to Father Abbot) that they should set to work at once on the Gregorian typical editions such as they have already done with the Liber Gradualis without dots and rhythmic signs. If a cathedral church asks to introduce the chant desired by the Pope, there is nothing to give them. The current books are the best for seminaries and for parish choirs, but ill-suited for use in a monastic choir.

Father de Santi to Dom Mocquereau, Roma, Ripetta , January , .

Dear Rev. Father!

.l.l. I thank Father Abbot for the very beautiful letter he has written me. He says that matters have gone farther than anyone foresaw. That is also true for us. I will say that without forgetting how all this came about. Early in November the Cardinal Vicar wished to publish a circular letter on musica sacra, to encourage observance of the well-known prescriptions of the Church. When

APPENDICES 427

Msgr. Respighi showed me the printer’s proofs, I thought that one could perhaps do a bit more. I knew very well the memorandum which Cardinal Sarto had sent to the Congregation of Rites in . His pastoral letter based on this memorandum had already been published in . Why would it not be possible to publish also a pontifical motu proprio based on the same text? I proposed this at once to the Holy Father, who deigned to approve the idea and commissioned me to draw up such a document. There was no need to go looking for a copy of the memorandum: I had one in my files. The work was done in a trice; it was merely a matter of adding the prescriptions concerning Gregorian chant.

The letter of the Cardinal Vicar was then written with ideas suggested by the Pope, and all was ready by early December. In view of the approaching Christmas holidays, publication was postponed, with the thought that the unfortunate choirmasters would really be taken completely unawares, and thus unable to have made corrections in such a short time. I also wrote the draft of the decree of the Congregation of Rites and it is now on the Holy Father’s desk and I hope that there will be no obstacle to its publication. The one thing that worried all of us was the matter of the books. It is undeniable that books with dots alone are not enough, and at a time of such radical change it seemed absolutely necessary to avoid any discussion of uncertain or doubtful points. But we trust the monks of Solesmes and we have given assurance of it to the Holy Father as well, and for now we are satisfied with the statements of Father Abbot.

And so the twelve monks working on the books should set to work and give us as quickly as possible the books of medium size, without rhythmic signs. For my part, I recommend as strongly as possible the Gregorian edition with dots, because I believe it most useful in seminaries etc. I only have a few reservations about certain subdivisions which in my view could also be indicated in some other fashion, except of course where it is clear that the manuscripts have it that way, or that mutual comparison of the different melodies requires it. What I myself can in no way accept is an edition in modern notation. But the recounting of the weighty reasons for that would take much too long, and on the other hand it is inappropriate to diminish, with thoughts of this kind, the joy which we all feel at this grandiose victory. Many regards to all, and believe me, yours devoted in the Lord,

de Santi.

Father de Santi to Dom Mocquereau, Roma, Ripetta , February , .

.l.l. With this information I join some more news, communicated last

evening by order of the Holy Father to the representative of the Pustet firm at Rome. It is that no further consideration be given to future editions of the traditional chant, in expectation of the Pope’s decision. The same message should have been communicated to the representative of the Desclée company but he 428 APPENDICES

was out of town last evening and they are awaiting his return. Pustet had sent to the Holy Father a proof sheet containing the Asperges and the Vidi aquam.l.l.l.

.l.l. Several matters of the greatest importance are slowly developing to maturity and as soon as I am able to say something, I shall not neglect to inform you at once. For the moment my lips are sealed. But everything comes down from higher up and all will surely turn out satisfactorily. I ask you to keep this information to yourself, even if it be so sibylline. Come to Rome quickly. Maestro Perosi had even given me the news that you had already arrived; I called San Anselmo at once and was disappointed.

Father de Santi to Dom Mocquereau, Roma, Via di Ripetta , November , 

.l.l. Regarding the events of  there is not much to say beyond that which I have already indicated. Dom Pothier came to Rome without being invited by anyone, but on his own initiative with the intention of proposing to the Holy See an edition under the auspices of the Pope, to appear, if desired, at the expense of the Poussielgue firm at Rome or at Paris, as desired, with the understanding that Poussielgue would publish the edition first, and later other publishers would be permitted to reproduce it. Therefore he came accompanied by an agent of that company. Basically, they wanted to repeat the proposals already made by Védie in . I laid down the explicit condition that the Benedictines of Solesmes would have to take part in the editorial work, and Dom Pothier agreed. Furthermore, I discouraged presentation of the proposal to the Holy Father before knowing Signor Scotti’s opinion on it. It seemed to me that by eliminating the difficulties which could have arisen on the part of subordinates, one might more certainly achieve one’s purpose. And so I spoke with Signor Scotti and he excluded most definitely any interference of Poussielgue, saying that he was ready to publish the edition himself and proposing his plan to separate the publishers from the question of expenses as had been done before. (The agent of Poussielgue departed Rome as soon as he learned of Scotti’s decision.) However, he did raise two questions: ownership of the notation and copyright of the melodies. Dom Pothier said it was unnecessary to worry about the first point; as to the second he declared his readiness to turn over to the Holy See all the rights which he might have had to his labors, adding that certain difficulties might perhaps arise with the French Government, which at that time had confiscated the Solesmes editions. He also added that in order to move ahead without hindrance it would be good to have a statement of renunciation from Solesmes as well for that which was their contribution. At that time I wrote to Pécoul to ask the terms in which the property matters stood at Paris. I had had no connection with Pécoul at all, but after the publication of the Motu proprio on sacred music he had written me a letter of congratulation, and Dom Pothier told me that he was able to do a great deal to prevent govern-APPENDICES 429

ment interference with an edition which one might wish to publish at Rome. I pointed out that Dom Pothier, although he had advised also contacting

Solesmes for the transfer of their property rights, he did not however put the matter as absolutely necessary, at least for the greater part of the work already done. Matters having been settled thus, on the evening of Monday, February

, I reported on all of this to the Holy Father, formally proposing the preparation of a Vatican edition with the cooperation of Dom Pothier and the Benedictines of Solesmes. The Holy Father welcomed the proposal with great pleasure and lavishly praised the plan of Scotti regarding expenses. In the meantime Pécoul began to bombard me with letters, which remained unanswered. Dom

Pothier presented a written declaration transferring to the Holy See all his literary rights, and on the evening of March , Scotti came to me to say that the Holy Father had ordered that a letter be written to the Benedictines of

Solesmes inviting them also to transfer their portion of the copyrights, and to collaborate in the edition. Dom Pothier came to Rome with another monk of his abbey whose name I do not recall. I do remember that he and Dom David spoke to me continually of honoraria which one would have to pay, and of percentages on the edition, be they in compensation for Dom Pothier’s work, or to assist the catastrophic financial state of the abbey. Scotti’s proposal to publish the edition in a way that would not cost the Holy See a penny was not at all to their liking. I spoke of this with the Holy Father, and the Holy Father told me that he could not pay anything, but if it were necessary, that he would gladly meet the expenses which Dom Pothier had to incur because of his stay at

Rome. I think that the original idea of Dom Pothier was to strike a bargain with Poussielgue, putting the Holy See in the middle in order to avoid upsetting Solesmes. But the scheme failed in part [cf. note bis and No. ]. As far as the guidelines for producing the edition were concerned, it was originally proposed to make a good edition based on the earlier one. But when the

monks of Solesmes demonstrated that the copyright was theirs and the Holy Father recognized the need to give them some compensation of honor in return for the transfer of rights by officially declaring them editors of the Vatican Edition, we thought in terms of a criterion more strictly scientific, such as had been proposed in the Motu proprio.

The points made in this letter are very well summarized in a note of Father de Santi also published in  in a journal which we have been unable to identify: Gregorian Chant.

Dom David knows very well these four things: () that the Holy Father did not think at all of publishing a Vatican Edition and therefore could not even have thought of entrusting its execution to Dom Pothier or to anyone else, for 430 APPENDICES

that matter; () that Dom Pothier, without being invited, came to Rome in February , and offered to the Holy Father to make a Vatican edition at the expense of the Poussielgue firm of Paris; () that thanks to an agreement of the director of the Vatican Press, Signor Scotti, there was accepted instead in principle the proposal of a Vatican edition; () that the copyright of the Gregorian melodies published up to that time belonged exclusively to the monastery of Solesmes and that consequently it was impossible to begin anything without the cooperation of those monks, who had generously transferred to the Holy See their rights and had received in return the task of furnishing the manuscript of the Vatican edition. Dom David does not say how it later proved possible to exclude the monks of Solesmes and to place everything into the hands of Dom Pothier, but history will tell.

Msgr. Giovanni Bressan to Dom Delatte, Vatican, March , 

Right Rev. Father!

His Holiness has arrived at the decision to publish at the Vatican Press the edition of liturgical books containing the chant of the Roman Church. This edition, produced under the auspices of the Holy See, will not have restricted copyright but any publisher will be permitted to reprint it as may please him best. The edition will be limited to the typical books alone, such as the Liber Gradualis, the Liber Antiphonarius, the Pontificale, the Ritual, etc.

At the same time His Holiness has deigned to entrust to the Rt. Rev. Father Joseph Pothier, O.S.B., of the Solesmes congregation, presently Abbot of Saint-Wandrille, the honorable task of furnishing the text of the Gregorian melodies and of directing the editorial labors which, prior to being approved by His Holiness, will be diligently examined by persons regarded as more competent in this material, with final revision by the Liturgical Commission for the publication of Gregorian chant books recently established by the same Holy Father.

Rev. Father Pothier, grateful for the honor conferred upon him, has re-

nounced in favor of the Holy See, by a formal declaration and for the sole purpose of the aforementioned edition, all rights and every copyright which he might have in the melodies copied by him from the ancient manuscripts, or adapted, or newly composed, such as have already been published in the

Solesmes edition.

But the Holy Father in his very special predilection for the illustrious order of St. Benedict, recognizing with deep satisfaction the indefatigable labors performed by Benedictine monks in the restoration of the genuine Gregorian

melodies, in particular by the religious of the above-mentioned Abbey of Solesmes, has deigned to order that also in future the editing of the Gregorian liturgical books as well as the composition of any new melodies which may oc-APPENDICES 431

cur in eventual new offices, be always reserved to the Benedictine order and in particular to the monks of Solesmes.

His Holiness does not doubt in the least that you and the monks of your

monastery will only receive with gratitude this act of sovereign benevolence, remembering well how Your Reverence, writing in  to his predecessor Pope Leo XIII of holy memory, placed at the disposition of the Holy See all of your efforts so that they might serve in their way for the greater glory of God and for the good of the Church.

In communicating to Your Reverence these sovereign resolutions, I have the high honor by the express wish of His Holiness, to invite Your Reverence and the monks subject to you to collaborate diligently and skillfully in the work desired, under the guidance and direction of the Rt. Rev. Abbot of St. Wandrille and in accord with the norms indicated above, which will in due time be made public by means of a special pontifical act.

I take this occasion to present to you, Father Abbot, my sentiments of most profound esteem and I sign myself as the most humble servant of Your Reverence

Giovanni Bressan

Private Chamberlain to His Holiness

Msgr. G. Bressan to Dom Delatte, Vatican, April , 

Right Rev. Father!

His Holiness was profoundly moved by the piety and filial devotion, by the spirit of disinterestedness and no small sacrifice, as well as by the marvelous promptness with which Your Reverence accepted the invitation of His Holiness to collaborate in the preparation of a Vatican Edition containing the melodies of the Church and intended for the free use of all the churches throughout the world. The Holy Father has consequently ordered me to manifest his august pleasure to you, with the expression of his gratitude, whilst he wholeheartedly imparts to Your Reverence, to the monks of your monastery, and to their

labors, as also to the entire Congregation of France O.S.B. which Your Reverence so excellently governs, the Apostolic blessing. In fulfilling this pleasing and honorable task, kissing your hand I have the honor to repeat that I am

Your Reverence’s most humble servant

Giovanni Bressan

Private Chamberlain to His Holiness

432 APPENDICES

[ Extracts from  from the diary of Father de Santi published by Msgr. Ernesto Moneta-Caglio in Musica Sacra (Milan), , nos. –, pp. – (Dom André Mocquereau e la restaurazione del Canto Gregoriano. X.).]

January . Dom Lucien David O.S.B. of Saint-Wandrille came to speak with me about the condition of Dom Pothier and about the desolation in which he had been abandoned by the Benedictines of Solesmes. He asks whether a chant edition might be made at Rome. I said what we think about the current

Solesmes books.

January . Audience with the Holy Father in the evening from  until :. A few musical communications. Letters from Dom Pothier and Dom Delatte.

February . Dom Pothier will come to Rome to make a counter-edition to Solesmes. This too!

February . Dom Lucien David comes and tells me that Dom Pothier is coming to Rome shortly. He would like to make his own edition.

February . Dom Pothier arrives and comes to meet me in the evening. The proposal is to make a Vatican edition under his direction. The agent of the Poussielgue firm also comes and the possible methods are discussed. It is decided to draw up a written proposal in which are maintained all due regards to the Benedictines of Solesmes.

February . Dom Pothier returns. He says that the Abbot Primate wishes to take the chant business in hand himself in order to assure it for the Benedictine order in the future too. Dom Pothier remains linked with this and the situation changes. The proposal to the Pope must be made in a different manner.

February . Signor Scotti comes from the Vatican Press. He is ready to produce the edition at Rome and declares that it will be possible to provide for the expenses. In the meantime he wishes to know the details regarding copyright for the notation and the melodies.

February . Audience with the Holy Father. Explanation of the project to print the books at the Vatican. Received magnificently and with a kind of enthusiasm.

February . In the evening Msgr. Bressan tells me of the splendid impression made upon the Holy Father by the proposed edition.

March . I received a letter of appointment to the Commission for the Revision of the Gregorian books. From the terminology used and the notice in the Osservatore Romano it does not appear that the old Commission has been suppressed.

March . Signor Scotti comes. He has spoken with the Holy Father, who told him to commission me with writing the letter to Solesmes and to bring it to him.

March . Audience with the Holy Father. I bring him the draft for Solesmes and he is satisfied with it.

APPENDICES 433

March . Bressan comes and tells me that the letter to Solesmes was sent yesterday.

March . In the afternoon Dom Mocquereau, Dom Cagin, and Dom

Noetinger come. They are aware of some things and I have told them the rest.

The reasons they advance in support of their edition are very weighty and I am impressed by them.

March . Dom Mocquereau comes bringing his comparative charts. In the afternoon Dom Pothier comes and I tell him frankly my views on the changed situation.

March . I was received by the Holy Father and I brought him the draft of the Pontifical decree on the Roman edition.

March . This morning at : I accompanied the Benedictines of Solesmes to the audience with the Holy Father.

March . Dom Guerrin, secretary of Dom Pothier, came and I explained to him the changed circumstances.

March . The Holy Father asked that I come at six in the afternoon. He told me that it had been decided to publish the entire edition at Rome.

April . Meeting of the Roman Commission to discuss the page proofs. We agree on the first paragraphs. But when we get to the point of the editing by Solesmes we reach a deadlock for one reason or another. The gist of it is that Dom Pothier and Dom Janssens do not wish to be present because they are

against Solesmes.

April . In the evening I received a letter from Dom Pothier who complains bitterly about Cagin’s article which appeared in the Rassegna.

April . Signor Scotti comes. He says that there is no choice but to put aside the Benedictines.

April . l.l.l. Msgr. Bressan came. He says that the Holy Father will decide.

Scotti tells me that the Abbot Primate went to the Cardinal Secretary of State who, however, was not favorably inclined toward him.

April . Msgr. Bressan comes. He brings me a nice letter to the Holy Father from the Solesmes monks in which they protest against the intrigues of the Abbot Primate. The letter had not been understood correctly but I explained everything. I promised to betake myself to the Holy Father tomorrow morning.

April . I have been to the Holy Father. He asked my advice and declared that he held fast to the first proposal, which contained his definitive wishes.

Very little love seemed lost on the Abbot Primate. Dom Pothier came all

smiles. Dom Mocquereau also came.

April . The Abbot of Silos came, Dom Guépin. Discussion of matters relating to the chant. He says that peace has been made.

April . Audience with the Holy Father. He charges me with correcting and 434 APPENDICES

arranging the Motu proprio on the Vatican edition, and orders me to give to Scotti his instructions to prepare everything necessary for the edition. I went to the Press and then in the afternoon I corrected the proofs. The Motu proprio bears the date of April . On page  note  of Musica Sacra there is also the date of April . The documents for the edition were explained to the Holy Father on February .

May . Dom Mocquereau came to thank me for all that had been done in favor of Solesmes, and that also in the name of Msgr. Sambuceti, who knows well the affairs of Solesmes.

May . Tomorrow Dom Mocquereau and Dom Cagin leave. I went to greet them this evening with Father Rella. Basically, they are departing well satisfied.

The conversation with Dom Mocquereau was good and useful, and one sees

how knowledgeable he is about the manuscripts.

A P P E N D I X V. B I B L I O G R A P H Y

The major studies on the restoration of Gregorian chant are the articles by Msgr. Moneta-Caglio and Father Bauducco: Msgr. E. Moneta-Caglio, Dom An-dré Mocquereau e la restaurazione del Canto gregoriano, Musica Sacra, Milan,

–; L’attività musicale di S. Pio X, Bollettino Ceciliano, the entire issue of November ;—Father F. Bauducco, s.j., P. Angelo de Santi, s.j., e la fondazione della Scuola Superiore di Musica Sacra in Roma, Civiltà Cattolica, , , –; Il P. Angelo de Santi, s.j., e l’edizione vaticana dei libri gregoriani dal  al , Civiltà Cattolica, , I, –; Il Padre Angelo de Santi s.j., e la questione dei “segni ritmici” dal  al , Bollettino Ceciliano, , –; Il P. A. de Santi (da un carteggio col Maestro L. Bottazzo), Civiltà Cattolica, , , –.

Msgr. Moneta-Caglio was the first to approach the subject, publishing a series of articles on Dom Mocquereau and the Gregorian restoration in the Musica Sacra of Milan (of course with regard to Dom Mocquereau, he covers the entire history of the restoration). Several chapters are devoted to the Vatican edition. Moneta-Caglio relies on the Journal of Father de Santi, and the correspondence between Father Baralli and Dom Mocquereau. (Father de Santi’s

Journal is published in this book as Appendix IV.) There is also a substantial bibliography, in addition to that study’s extensive notes. As for the events of , we must point out two omissions. First, the letter from Msgr. Bressan dated March , , to Dom Delatte, which asks the Abbot of Solesmes not only for permission to use the Abbey’s earlier Gregorian editions, but also to work with Dom Pothier in editing the Vatican edition (cf. Part , No. ). Secondly, Msgr.

Moneta-Caglio does not discuss the Brief of May , , sent to Dom Delatte.

Yet Father de Santi had wanted that Brief in order to consolidate Solesmes’ position within the Vatican Commission (Part , No. ).

Msgr. Moneta-Caglio’s work goes up to , after the dispersing of the Vatican Commission, but in a later article on L’attività musicale di S. Pio X, pp.

–, he speaks briefly about the circumstances that led Pius X to entrust the Vatican edition to Solesmes once again, in .

Father Bauducco’s account of the Vatican edition goes up to . It is much shorter than Msgr. Moneta-Caglio’s work. In addition to de Santi’s Journal, he 435

436 APPENDICES

draws on a number of other writings by Father de Santi, including some items kept in the private archives of the Vatican. In his article on the rhythmic indications, Father Bauducco outlines the role that Father de Santi played in reaching a peaceful solution to the issue. Father de Santi’s role in the negotiations that led to the creation of the Vatican Commission has been presented above. In practical terms, it was also Father de Santi who convinced Pius X to grant Solesmes the authorization to continue publishing its rhythmic editions, in recognition of the sacrifices it had made for the Holy See. This helps explain why Father de Santi viewed the peaceful solution to the issue of rhythm as an equitable one. As Father Bauducco explains, Father de Santi gradually changed his mind about this and defended the rhythmic editions from the scientific perspective as well, whereas initially, he saw them merely as practical aids. Father Bauducco emphasizes the role played by Dom L. David in this unfortunate

quarrel, and it is clear from his account that Father de Santi was very harsh toward those who opposed the rhythmic editions and toward the way in which they proceeded.

 . Graduale Romanum, Pustet edition (Regensburg ). The

Gradual of the First Sunday in Advent, Universi: comparison with Plates ,

, and  reveals the mutilation of the melody.

 . Directorium Chori, Solesmes (Rennes: Vatar, ). The first

book of the Gregorian restoration. The traditional neumes are rediscov-

ered.

 . Liber Gradualis of Solesmes/Dom Pothier (Desclee ). The

Advent Gradual Universi as restored.

440 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

 . Memorandum of Dom Delatte to Pope Leo XIII (Solesmes ),

page , dexcribing the purpose of the Paleographie Musicale

DOM GUERANGER’S RATIONALE 441

    ‒               

Its purpose was: (a) to study Gregorian chant in all its aspects; (b) to demonstrate by stating the palaeographical and historical facts that Gregorian chant, for sixteen centuries the traditional song of the Roman Church, is preserved intact and free of any alteration, in the manuscripts of all countries and historical periods; (c) to prove by the study and decipherment of the neumatic notation, that it is possible to read the manuscripts, and to demonstrate the soundness of the rules for performance proposed by the Mélodies Grégoriennes of Dom Joseph Pothier; (d) to furnish scholars who wish to verify our claims, a monumental collection of musico-liturgical palaeography analogous to the great collections available for epigraphy, numismatics, archaeology, etc.

In order to make it plain that we were the submissive sons of the Holy See, and that we have undertaken this enormous effort solely for the honor and glory of Holy Church, we have fixed our gaze upon her august Head, and at this moment, Most Holy Father, you have deigned to bless our work and accept it as a gift.

Within the Paléographie musicale one can distinguish the documents in phototype, and the accompanying explanatory text.

The Documents in Phototype

The First Volume published was an Antiphonale Missarum of  quarto

pages from the library of the Abbey of St. Gall, which received the Roman chant directly from Rome around  .. Comparison of this MS. with our Liber Gradualis proved that we had reprinted, note for note and group for group, the true and genuine melodies of the Roman Church.

It seems that such a completely conclusive proof should have convinced

even the most obstinate; but it was in vain! The opponents of Tradition pretended that a single MS. meant nothing, and that in addition, the MSS. scattered throughout the whole world did not agree with each other. Hence because of these differences, the restoration of true Gregorian chant was impossible.

441

DOM GUERANGER’S RATIONALE 442

 . Liber Gradualis, Editio Vaticana (Rome ). The Advent

Gradual Universi: melody and notation identical with  .

DOM GUERANGER’S RATIONALE 443

 . Gradual, Vatican Edition, with rhythmic signs of Dom Moc-

quereau (Desclée ). The neumes of St. Gall have been added by hand

above the staves: the Advent Gradual Universi in a notation which more accurately conveys the nuances of the manuscripts.

444 THE GREGORIAN REFORM AT SOLESMES

 . Alleluja “Ostende nobis” as an example of the melodic (and rhythmic) restoration which had been prepared at Solesmes in preparation for the Vatican Edition. – This table gives only the first part of a folding chart published by Dom Mocquereau in “The rhythmic tradition in the manuscripts” = Gregorian Monographs  (Desclée ). Of course, this chart lists only a small number of the manuscripts transcribed for each piece of the repertory.

DOM GUERANGER’S RATIONALE 445

 . Antiphonale Monasticum of Solesmes/Dom Gajard (Des-

clée ). The responsory Vidi speciosam, a “prolix” or longer responsory from First Vespers of the Assumption, with the St. Gall neumes

added by hand above the staves.

DOM GUERANGER’S RATIONALE 446

I N D E X

Since the chief characters in this documentary narrative are named so frequently, and in view of the fact that the detailed descriptive Table of Contents is arranged chronologically, the reader will not be greatly inconvenienced by the omission of personal names such as Guéranger, Pothier, Mocquereau, and de Santi from the Index, which includes many of the important personalities mentioned in the Text, as well as major documents, chant books, and journals frequently cited.

Andoyer, Dom Raphael, xxiii, , , n,

Dioceses of Rheims and Cambrai

n, , , , , , , 

(), ; of the Mass (Codex ) ; of

Antiphonal(s), , , , , –, , ,

the Mass, tenth or eleventh centuries,

, , , , , , ; Am-

Einsieldeln (Codex ), ; Paris, ;

brosian, (additional codex   of the

sent by St. Gregory to Metz, n, n;

British Museum), , ; Antiphonale

Supplementum ad Graduale et Antiphonar-

Missarum Sextuplex, ; Antiphonale

ium, ; twelfth-century, ; Vatican,

Monasticum, ; Antiphonale Officii

, –, n, 

monastici, tenth-century, of Blessed

Hartker, ; Antiphonale Romanum,

Baptiste, Reverend L., n, , , n, , ,

Roman Antiphonal, xi, , ,  ;

n, , , , , , , n, , , ,

Antiphonale Solesmense, Antiphonal of

, , , , –, , , n, 

Solesmes, ; Antiphonale tonale Mis-

Bas, Guilio, , , n, , n, n,

sarum (Codex H. ), n, ; four-

, , , , , 

teenth-century, ; in the library at

Bauducco, S.J., Reverend F. M., n, ,

Laon, ; Liber Antiphonarius, , ,

, , , , , , n, , ,

, , , , , ; Medicean, ;

, n, , , –

Monastic, , , , , –;

Bellaigue, Camille, , n, n, , 

Monastic, of , n, ; Montpelier,

Benedictiones Mensae, , 

; of Blessed Hartker, , ; of Clair-

Bressan, Monsignor Giovanni, , –,

vaux, ; of Compiègne, ; of Danjou,

, , , , , n, , ,

; of Dijon, ; of Lambilotte (), ;

, , , , , , , , ,

of Metz, ; of Pustet, ; of Sainte-

, n, , , , , , , ,

Geneviève, Beauvais, , ; of St. Gre-

n, , , , , , , , ,

gory, ; of St. Maur, n, ; of the



447

448 INDEX

Cabrol, Dom Fernand, , , , n,

n, n, n, n, n, n, n,

, n, , , n, , , , ,

n, , , 

, , , , , , , , , ,

Ex quo tempore, , , , , , ,

n, , , 

, 

Cagin, Dom Paul, n, , n, n, n,

n, , n, , , , , , ,

Gajard, Dom Joseph, xix, xxiii, (), ,

, , , , , , , , ,

, n, 

, n, , , n, , , ,

Gastoué, Professor Amédée, n, , ,

, , , , , , , , ,

n, , , , , , , , ,

, n, , , , , , ,

, , , , , , , , ,

n, , , , , , , , ,

, n, , 

, , 

Gontier, Reverend Augustin-Mathurin, xii,

Couturier, Dom, , , , , , n, ,

, n, n, , n, n, n, , , ,

, , , , n, , , , ,

, n, , –, , n, , n, , ,

, , 

, , , , n, , , , , , ,

, , n, , , , , , n, , ,

David, Dom Lucien, n, n, , n, n,

, , n, , , , , , , , 

, n, n, , , , n, n, n, n,

Gradual(s), Graduale, , , n, , , ,

n, , n, n, , , , , ,

, , , , –, , , , , , ,

, , , n, , , , , ,

, , , , , , n, , , , ,

, , , , , 

, , , , , , , , ,

Delatte, Dom Paul, , n, , n, ,

, , , , , , , , ,

, , , , , , , , n,

n, , , , ; Ambrosian, ;

, , , , , , , , ,

at St. Peter’s, ; combined manu-

, –, , , , , ,

scripts – (twelfth century), ; Di-

–, , , , , , , ,

jon Gradual, ; from Rheims, ; from

, , n, , , , n, ,

tenth and twelfth centuries, ; Grad-

, , , , , , , , ,

uale Romanum (), xi; Graduale Ro-

, 

manum (), xi; Graduale-Romano, Nuo-

Desclée, n, n, n, , , , , n,

vo studio su Giovanni Pier Luigi da

n, , n, , n, n, n,

Palestrina e l’emendazione del, n, n;

, , , n, , n, , n,

Graduale Romano-Monasticum, of

, , , n, , , , ,

Nivers, ; Graduale Romanum, ; Grad-

, , n, n, n, , ,

uale Romanum Officiale, n; Graduale

n, , , n, , , , n,

Simplex, xi, ; Graduale Triplex (),

, , , , n, , , ,

; Gradual Universi, , ; Gradual

, , , , n, , , ,

Universi according to the Ratisbon edi-



tion, ; Gradual Universi according to

Directorium Chori, , , , , , , , ,

the Solesmes edition, ; Gradual Uni-

, , , , n, , n, , , , ,

versi in the Vatican Gradual, ; Graduel

, n, , , , , 

Romain, Edition critique,  Liber Grad-

uale of Solesmes, , ; Liber Gradu-

Ehrle, S.J., Father H., , , , , ,

alis, , , , , , , , , ,

–, , , , 

, , , , n, , , , ,

Études Grégoriennes, xvi, xxiv, xxvii, , ,

, n, , , , , , , ,

INDEX 449

; Liber Gradualis (), –, –;

, , , , , , , n, ,

Liber Gradualis in the library at St. Gall,

, , , , , n, , , ,

; Liber Gradualis of  (of Dom

, , , , , , , n, ,

Pothier), –, –, , , , ,

, , , 

, , , , , , , , ,

Jausions, Dom Paul,  , , –, , , ,

, n, n, , , , , ,

–, , , , n, , , n, , ,

, , , ; Liber Gradualis of 

, , –, , , , , , , , ,

(of Dom Pothier), , , ; Liber

n, , , , , , , –, , ,

Gradualis () , , ; Liber Grad-

, , , , , , , , 

ualis of St. Gregory the Great,  ( a S.

Gregorio Magno, n); Lyons Gradual, ;

Kanzler, Baron Rudolf, , , , ,

Medicean Gradual (Graduale . . . cum

, , , n, , , , ,

Cantu Pauli V, Pont. Max., jussu reforma-

, , , , , n, , , ,

to), ; Medicean, after Venice, ;



manuscript  () of Angers; of ,

Kyriale, , , , , , , , ,

–; of n; of Clairvaux; of Lam-

, ; Animadversiones in, –, ;

billotte of , ; of Solesmes (),

appendix to, ; of , ; Kyriale

; of the Dioceses of Rheims and

Simplex, ; Observations concerning,

Cambrai of , , ; of the Vatican

; Résumé des principales observations,

(Manuscript ), ; Paris, ; Respon-

; rhythmic edition, ; Solesmes

sory Justus ut palma, , , ; Pref-

(), ; “the ancient,” , n;

ace of, ; Roman, ; Roman, begun

Solesmes, ; Vatican Commission

by Palestrina, ; Roman, from Maine,

(), xi, , , , , , ,

–; Solesmes Liber Gradualis, , ;

–, , , , , , , ,

Solesmes Gradual, , , , , ;

, , , , –, , ; Wagn-

Supplementum ad Graduale et An-

er’s statement concerning, 

tiphonarium, ; twelfth-century, ;

Vatican, , ; Vatican (), Preface

Lambillotte, Father, , n, , n, n, ,

to, xx

n, , , , , , 

Grisar, S.J., Father, , , , n, ,

Le Nombre Musicale Grégorien; xiii, n, 

, , , n, 

Lefebvre, Count, , , , n, 

Leo XIII, Pope, , , , , , (),

Haberl, Monsignor Franz X., , n, ,

, , , , , (), , , ,

n, , , n, –, n, ,

, , , , , , , , ,

, , , , , , n, , ,

, , , , , , , , 



Liber Usualis, , , , , , , ,

Holly, Father Norman, n, , , ,

, , , , , , , n, ,

, , n, –, , , , ,

n, 

, , n, , , , , , ,



Mélodies Grégoriennes, xii, xiii, , –,

–, , n, –, , , , , ,

Janssens, Dom Laurent, , n, , ,

, , , , n, , , , ,

, n, , , , n, n, ,

Mercati, Don Giovanni, , , , ,

, n, , , , , , , ,

, , , , –, , , ,

, , , , , n, , ,

, 

450 INDEX

Merry del Val, Cardinal, , , n, ,

Motu proprio Quanta semper, January ,

, , , , , ,

, 

Method, Method(s), Méthode, xvii, xxv, n,

Motu proprio Tra le sollecitudini  Novem-

, , n, , , , , , , , , ,

ber , see Motu proprio  November

, , , , , , n, , , , ,



, , , ; Gonthier’s Méthode

Raísonnée, n, , –, n, , n,

Nos quidem, , n, , , , , ,

, n; methods of restoration, work-

, , 

ing methods, , , , , , ,

, , , n, , , , , ,

Paléographie Musicale, xii, xxiii, , , , ,

, ; of Baptiste, n, –; of

, , –, , , n, , , ,

Bonuzzi, ; of Cloët, n; of de Santi,

, , –, n, , , , ,

–, , ; of Dechevrens, ; of

, , , , , , , ,

Gamberini, ; of Gontier, , , ,

n, , , 

, , , , , , , , ; of Guido

Paroissien Romain, , , n, , n

d’Arezzo, ; of Lambillotte, ; of

Pécoul, A., , , , , , , ,

Mocquereau, , , , , , ,

, , n, , , , n, ,

, , , ; of Schmitt, ; of

n, , , n, , , 

Solesmes (of Jausions/ Pothier), , ,

Perosi, Dom Lorenzo, , –, –,

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

, n, , n, , , , ,

, , , , , n, , , , , ,

n, , , , n, , , ,

, , , , , n, , n, ;

, , , , , , 

Rheims, 

Pitra, Cardinal Jean-Baptiste, , , n, ,

Moneta-Caglio, Monsignor Ernesto, n,

, , , , , 

n, , n, n, n, , n, ,

Pius X, Pope, xix, xxi, , , , , , , ,

n, n, n, n, n, n, ,

n, , n, n, , –, ,

n, n, , n, , n, n,

, , 

n, , n, n, , , n,

Pontificale, , , n, , , ,

n, n, , n, n, , ,



n, , n, , , n, n, ,

Pontificale Romanum, , n, n

, n, , , , , n, ,

(camarale), , , , n, , n

, , , 

Poussielgue, Charles, , , , , ,

Motu proprio  November , xx, xxi, ,

, , , , , , , , ,

, , , –, , , ,

, , , , , , , , ,

–, , , , , , , n,

, , 

,  n, n, , , , ,

Processional Antiphons, 

, , 

Processional(s), , n, n, n, , ;

Motu proprio  April , xxi, xxii, ,

English, of St. Edith of Wilton, –,

, , , , , –, , ,

n, ; Lithographed, ; Monastic,

, , , , , , n, ,

; Processional Monasticum, ;

, , , ,  , , , ,

Rollington, 

, , , , , , , , ,

Pustet, , , , , , , , n, ,

, , , , , , , , ,

, n, , , n, , , , ,

, , , , , , , , ,

, , , , , , , n, n,



, , , , , , , , ,

INDEX 451

, , , , , , , , ,

–, n, n, n, n, n,

, 

n, n, , n, n, n, ,

, n, , , , n, , n,

Quamquam nos, 

n, , , , 

Quod Sanctus Augustinus, , , n

Revue Grégorienne, , , , , n, n,

, n, , n, , , , n,

Rampolla, Cardinal, , , , , ,

, , , , , , n, , ,

n, , , , , , 

n, , , , , , 

Rassegna Gregoriana, n, n, , , ,

Romanorum Pontificum sollicitudo; , ,

n, n, –, , n, , ,

, , , 

n, , n, n, n, n, n,

Romita, Monsignor F., , n, , n,

n, , n, n, n, n, n,

n, n, n, n, n, n, ,

, n, n, n, , , , ,

, , , 

, n, , , , , , , ,

Rousseau, Abbé N., , , , n, n, ,

, n, , , , n, n, ,

, , n, , , , , , ,

, , , n, , , n, 



Redditum fuit nobis, –

Respighi, Monsignor Carlo, , , –,

Sarto, Cardinal, –, , n, , ,

, n, , , , , , , ,

n, , , , , , –, 

n, , , , , , , , ,

, , , , , , , , ,

Variae preces, n, , , n, 

, , n, , , , , ,

n, , , , , , , , ,

Wagner, Dr. Peter, , , , , ,

, , , , n, , , , ,

, , , , , , , ,

, , , , , , , 

, , , , , , , , n,

Revue du Chant Grégorien, n, n, n, ,

, , , , , , , , ,

, n, n, , n, , , ,

, , , , , , , , ,

n, n, n, n, n, n, ,

n, , 

The Restoration of Gregorian Chant: Solesmes and the Vatican Edition was designed and composed in Monotype Dante with Bitstream Engravers Old English display type by Kachergis Book Design, Pittsboro, North Carolina; and printed on -pound Glat-felter Natural and bound by Edwards Brothers, Lillington, North Carolina.

Document Outline

- Contents

- Introduction

- Translators’ Note

- The Restoration of Gregorian Chant

- Foreword

- List of Plates

- One. The Gregorian Reform at Solesmes

- I. Dom Guéranger’s Rationale

- II. Period of Preparation

- III. The First Publications

- Two. The Vatican Edition

- A. Preliminaries of the Gregorian Reform under Leo XIII

- I. Dom André Mocquereau and the Paléographie Musicale

- II. Father de Santi and Monsignor Carlo Respighi

- B. The Work of St. Pius X

- III. The New Legislation of Pius X

- IV. The Meetings of the Commission Held in 1904

- V. The Meetings of the Commission Held in 1905

- VI. The Vatican Commission from 1905 to 1913

- Conclusion

- Appendix I: Resolutions of the Arezzo Congress

- Appendix II: Briefs Addressed to Dom Pothier

- Appendix III: The 1893 Votum of Cardinal Sarto

- Appendix IV: Translation of the Original Italian Text of the Documents Relating to the Origins of the Vatican Commission

- Appendix V: Bibliography

- Plates 4-11

- Index

Table of Contents

Contents

Introduction

Translators’ Note

The Restoration of Gregorian Chant

Foreword

List of Plates

One. The Gregorian Reform at Solesmes

I. Dom Guéranger’s Rationale

II. Period of Preparation

III. The First Publications

Two. The Vatican Edition

A. Preliminaries of the Gregorian Reform under Leo XIII

I. Dom André Mocquereau and the Paléographie Musicale

II. Father de Santi and Monsignor Carlo Respighi

B. The Work of St. Pius X

III. The New Legislation of Pius X

IV. The Meetings of the Commission Held in 1904

V. The Meetings of the Commission Held in 1905

VI. The Vatican Commission from 1905 to 1913

Conclusion

Appendix I: Resolutions of the Arezzo Congress

Appendix II: Briefs Addressed to Dom Pothier

Appendix III: The 1893 Votum of Cardinal Sarto

Appendix IV: Translation of the Original Italian Text of the Documents Relating to the Origins of th

Appendix V: Bibliography

Plates 4-11

Index

Table of Contents

Contents

Introduction

Translators’ Note

The Restoration of Gregorian Chant

Foreword

List of Plates

One. The Gregorian Reform at Solesmes

I. Dom Guéranger’s Rationale

II. Period of Preparation

III. The First Publications

Two. The Vatican Edition

A. Preliminaries of the Gregorian Reform under Leo XIII

I. Dom André Mocquereau and the Paléographie Musicale

II. Father de Santi and Monsignor Carlo Respighi

B. The Work of St. Pius X

III. The New Legislation of Pius X

IV. The Meetings of the Commission Held in 1904

V. The Meetings of the Commission Held in 1905

VI. The Vatican Commission from 1905 to 1913

Conclusion

Appendix I: Resolutions of the Arezzo Congress

Appendix II: Briefs Addressed to Dom Pothier

Appendix III: The 1893 Votum of Cardinal Sarto

Appendix IV: Translation of the Original Italian Text of the Documents Relating to the Origins of th

Appendix V: Bibliography

Plates 4-11

Index