**MOQUEREAU, André.** Benedictine monk, b. at La Tessoualle (Maine-et-Loire) on 6 June 1849, d. at Solesmes on 18 January 1930. Benedictine professed at Solesmes in 1877, priest in 1879, he became the collaborator of Dom Pothier in the restoration of Gregorian chant.
Pius X’s initiative for an official edition of liturgical chant (1904) placed at the service of the Church the great resources of scholarship and art already accumulated by M. and his group of monks of Solesmes. The volumes of the *Paléographie musicale*, from 1880 onwards, are due to M. For scholars, the *Paléographie musicale* remains a unique working material, such as the collection of the best liturgical musical documents of the 9th, 11th, and 12th centuries, according to the different schools of neumatic notation. For knowledge of M.’s doctrine, the studies published by him in vols. I, IV, VII are especially useful. His masterly work, *Nombre musical grégorien* (I, Tournai 1908; II, 1917), takes up topics already treated in the introductions to the volumes of the *Paléographie* which reappear in various pamphlets and in the numerous articles in the *Revue grégorienne* and in lectures at Paris, Rome, Washington, etc. A follower of Pothier as regards the rhythmic unity of the Latin word (cf. *Nombre musical*, II, p. 231), he departs from him in affirming a greater freedom of rhythm towards intensive, verbal or otherwise, accentuation; and the originality of M. would consist in restoring to honour the Hellenic concept, rhythm = *ordo*, *motus*: from this came the restoration of the almost forgotten but practically important distinction between rhythm and measure.
The rhythmic system applied by M. to the performance of Gregorian chant tends to reconcile the general laws of rhythm with the positive data of the musical manuscripts of the various schools, with the too meagre explanations of medieval theorists, and with the austere nobility of the liturgical functions for which Gregorian chants are destined. The worldwide diffusion of the so-called rhythmic editions demonstrates the eminently practical character of the system. M. is responsible for some adaptations of Gregorian chants and a few melodic compositions, such as *Alleluia, Rosa vernans*, etc.
**
---
**MODA, Pietro Tommaso.** From the Latin *modus* (form, manner, measure), it differs from usage, custom, habit, because it changes daily, constitutes the model to be followed, so that things of *moda* are done because others do them.
*Moda* may be said to accompany all manifestations of human activity: artistic and artisanal forms, literary activity, public opinion itself obeys *moda* just as do the fashions of dress and ornament, although these, being specialized objects, undergo more rapid changes. Their variations are expressed by the term *moda*, and with it are joined those refinements that complete it: jewels, fabrics more or less rich and costly, furs, household decorations, products of minor arts (wrought iron, glassware, lamps, carriages) in short, everything that constitutes luxury (v.), which is a primary element in the development of *moda*. This, in turn, is linked to the prosperity of the various social classes and to the changes introduced into common life by new discoveries (such as automobilism, metallurgy, mechanics, etc.). *Moda* can gravely injure Christian principles both through reckless waste of goods (when it is disproportionate to one’s condition or causes neglect of more important needs of body or soul, or becomes fanaticism or tyranny, mortifying higher ideals) which insult public poverty, and through the baleful influence it can exert on public morals (when it oversteps the bounds of modesty or takes on the aspect and purpose of an art designed to entice to vice or tends, consciously or through carelessness, to disturb and upset instincts). Already in Christian antiquity ecclesiastical writers often rise up harshly and severely against the follies of *moda* from which new converts, especially women, could not free themselves. To limit the excesses of *moda* and luxury, attempts were made even at the end of the Middle Ages with sumptuary laws. Dante bitterly censures the brazenness of the Florentine women of his age (Purg., XXIII, 94-108), and in the 18th century in Rome it was necessary to take measures to repress the excess of feminine décolletage ostentatiously displayed even in church. St. Antoninus of Florence (cf. *Summa moralis*, Verona 1740, p. 236 ff.; *Confessionale in vulgari*, s. 1, 1483, ff. 9-10), St. Bernardino of Siena (cf. *Due prediche sulla vanità delle donne e sulla virilità*, ed. L. Marri Martini, in *La Diana*, 1-2 (1930), p. 1 ff.; P. Bargellini, *S. Bernardino da Siena*, Brescia 1942, pp. 15-24), and Savonarola (cf. Pastor, III, pp. 84 ff., 166 ff. and passim) attempted to curb the immoralities of *moda* with the famous bonfires of vanities. It is therefore no wonder that later the Church, through the voice of its ministers, found itself compelled to resort to the means at its disposal to repress the excesses of a paganizing custom for which *moda* is a difficult-to-overcome accomplice (cf. among other things the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 12 January 1930).
**
**Costante Scarpellini**