Gregoriansk semiologi och rytmfrågan

Abstract

Few questions in musicology have been the object of so many discussions as the rhythm of Gregorian chant. Did medieval singers perform all notes in equal length, metrically in proportional values or in an otherwise differentiated rhythm? Those who in our times consider themselves to be able to give an answer to these questions are the representatives of the so called Gregorian semiology, developed by the Solesmes monk Dom Eugène Cardine. As the ”semiological” way of interpretation has been the object of criticism, I will try to put this interpretational model into the perspective of historical research and even partially to relate Gregorian rhythm to an ethnological aspect, namely to folk song and to other preserved liturgical song traditions. Two camps of opinion have dominated the discussion about Gregorian rhythm from the 19th century onward, namely mensuralism and equalism. To the ”equalists” belonged the representatives of the ”free oratoric rhythm”of the Solesmes monk Joseph Pothier as well as his successor André Mocquereau with his ”free musical rhythm”. The most important contribution of the mensuralists are to be found in the fact that they gave rise to a debate in maintaining that the original rhythm was composed of notes of different note values and that Gregorian chant is related to the oriental Christian rites. Dom Cardine appeared in the 1950s with some theses which refuted both mensuralism as well as the Solesmes method. His most important research findings concern the so called ”coupures neumatiques”, different modes of grouping neums in order to produce clear rhythmical accents in melodies found in medieval manuscripts. His argument is based upon comparisons of parallels in the sources, presented in tables. The semiological interpretation of the oldest neums has led to the idea of a more differentiated rhythm, and these ideas attracted many follow ers. Different parts of Gregorian semiology have been questioned. The most important objection concerns semiologists’ belief in the possibility to restore one authentic interpretation, but also the fact that their studies are based on a very restricted number of medieval sources containing rhythmical differentiations. Another weak point, in my opinion, is their overemphasis on rhythmical concordances in the manuscripts and the neglecting of existing variants. To this is added the tendency to make a ”method” out of semiology, which has led to a sort of ”sign-fundamentalism”. The idea of the ”coupures neumatiques”, which means that a neum of three or more notes can be ”cut up” in smaller entities, is based upon a thinking in signs, which can hardly be in accordance with the medieval oral tradition.In opposition to this idea of ”cutting-up” neums I would prefer to talk about neum-grouping. During the last years semiologists have increasingly advocated an interpretational style with an affective emphasis on separate words and notes. This means that the same sign can have a different length dependent on its place in the textual phrase. A view like this can easily lead to very subjective thinking, which considerably reduces the credibility of Gregorian semiology. Cardine claimed - presumably and partly with right – that songtexts in prose had a free rhythm, metrical text a bound rhythm. I would like to go further and will therefore, on the basis on the references by some medieval theoreticians to hymns, antiphons and (probably small) responsories, introduce the hypothesis that chants performed by many singers need some sort of bound rhythm, as opposed to the free rhythm of the schola and the soloist. Several additional studies will be necessary to disprove further or to verify different parts of Gregorian semiology: One is connected to the research on the great number of ”nuance poor”, i.e. less rhythm informative, manuscripts that semiologists have neglected. Another is a critical examination of the connection between melody and rhythm in traditions other than the Gregorian.