Dies ist eine alte Version des Dokuments!
🔘 IN GR TR AL OF CO xxxxx 1️⃣ 2️⃣ ✅ 4️⃣ 5️⃣ 6️⃣ 7️⃣ 8️⃣ xxxxx AN RP IV alia
0039 IN Dum sanctificatus fueroModus 3
⏹️
GT 249
BzG 25/20 + GrN 1/76
„et ef-fundam“ Der codex E ist zwar das älteste vollständige neumierte Missale das wir besitzen (knapp vor 1000), doch ist bereits der Anfang der do-Revision zu erkennen. Die opinio communis liest das 'equaliter' als Hinweis auf unisonischen Anschluss oder Halbtonverhältnis. Hier trifft beides auf einer einzigen Silbe zu:
Wenn ich mich bei euch als heilig erwiesen haben werde / werde ich euch aus allen Ländern versammeln.
Und ich werde reines Wasser über euch ausgießen.
und ihr werdet gereinigt werden
von all euren Unreinheiten / Und ich werde euch einen neuen Geist geben.
When I have proved myself holy among you / I will gather you from all countries.
And I will pour out clean water on you.
And you will be cleansed from all your impurities / And I will give you a new spirit.
Although codex E is the oldest complete neumised missal that we possess (just before 1000), the beginning of the do-revision can already be recognised. The opinio communis reads the “equaliter” as an indication of a unison connection or semitone relationship. Here, both apply to a single syllable:
Bv33+34, A, also L and MR write “si”, Ch, Y and all more recent sources have ended up with “do”.
The “equaliter” confirmed as unison by the oldest sources is subsequently (?) corrected in E with “levare”. Or does the codex E leave this question open by writing both “equaliter” = ‘si’ and “levare” = “do” to the syllable ‘et’? The “equaliter” here is certainly not to be read as a semitone indication.
The problem of ‘si’ versus ‘do’ is neither to be understood as a difference between frOc and frOr, nor necessarily as an older or more recent interpretation. It could also be due to the interpretation of the text, a sure promise of salvation to the people of God.
The treatment of the syllable ‘ter-ris’ in the GN is interesting. On the one hand, the initial articulation of the neume is taken into account, but on the other hand neither the do-revision is recognised (vide A+Y, Zt, Mod), nor is the “celeriter” above the Clv-graphy.
