| Beide Seiten der vorigen RevisionVorhergehende ÜberarbeitungNächste Überarbeitung | Vorhergehende Überarbeitung |
| gr_indiv:0293 [2025/09/05 17:16] – xaverkainzbauer | gr_indiv:0293 [2026/03/17 08:44] (aktuell) – xaverkainzbauer |
|---|
| [[cento:centologia#centones_missalis|🔘]] [[grad:0002|IN]] [[grad:0180|GR]] [[grad:0456|TR]] **<fc #BD0C11>AL</fc>** [[grad:0482|OF]] [[grad:0615|CO]] | [[cento:centologia#centones_missalis|🔘]] [[grad:0002|IN]] [[grad:0180|GR]] [[grad:0456|TR]] **<fc #BD0C11>AL</fc>** [[grad:0482|OF]] [[grad:0615|CO]] <fc #ffffff>xxxxx</fc> |
| <fc #ffffff>xxxxx</fc> | |
| [[0325|1️⃣]] [[0323|2️⃣]] [[0290|3️⃣]] [[0294|4️⃣]] [[0298|5️⃣]] [[0310|6️⃣]] [[0396|7️⃣]] ✅ | [[0325|1️⃣]] [[0323|2️⃣]] [[0290|3️⃣]] [[0294|4️⃣]] [[0298|5️⃣]] [[0310|6️⃣]] [[0396|7️⃣]] ✅ |
| <fc #ffffff>xxxxx</fc> | <fc #ffffff>xxxxx</fc> [[ant:0004|AN]] [[ant:7001|RP]] [[ant:9815|IV]] [[alia:alia|alia]] |
| [[ant:0004|AN]] [[ant:7001|RP]] [[ant:9815|IV]] [[alia:alia|alia]] | |
| ------------------ | ------------------ |
| [[0291]] ← → [[0294]] | [[0291]] ← → [[0294]] |
| <fc #4682b4>"Allelu-//ia//"</fc> Es gibt keinen Grund im 8. Modus si-be-molle zu verwenden ; Kl (+A) geht zum "do". Bereits Agustoni bezeichnet das si-be-molle im 8. Modus als "sehr fragwürdig" (EIGC s.53).\\ | <fc #4682b4>"Allelu-//ia//"</fc> Es gibt keinen Grund im 8. Modus si-be-molle zu verwenden ; Kl (+A) geht zum "do". Bereits Agustoni bezeichnet das si-be-molle im 8. Modus als "sehr fragwürdig" (EIGC s.53).\\ |
| <fc #4682b4>"domi-//ni//"</fc> Der Oriscus ist zwar eine Note aber //kein Ton//. Er ist ein Definitionszeichen und etabliert hier die "untere Grenzstufe des modalen Tonraumes" (Agustoni s.o.), wie auch bei "revolvit", "eum" und im Jubilus. Das "do" darunter ist die "seltene Ausweitung des Unteren Bereichs des Tonraumes". | <fc #4682b4>"domi-//ni//"</fc> Der Oriscus ist zwar eine Note aber //kein Ton//. Er ist ein Definitionszeichen und etabliert hier die "untere Grenzstufe des modalen Tonraumes" (Agustoni s.o.), wie auch bei "revolvit", "eum" und im Jubilus. Das "do" darunter ist die "seltene Ausweitung des Unteren Bereichs des Tonraumes". |
| ------- | |
| |
| V1. Ein Engel des Herrn stieg vom Himmel herab / trat [an das Grab] herzu, \\ | <fc #4682b4>"revolvit"</fc> Hier verwenden die BzG plötzlich E als Quelle satt C, weil die Graphie von C nicht in das Verständnis der Virga strata passt, wie sie die opinio communis von ihr hat. |
| wälzte den Stein [vom Eingang] hinweg / und setzte sich darauf.
\\ | |
| V2. Der Engel antwortete, er sprach zu den Frauen / Wen sucht ihr?\\ | V1. Ein Engel des Herrn stieg vom Himmel herab / trat [an das Grab] herzu, |
| Jene aber antworteten /
Jesus von Nazareth. | wälzte den Stein [vom Eingang] hinweg / und setzte sich darauf.
|
| | V2. Der Engel antwortete, er sprach zu den Frauen / Wen sucht ihr? |
| | Jene aber antworteten /
Jesus von Nazareth. |
| | |
| | V1 An angel of the Lord descended from heaven / approached [the tomb], |
| | rolled away the stone [from the entrance] / and sat on it.
|
| | V2. The angel answered and said to the women, / Whom seek ye? |
| | But they answered / Jesus of Nazareth. |
| |
| V1 An angel of the Lord descended from heaven / approached [the tomb], \\ | |
| rolled away the stone [from the entrance] / and sat on it.
\\ | |
| V2. The angel answered and said to the women, / Whom seek ye? \\ | |
| But they answered / Jesus of Nazareth. | |
| ------- | |
| The BzG do without C as a source here because the "text and neumes are from a later hand" and instead take E as the basis for their restitution. However, the a.m. in C is not (hardly) younger than the neumes in E. | The BzG do without C as a source here because the "text and neumes are from a later hand" and instead take E as the basis for their restitution. However, the a.m. in C is not (hardly) younger than the neumes in E. |
| <fc #4682b4>"//Al//-leluia"</fc> It is a rule of the High Middle Ages that the incipit of a piece must correspond to the finalis (cf: IN "Ad te levavi" still in the GT! Only E and Kl correspond to this here! All others begin like the verse with the pes "do-re"). The cephalicus here indicates the abandonment of one of the two notes, ergo "re" (vide Ch!, L is unfortunately erased).\\ | <fc #4682b4>"//Al//-leluia"</fc> It is a rule of the High Middle Ages that the incipit of a piece must correspond to the finalis (cf: IN "Ad te levavi" still in the GT! Only E and Kl correspond to this here! All others begin like the verse with the pes "do-re"). The cephalicus here indicates the abandonment of one of the two notes, ergo "re" (vide Ch!, L is unfortunately erased).\\ |
| <fc #4682b4>"Allelu-//ia//"</fc> There is no reason to use si-be-molle in the 8th mode; Kl (+A) goes to "do". Agustoni already described the si-be-molle in the 8th mode as "very questionable" (EIGC p.53).\\ | <fc #4682b4>"Allelu-//ia//"</fc> There is no reason to use si-be-molle in the 8th mode; Kl (+A) goes to "do". Agustoni already described the si-be-molle in the 8th mode as "very questionable" (EIGC p.53).\\ |
| <fc #4682b4>"domi-//ni//"</fc> The oriscus is a note but //not a tone//. It is a defining sign and establishes the "lower limit of the modal pitch space" (Agustoni see above), as in "revolvit", "eum" and in the jubilee. The "do" below it is the "rare extension of the lower range of the tonal space". | <fc #4682b4>"domi-//ni//"</fc> The oriscus is a note but //not a tone//. It is a defining sign and establishes the "lower limit of the modal pitch space" (Agustoni see above), as in "revolvit", "eum" and in the jubilee. The "do" below it is the "rare extension of the lower range of the tonal space". |
| | |
| | <fc #4682b4>“revolvit”</fc> Here, the BzG suddenly uses E as the source instead of C, because the spelling of C does not fit with the understanding of Virga strata as it is commonly understood. |
| ------- | ------- |
| {%syn:analyse:grad:0293%} | {%syn:analyse:grad:0293%} |
