Unterschiede

Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.

--- gr_indiv:0550 [2025/11/01 18:28] – xaverkainzbauer
+++ gr_indiv:0550 [2025/12/27 10:58] (aktuell) – xaverkainzbauer
@@ Zeile 6: / Zeile 6: @@
 {%syn:title:grad:0550%}
 **<fc #BD0C11>OF</fc>** – [[1056|V1]] – [[1057|V2]] <fc #ffffff>xxx</fc> [[grad:0550|⏹️]]
-<fc #ffffff>xxx</fc> GT 26 - GN 2/4 - BzG 51/14
+<fc #ffffff>xxx</fc> GT 204 - GN 1/175 - BzG 48/20
 -------
@@ Zeile 25: / Zeile 25: @@
 <fc #4682b4>"apparu-//e//-runt"</fc>  cf.: "de caelo". Die Clivis zum "mi" (apparue-//runt//) spricht für "si-be-durum": reine Quint.
--------
+  Es donnerte der Herr vom Himmel / und der Höchste ließ seine Stimme ertönen.
-Es donnerte der Herr vom Himmel / und der Höchste ließ seine Stimme ertönen.\\
+  Und es erschienen die Wasserquellen.  Halleluja.
-Und es erschienen die Wasserquellen.  Halleluja.
+  The Lord thundered from heaven / and the Most High let his voice be heard.
+  And the springs of water appeared.  Hallelujah.
-The Lord thundered from heaven / and the Most High let his voice be heard.\\
+{{ :gr_indiv:0550_de_caelo.png?direct&250|}}
-And the springs of water appeared.  Hallelujah.
+<fc #4682b4>“de //cae//-lo”</fc> “si” or ‘sa’ depends on the Clm notation at the end of the neume //“cae//-lo”. If it leads to re, then “sa” is logical. However, if it leads to “mi” (Bv34, 35, 39, A), then ‘si’ is almost mandatory: pure fifth “si-mi.” Unfortunately, it's not that simple.
--------
+According to Bv40, the melody “cae-//lo//” leads to “sol,” which would mean that the incipit of the OF would have to be one tone lower (modal centonisation).\\
+In Bv33, the melody is changed so that “//cae//-lo” leads to “re.”
+A goes with Bv34 + 35 + 39 (Clm to “mi”), but\\
+Y leads the series of sources that go to “re” (Mod + Mp, Zt), the more recent ones also write the “b”. \\
+Kl is also no help: ‘b’ and that to “mi”. The two “do revisions” (avoiding the semitone, avoiding the repetition of notes) correspond to this ideology.
+It remains to be noted: Bv34/35/39/A force us to “si.” However, Bv40 (+33) point to a modal centonisation, which we do not follow due to a lack of sufficient sources.
+<fc #4682b4>//“al//-tissimus”</fc> Cephalicus yes!, but we fundamentally reject the secondary tone; it is an expression of plerosis on the way to the 2nd Gregorian chant. None of the sources mentioned in BzG 48/21 bear witness to a second tone. Above all, the unmentioned Bv34 clearly shows that //no// secondary tone is to be sung here. The inferius below the licqueness loop in E, Bam + G376 is not a melodic indication, but one of expression (“Take back the sound of the licqueness, do not exaggerate”). Admittedly, the equaliter after the cephalicus in E is an indication of a second note, but the source E, written around 1000, is itself a relatively recent source that repeatedly reveals the influence of plerosis and do revision. Cf.:\\
+<fc #4682b4>“de-//dit”//</fc> In the entire series of Beneventan sources, a second tone of the Cephalicus can be read at the final knot of the neume, but not in Bv33.
+<fc #4682b4>“ap-//pa//-ruerunt”</fc> Kl does not write “sa,” which only follows on the next but one syllable\\
+<fc #4682b4>“apparu-//e//-runt”</fc> cf.: “de caelo.” The clivis to “mi” (apparue-//runt//) indicates “si-be-durum”: perfect fifth.
 -------
 {%syn:analyse:grad:0550%}