Unterschiede

Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.

--- gr_indiv:0297 [2026/04/04 13:36] – xaverkainzbauer
+++ gr_indiv:0297 [2026/04/04 13:36] (aktuell) – xaverkainzbauer
@@ Zeile 22: / Zeile 22: @@
 This AL was not composed until around 900 and originates from the traditio frOr. It does not yet appear in the SX, but is already present in the C. For the melodic reconstruction, the ascending fourth in the syllable ‘alle-lu-ia’ is significant: ‘re-sol-la’. It should be repeated within the Iubilus itself. However, the ‘levare’ in E and Bam suggests rather the ‘mi-sol-la’ of A and Kl, which is further confirmed by the unison ‘do’ preceding it in the other sources.
 “quo-niam” Quilisma with an applied Oriscus raises the target note above the restitution level “la” to “si”. A diminished fifth “sa” is absolutely impossible here. The Kl, which is revealing in questions regarding “si” or “sa”, eludes comment here due to the mere Sca “fa-sol-la”. Furthermore, the “si” in “quo-niam” stands in relation to the “do” in “fu-erit”. The \\
-**Repetenda** shortens the Iubilus!
+**Repetenda** shortens the Iubilus!\\
 The texts <fc #6495ed>"qui suffert"</fc> and <fc #4682b4>"accipiet"</fc>are composed in parallel.
 -------
 {%syn:analyse:grad:0297%}