This Gradual ("Pontifex sacerdos") is from the Missa pro eligendo Summo Pontifice. It is not included in some collections (e.g. the 1903 Solesmes Liber Usualis). However, it was included because certain phrases are so instructive.

COMPARISON PANORAMA 4G — "Magnus"

PAN 4G illustrates the problems with interpretation of morae, even when there is concensus as to where they are located. Specifically, it is a question of whether only the last note is held. Note that here we are not concerned with a two-note neum, because in that case both notes are almost universally lengthened 1.5.

PAN 4G shows us that Mathias (at least in this case) lengthens both notes. Mocquereau lengthens only the last note. Neither the A.Noh nor the Schwann edition specifies which notes the mora affects. The Pothier 1895 is just exactly like the "pure" Vaticana: it leaves the interpretation to the singer.

COMPARISON PANORAMA 5G — "Suos"

PAN 5G seems to indicate a Vaticana printing error. Evidently, the space required for a mora vocis on FA did not make it from Pothier's 1895 version to the Vaticana. If PAN 5G leaves any doubt about this, roll your mouse over EX [1]:

EX [1] PUSTET 1911 ("pure and unadulterated" copy of the Vaticana)

. . . and you will see that there is not the width of a notehead between FA and TA.

Nonetheless, as PAN 5G shows, Mocquereau, the Schwann editors, and Mathias treat it as a mora vocis. In this instance, then (assuming that it was not a printing error) the A.Noh is the only edition to accurately follow the Vaticana, since they mark no mora here.

However, as I have said, I believe this was a printing error. First of all, we saw in PAN 5G that Pothier had originally intended a mora. However, more importantly, the Vaticana contains many A.CRC's to this Gradual 1.9.

COMPARISON PANORAMA 6G — "Ecce"

PAN 6G contains various editions of the Gradual "Ecce sacerdos," which is an A.CRC to the Gradual "Pontifex." The same figure shown in PAN 5G is now printed with the correct "space," and every single editor places the mora accordingly. Out of many such A.CRC's, one more will have to suffice:

EX [2] SOLESMES 1921   ("Rhythmic" edition   of the Vaticana)  Gradual "Exiit sermo"

By dragging your mouse over the red triangle you will see that the correct amount of "space" exists (equal or more than one notehead) for there to be a mora vocis.

Therefore, by placing the dot there, Solesmes was acting in accordance with the rhythm of the Vaticana. However, as noted before, there are many instances where Solesmes places marks not in accordance with the Vaticana, because of the particular desires of Mocquereau. Briefly stated, Solesmes places their rhythmic markings for two reasons:

(1) Sometimes the markings reflect rhythmic symbols found in certain ancient manuscripts.

(2) Sometimes the markings were added because Dom Mocquereau felt that the melody should go that way.

However, what is interesting is that Mocquereau often had to bend over backwards to place his rhythmic marks, because remember, no one was allowed to change the spacing in the Vaticana. That is, even if rhythmic signs were added to the text, the essential form of the Vaticana could under no circumstances be changed. That means that even if Mocquereau wanted to place rhythmic signs in certain figures it was impossible for him to do so. Say, for example, that Mocquereau wanted dots after the podatus in EX [2] (the large blue arrow points to the podatus in question). It would be impossible! There is not enough space to mark them, especially since most of the Solesmes publications were printed in very small type.

EX [3] is taken from the same Gradual ("Exiit sermo") and illustrates Mocquereau's dilemma so very well:

EX [3]

If Mocquereau had only followed the Vaticana rhythm in EX [3], he would have had a much easier time placing his marks! Solesmes even admitted this problem when speaking of the salicus. That is to say, as the Mocquereau's school progressed, they began to lengthen the second note of a salicus. Solesmes has admitted that they would have preferred to simply mark a horizontal episema under the second note "were it not for the difficulty of writing it" 2.3. By rolling your mouse over EX [3] you will see that it would, indeed, have been difficult and confusing to place a horizontal episema under the second note of the salicus (remembering that the Solesmes publications were usually printed in very small type). Not only that, but this particular salicus is easier than most to place a horizontal episema underneath, since the average salicus does not skip up a third. Imagine, therefore, the difficulty in writing a horizontal episema underneath the normal Solesmes salicus:

The normal Solesmes Salicus :

N.B. The salicus (and the Solesmes misunderstanding of the salicus) is treated elsewhere in these essays.

Now, let us examine another section of the Gradual "Pontifex sacerdos." EX [4] gives the version as it is found in the Pustet 1911 Graduale, which is an unaltered copy of the Vaticana published by the Vatican Press in Rome.

EX [4]

EX [4] will serve as our "Vaticana frame of reference." However, we shall see that it may contain a misprint!

COMPARISON PANORAMA 7G

Comparing EX [4] with PAN 7G, the first thing we notice is that numbers 1 - 3 were all originally lengthened in Pothier's 1895 version (whether by morae or by a bar). However, the mora vocis on the virga above the syllable "um" in Pothier's 1895 version became a quarter bar in the Vaticana (viz. no. 1 in the yellow circle above). This much is certain.

However, nothing else about this passage is certain! The easiest way to see this is simply to graph out what each editor does:

Pustet 1911: leaves absolutely no "space" between the notes in numbers 2 - 3.

Schwann 1953: prints no "space" between no. 2, but does print "space" between no. 3. The editors inexplicably give none of their usual editorial signs to help determine the morae.

Mocquereau (Solesmes) 1961: leaves "space" between numbers 2 - 3, yet considers neither of them to be morae.

Mathias 1912: considers there to be no mora on no. 2, but does consider there to be a mora on no. 3.

A.Noh 1940's: does not consider there to be any morae on numbers 2-3.

The reader can draw his own conclusions about the above passage. It really could not be any more confusing.

PAN 7G illustrates something else, though, besides the confusion that results when editors misprint the "space" required by the Vaticana printing rules. It will be recalled that the 1906 injunction to printers of the Vaticana stipulated that:

"In order to estimate the space to be left between two groups, the latter of which is to be carried over to the next line, one must reckon the space between the former group and the guide." 2.9

So, we notice just such a case in the Schwann edition of PAN 7G. The "guide" referred to in the 1906 injunction is also called the custos 3.1.

This is remarkable because it shows to a high degree just how impractical it is to reckon morae by blank space left in between notes! That is to say, in a case like this, not only does one have to have excellent eyes in order to reckon the "space equal to a notehead" between the last note on the line and the custos, but one also has to look ahead, and make sure that the next line does not start a new syllable, because, as we remember, there can be no mora vocis when a new syllable starts 3.5. Therefore, the whole purpose of the custos is defeated, because, using Pothier's system, one has to look ahead anyway! We note, then, that the Schwann editors did mark a mora between the last note on the line and the custos in PAN 7G. Ex [5] shows two cases where there would not be a mora (because a new syllable starts on the next line):

Ex [5]

It should be noted that most of the time editors do not fool around with the "reckoning the space between the final note and custos." Ninety-nine percent of the time they simply avoid the problem by making sure to end the line with a bar line, or to begin the next line with a change of syllable (or, for that matter, a new word).

Getting back to Ex [4], it is tempting to think that the problem of no. 3 (in the green star) can be completely solved by looking at a few similar phrases (from A.CRC's). These smiliar phrases (provided in the panoramas below) show that Pothier often wanted a mora vocis at spots like these. Furthermore, for the sake of curiosity, two other early chant editions are often given alongside Pothier's, which show that Pothier's mora only sometimes agrees with pauses marked in these other editions.

COMPARISON PAN 8G — (Gradual for the Fourth Sunday of Advent)

COMPARISON PAN 9G — (Gradual for the Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost)

COMPARISON PANORAMA 10c — (Gradual for Easter Sunday)

COMPARISON PANORAMA 10d — (Gradual for June 15)

However tempting it is to believe this, more doubt is cast on Ex [4] when we consider the three phrases from the Gradual "Vindica, Domine" (see PAN 11c - 13c).

COMPARISON PANORAMA 11c — "Vindica, Domine" [1]

COMPARISON PANORAMA 12c — "Vindica, Domine" [2]

COMPARISON PANORAMA 13c — "Vindica, Domine" [3]

keep going with Pontifex 4, right? I guess so. Maybe start a new page.