Thirty six years after the first appearance of the Liber Hymnarius<\/em> in 1983[1]<\/a>, a necessary reprint (what number are we up to?) of this book occurred in 2019. This actually would not merit particular mention, except that the far-reaching alterations of this edition are surprising. This is seen already in the expanded title: Editio emendata et aucta <\/em>\u2013 improved and expanded edition.<\/p>\n What it is that is expanded and \u201cimproved\u201d can be stated succinctly, and this is even revealed at the homepage of the Solesmes bookstore<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cCette nouvelle edition du Liber Hymnarius est sans signes rythmiques comme les derniers livres liturgiques parus. Il comporte une nouvelle pr\u00e9face et int\u00e8gre tous les nouveaux saints canonis\u00e9s depuis 1983 jusqu\u2019\u00e0 aujourd\u2019hui.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That is to say that the book also contains all newly canonized saints from 1983 \u201cup to the present day,\u201d or to be more precise, all those saints which have also been taken into the general Roman calendar. That is not a small number, and as a matter of fact all these celebrations make use of a hymn from the Commons. A comparison of the layout of both tables of contents shows that not one new hymn, nor one new invitatorium, nor one new Responsorium prolixum were taken into the new edition.<\/p>\n The index of celebrations of saints is thus nearly a half page longer, and the Index generalis<\/em> is also somewhat more detailed. The pagination in the musical section of both editions is identical. The generous spacing of the first edition is reduced to make space for reference to the hymns from the Commons. Sometimes this made it necessary to shift things around a bit in the layout. The memorial of the Most Holy Name of Jesus (1.3) is added, but one finds no hymns given there.<\/p>\n Among the positive aspects of the improvements is surely the correction of mistakes in the index. We find numerous new attributions of authors. The famous pseudonym \u201cNovus\u201d is now disclosed: behind this hides the hymn texts of Anselmo Lentini OSB (1901-1989). He is now expressly named, but one could already glean this from his critical edition of the texts of the postconciliar hymnary.[2]<\/a> Ad cenam Agni<\/em> is now attributed to Nicetas of Remesiana, which Lentini also had already given. The hymn Christe redemptor… conserva<\/em> was identified by Lentini as an unknown author from the 9th century; the first printing of the hymnary named Rabanus Maurus; this new edition gives Helischar. It is now questioned with a \u201c?\u201d whether Custodes hominum<\/em> really stems from Robert Bellarmine, as Lentini had already done. Iam lucis orto sidere<\/em> now jumps from the sixth century to the eighth, as was already Lentini\u2019s viewpoint. Hymnological source references are always a delicate matter, and a lot of work stands behind such research. The editors of this hymnary deserve acknowledgment for their efforts at greater accuracy.<\/p>\n But for the uninitiated there are great surprises hidden behind the emendations, i.e. \u201cimprovements.\u201d I\u2019m speaking of grave interference with the appearance of the notes: not melodic changes, but change in the indications for performance practice. Connected to this is a new Foreword.<\/p>\n As the listing at the website indicates, all \u201crhythmic signs\u201d were removed from this edition, which obviously had already happened in the most recently published books. This is of course determinative for the new \u201coperator\u2019s manual.\u201d Behind the minimizing and euphemistic statement that the \u201crhythmic signs\u201d were removed is concealed the surprising and shocking observation that anything that in any way could recall the interpretation of chant in light of the oldest manuscripts has been obliterated. The insights of the semiological school are thereby removed from this Solesmes publication, and the life work of their own confrere, Fr. Eug\u00e8ne Cardine, is blatantly betrayed.<\/p>\n The \u201cneotypography\u201d (revised notation) of the 1981 Psalterium Monasticum<\/em> and the 1983 Liber Hymnarius<\/em> was of course devised in order to make visible in the square-note notation the interpretative indications of the St. Gall neumes. To be sure, there is no return to the typography of 1912. But the lifegiving power of the melodies in their differentiated rhythmic form and theological proclamation has been castrated by the removal of the various types of dots and episemas [translator\u2019s note: some write <\/em>episemata in English]<\/em>. An example illustrates this (see below). I will offer no further commentary, for it speaks for itself. In the Foreword of the 1983 Liber Hymnarius,<\/em> the \u201cmonks of Solesmes\u201d officially committed themselves to semiological interpretation of chant. In the reprint of 2019, this is revised \u2013 in a relatively cowardly manner \u2013 in that parts of the Foreword (which is by Fr. Cardine) are omitted. These parts spoke of the manner in which differentiated syllable values and note values are graphically printed, what episemas mean in modern print, how neume groupings are to be read, and how one converts all this into sound. Missing are the excerpts on the liquescent, syllable values, syneresis and dieresis [translator\u2019s note: conjoining two syllables for one note and dividing the vowels of a syllable over more than one note respectively],<\/em> and the explanatory musical example. Concerning repercussion, the statement remains that one should not connect two notes on the same pitch into one sound. But the second half of the sentence on the apostrophes and trigon, in which the word repercutiatur<\/em> appears, is missing. Crasis [translator\u2019s note: merging of two vowels into one syllable]<\/em> is still mentioned. The table of neumes with its brief annotations remains. [Translator\u2019s note: English readers might be interested in this translated excerpt<\/a> of the 1983 Foreword.]<\/em><\/p>\n A telltale sign of change in perspective is the title of this section: \u201cde aliquibus regulis in cantu servandis\u201d <\/em>is changed to \u201cde aliquibus principibus <\/em>(sic!) musicalibus huius editionis.\u201d<\/em> Gone is language of song as a word-melody unity on the basis of the text. Now it is a matter of \u201csome musical principles.\u201d Correspondingly, there are no longer \u201cprinciples [of a text-based interpretation] presented in this Foreword\u201d that arise from perfect agreement of \u201csacred text with Gregorian melody.\u201d Rather, in 2019 it states that the \u201cliturgical sublimity of Gregorian cantilena\u201d arises from \u201cperfect agreement of the melody with the sacred text.\u201d[3]<\/a>\u00a0That is to say: prima la musica, poi la parola<\/em> (\u201cfirst music, then text\u201d). What is this, if not the devaluation of all previous values? We are back to \u201cLes plus belles melodies gregoriennes\u201d<\/em> [Translator’s note: <\/em>\u201cThe most beautiful Gregorian melodies,\u201d the title of a pre-1960 book by Fr. Joesph Gajard]<\/em>.<\/p>\n In accord with all this is a new sentence in the 2019 Foreword that in singing hymns one ideally should scan the meter (short-long)\u2026 (excuse me: should respect the integrity of the verse quantity), above all in the sapphic strophes, to which, for the sake of clarity, are added dots for the lengthenings. This is to say that one need not subject oneself to the bother of a hymn interpretation that does justice to the text.<\/p>\n Why, in the description of the modes of the invitatory melodies, the indication is omitted that there is no first or eighth mode in the authentic repertoire, is a mystery to me.<\/p>\n One can only deeply regret what happened with this edition. Distinguished Solesmese chant scholars such as Pothier, Mocquereau, Claire, and Cardine were always at the cutting edge of scholarly advances in questions of restitution and interpretation. Today, regression and retrospective dominate. That pains the heart. One wonders what is behind this and how we could have arrived at this point.<\/p>\n One aspect of form should not be forgotten. At the beginning of the book is reprinted the decree of approbation of the Congregation for Divine Worship for the 1983 Ordo Cantus Officii<\/em> [translator’s note: the textual directory of chants].<\/em> But the corresponding decree for the 2015 Ordo Cantus Officii<\/em> \u2013 which of course should be the basis for all expansion \u2013 is missing. How might one interpret this?<\/p>\n There is frequently at the end of a book review a more or less warmhearted recommendation of the book discussed. In this case, for better or worse, I refrain.<\/p>\n Franz Karl Pra\u00dfl This review will appear in the next issue of <\/em>Beitr\u00e4ge zur Gregorianik. Translated by Anthony Ruff, OSB.<\/em><\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Cf. the detailed presentation and translation of the Foreword (by Cardine) together with explanations: Heinrich Rumphorst, \u201cRegeln f\u00fcr die Wiedergabe des Gregorianischen Chorals im Vorwort des Antiphonale Romanum II \/ Liber Hymnarius\u201d in Beitr\u00e4ge zur Gregorianik<\/em> 2 (1986) 26-113. [Translator\u2019s note: English-speaking readers are referred to Peter Jeffrey, \u201cThe New Chant Books from Solesmes,\u201d Notes <\/em>Second Series, 47.4 (June, 1991) 1039-1063.]<\/p>\n <\/a>[2]<\/a> Anselmo Lentini (ed.), Te decet Hymnus. L\u2019Innario della \u201cLiturgia Horarum.\u201d<\/em> Vatican Press, 1984.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/praytellblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/LH-review-for-PTB-300x241.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\nThe author earned his doctorate in theology from the University of Graz and has studied Gregorian chant and church music extensively. He is coeditor of\u00a0<\/em>Graduale novum<\/a>\u00a0 and teaches Gregorian chant at the University of Music in Graz and at the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music in Rome.<\/em><\/p>\n