The specimen being examined is the Tract "Qui habitat" (from the first Sunday in Lent). For a Panorama, please click on the above link. We take the "pure" Vaticana as published by the Vatican Press (in 1908) as our model:
The mora vocis being considered here is the one which should be applied to the pes (or podatus) starting on the syllable of "tat" of the word "habitat." The notes are DO and RE. We can tell this is a mora vocis because there is a space at least as wide as a single notehead between the neums. For the sake of clarity I have outlined this all-important "space" in red. It will be remembered that the "space" rule only applies to melismas; this is why the "space" outlined by orange and blue do not count.
To be absolutely clear about which notes the mora applies to, I have circled them in red. It may be asked:
"Why does the mora in this case affect two notes, and not just the final note? In other words, why does it affect both DO and RE, and not just RE, since this is actually the final note: the mora ultima vocis?"
|
 |
This question will be treated in depth in another essay, but here I can only say that (for whatever reason!) most authors apply the mora to both notes when the mora is found after a two note neum.
Now let us see how various Gregorianists treat this mora.
The 1953
Schwann |
 |
The 1917 Schwann  |
|
I have drawn attention to this mora in the 1953 Schwann edition by means of a red arrow. It will be remembered that the Schwann is based on the Vaticana, and hence the precise spacing of the printed notes is not optional (as it is, for example, in the modern notation editions, or [theoretically] in the Mocquereau 1903 Liber Usualis).
With regards to this mora, the Schwann editions (both in 1917 and 1953) accurately and precisely follow the authentic rhythm of the Vaticana. That is, the Schwann editors of 1953 chose to add a small bar below the staff when they thought there was danger of the singer missing the mora 1.5. And, in the 1917 version, they put small "tenuto" bars over the notes affected by the mora.
Inexplicably, two other editions which normally follow the Vaticana rhythm completely miss this mora!
The A.Noh always marks the morae by means of a dot (except for morae that come before barlines: these go unmarked). As noted above, there is no explanation for their omission in this instance. Nor is there for the omission by Mathias. Sometimes editors "correct" the Vaticana in light of Pothier's previous works (it will be remembered that Pothier put together the Vaticana with relative haste). But this cannot be the case in this instance, since Pothier had always wanted a mora here:
| Pothier's 1883 Graduale (a.k.a. Liber Gradualis) |
|
Pothier's 1895 Graduale (a revision of the 1883 Liber Gradualis) |
|
Those who follow the Solesmes school follow the rhythmic markings of Dom Mocquereau, which often contradict the rhythm of the Vaticana. It is therefore not surprising to note that the Solesmes books do not honor this mora.
| Mocquereau's 1908 edition of the Vaticana (with Cardine's signs written above) |
|
|
Mocquereau's 1921
edition of the Vaticana
(identical to the 1908,
as are ALL
Solesmes
editions after 1908)
|
|
|
Mocquereau's 1903
Liber Usualis
(published 5 years before
the Vaticana Graduale) |
|
Needless to say, all those editions which follow Solesmes (e.g. those of Julius Bas and Ferdinand Portier) do not honor this mora. The Solesmes rhythmic markings have not changed in a century (with one or two minor exceptions that came with Solesmes edition of Holy Week 1.9), as no one in that Abbey dares change the work of Mocquereau.
It will be noticed that the 1903 version of Mocquereau lacks the two horizontal episemata above the opening notes. This is very typical since, around 1902 and 1903, Mocquereau was still hashing out his system. For example, in the 1903 Manuale published by Solesmes, these marks are not even referred to as episemata: they are simply called "ritardando strokes." However, by the time Solesmes published their edition of the Vaticana Graduale, Mocquereau was quite comfortable with these, and they appear in full force.
What is interesting is that, in the 1903 Liber Usualis, Mocquereau often preserves the "blank spaces" of the former editions (by Pothier). Therefore, even though Mocquereau doesn't mark Pothier's morae, a careful singer could still , theoretically, observe them. The same can be said about the Vaticana editions published directly by Solesmes (in other words, any editions done after 1913). The editors continue scrupulously to leave in "blank spaces," yet they do not mark them with dots. The only explanation for all this (which seems to silly to even put into words) is that the Solesmes editors were attempting to make sure that anyone not observing the Solesmes rhythmic signs would sing the music in a different way, lengthening different notes. In other words, it is very well for Mocquereau to say (in the Preface to his 1903 Manuale):
. . . but then why does he often leave spaces where there are not dots and the repeated notes are not on the same degree? For example, in the Alleluia from Easter Sunday:
MOCQUEREAU (Solesmes) 1903 Liber Usualis 
For the sake of curiosity, we look at the pre-Vaticana chant versions (often referred to as "corrupt"):
PUSTET 1884 Graduale
(based on the Medicaea of 1614) |
|
|
|
NIVERS 1696 Graduale |
|
The ancient chant had several notes on the syllable "bi" of "habitat." However, according to the Baroque rules of accentuation, a non-accented syllable should never have many notes allotted to it, especially if it is the penult of a dactyl. The word "habitat" is a dactyl, and so the editors couldn't force themselves to put many notes on it, and they gave it a short rhythmic value, as well (in their mensuralistic system of chant rythm). Notice that the Pustet version puts all the notes on the tonic accent, while Nivers put all the notes on the final accent (and feels compelled to add a sharp!). The Reims-Cambrai edition (below) also puts all the notes on the last syllable, and is very careful to give the tonic accents long notes, in accordance with the Baroque rules of accentuation (orange lines high-light this fact). The weak penults (underlined in blue) are given only one note.
Reims-Cambrai Graduale of 1887
It is interesting to note that the Reims-Cambrai puts RE on the word "in" (pointed out by a red arrow above), just as the 11th century manuscript below does. This manuscript (Montpellier H. 159) was discovered by Danjou in 1847, and was a major impetus for all future editions, including the Reims-Cambrai.
11th century
MONTPELLIER
H. 159
(transcription by
F. E. Hansen) |
|
Fr. Hermesdorff does not follow the Montpellier by putting RE on "in." Instead, he (like Pustet) employs the "Teutonic dialect," putting FA on "in." However, it is interesting that Hermesdorff marks the mora vocis we have been considering (circled in red).
|
  HERMESDORFF 1876 |
Suppose that Pothier had not wanted to indicate a mora vocis at this particular spot? How would he have notated it? To see this, we need only look at one of the many chants related by what some authors call "centonization." Simply put, chants related by centonization contain the same (or similar) melodies but different words. Here is an example, then, of a similar chant where no mora vocis was intended:
 COMPARISON PANORAMA 1G —"Bonum est"
Note that A.Noh actually marks a mora here! Perhaps they consider themselves to be correcting a typo.
When we consider the beginning of yet another Tract notated exactly the same as the "Qui habitat," we see something very interesting:
 COMPARISON PANORAMA 2G — "Adjuva nos"
PAN 2G shows that Schwann, Mathias, and the A.Noh have reversed their positions completely from the way in which they treated this mora in "Qui habitat" !!! In other words, the Schwann edition now denies there to be a mora where in "Qui habitat" they had placed one. Mathias and the A.Noh on the other hand now choose to place a mora where they had neglected to place one in "Qui habitat."
Finally, it is interesting to look at a mora that was "absorbed" when Pothier put out the Editio Vaticana.
 COMPARISON PANORAMA 3G — "Angelis suis"
No school editing the Vaticana would ever dream of putting a mora in the same place as in the "Qui habitat" or "Adjuva nos" above. The reason for this is a very clear rule we find in the famous Vaticana Preface (and also in the prefaces to Pothier's 1883 and 1895 Graduale's):
Juxta regulam "auream," in fine cujuslibet neumae, quam immediate sequitur nova syllaba jam inchoatae dictionis, quantumvis interveniat spatium, nulla potest fieri pausa; nec prorsus mora ultimae vocis, nec a fortiori silentium, quod incongrue scinderet dictionem.
The "golden rule" states that there can be no pause at the end of any neume which is followed by a new syllable of the unfinished word. A mora vocis is not allowed, and certainly not a complete stop, which would break up the word completely.
|
