| Beide Seiten der vorigen RevisionVorhergehende ÜberarbeitungNächste Überarbeitung | Vorhergehende Überarbeitung |
| gr_indiv:0655 [2026/02/16 18:05] – xaverkainzbauer | gr_indiv:0655 [2026/02/16 18:06] (aktuell) – xaverkainzbauer |
|---|
| <fc #4682b4>"quia //ín// his"</fc> ist keine FML alloq. Das "do" des Akzentes "//pá//-tris" wird auf der Endsilbe mit Tristropha weitergeführt und ein letztes Mal mit dem PesSbp auf "me-//í//" erreicht. Der Gipfelton "do" und der PesSbp machen klar, es geht um "**patris mei**" im Gegensatz zum "pater tuus" des zweiten Cento. Abermals treibt der Prr "sunt" weiter:\\ | <fc #4682b4>"quia //ín// his"</fc> ist keine FML alloq. Das "do" des Akzentes "//pá//-tris" wird auf der Endsilbe mit Tristropha weitergeführt und ein letztes Mal mit dem PesSbp auf "me-//í//" erreicht. Der Gipfelton "do" und der PesSbp machen klar, es geht um "**patris mei**" im Gegensatz zum "pater tuus" des zweiten Cento. Abermals treibt der Prr "sunt" weiter:\\ |
| |
| 7 <fc #4682b4>oportet me esse.</fc> Der Abgesang übernimmt zweimal den nkPes "sol-la" vom Beginn. Eingeleitet wird der TrcFSE -> do statt mit der üblichen Clv mit dem kurrenten aber trotzdem verbereiternden **Climacus** (orange). Der Oriscus (Pes quassus) auf "opor-//tet//" ist als Signalm für den Schluss zu verstehen: Der folgende Trc muss dadurch auf der Finalis "re" stehen, der Clm zuvor kann nur "fa-mi-re" sein; auf jeder anderen Stufe würde er eine eigene Tenorstufe erzeugen. Dem widerspricht der Oriscus-Pes. | **7** <fc #4682b4>oportet me esse.</fc> Der Abgesang übernimmt zweimal den nkPes "sol-la" vom Beginn. Eingeleitet wird der TrcFSE -> do statt mit der üblichen Clv mit dem kurrenten aber trotzdem verbereiternden **Climacus** (orange). Der Oriscus (Pes quassus) auf "opor-//tet//" ist als Signalm für den Schluss zu verstehen: Der folgende Trc muss dadurch auf der Finalis "re" stehen, der Clm zuvor kann nur "fa-mi-re" sein; auf jeder anderen Stufe würde er eine eigene Tenorstufe erzeugen. Dem widerspricht der Oriscus-Pes. |
| |
| Kind, warum hast du uns das getan? Ich und dein Vater haben dich mit Schmerzen gesucht! | Kind, warum hast du uns das getan? Ich und dein Vater haben dich mit Schmerzen gesucht! |
| The son's statement (in question form) <fc #ffffff>xxxxx</fc> TrcFSE <fc #ffffff>xxxxxxxxxxxx</fc> -> re\\ | The son's statement (in question form) <fc #ffffff>xxxxx</fc> TrcFSE <fc #ffffff>xxxxxxxxxxxx</fc> -> re\\ |
| |
| <fc #008000>Fili quid fecisti nobis sic ? ego et pater tuus dolentes quaerebamus te -\\ | <fc #4682b4>Fili quid fecisti nobis sic ? ego et pater tuus dolentes quaerebamus te -\\ |
| et quid est quod me quaerebatis -\\ | et quid est quod me quaerebatis -\\ |
| an nesciebatis quia in his quae patris mei sunt oportet me esse -</fc>\\\ | an nesciebatis quia in his quae patris mei sunt oportet me esse -</fc>\\\ |
| {{ :gr_indiv:0655_struktur.png?400|}} | {{ :gr_indiv:0655_struktur.png?400|}} |
| |
| <fc #008000>Fili quid fecisti nobis sic ? -> re\\ | <fc #4682b4>Fili quid fecisti nobis sic ? -> re\\ |
| ego et pater tuus dolentes -> re\\ | ego et pater tuus dolentes -> re\\ |
| quaerebamus te - -> fa\\ | quaerebamus te - -> fa\\ |
| Basically, ‘la’ and ‘do’ carry the two accents of the texts, the second of which is more important. | Basically, ‘la’ and ‘do’ carry the two accents of the texts, the second of which is more important. |
| |
| **1** <fc #008000>Fili quid fecisti nobis sic '</fc> The kPrr de-accentuates the word "Fili", both (following) accents lead only to "la", the second accent "nóbis" is also de-accented byPrr. The kTrc "mi-fa-re" forms the question mark.\\ | **1** <fc #4682b4>Fili quid fecisti nobis sic '</fc> The kPrr de-accentuates the word "Fili", both (following) accents lead only to "la", the second accent "nóbis" is also de-accented byPrr. The kTrc "mi-fa-re" forms the question mark.\\ |
| |
| **2** <fc #008000>ego et pater tuus dolentes</fc> The mother's concern is emphasised with the two strophic perspiration "re-fa-fa". The nkPes "fa-la" is the normal form of the first accent. The second accent leads (only) to "si". The five-note pesSbp "tuus" (2) creates the neumatic equivalent to "patris méi" in 6. "pater túus" is the opposite of "patris mei"\\ | **2** <fc #4682b4>ego et pater tuus dolentes</fc> The mother's concern is emphasised with the two strophic perspiration "re-fa-fa". The nkPes "fa-la" is the normal form of the first accent. The second accent leads (only) to "si". The five-note pesSbp "tuus" (2) creates the neumatic equivalent to "patris méi" in 6. "pater túus" is the opposite of "patris mei"\\ |
| The cadence to -> re concludes on the one hand, but the Prr "doléntes" de-emphasises the end of the sentence and makes it unimportant. \\ | The cadence to -> re concludes on the one hand, but the Prr "doléntes" de-emphasises the end of the sentence and makes it unimportant. \\ |
| <fc #4682b4>"pater túus"</fc> Here too, Kl writes "do", but the 'mediocriter' in E can be understood as the opposite statement ("sa"). It is up to the singer, the schola, to decide whether they want to contrast the mother's anxious statement with the son's self-confident (cheeky) statement ("sa", Kl), or whether the mother's statement should sound more desperate ("si", E).\\\ | <fc #4682b4>"pater túus"</fc> Here too, Kl writes "do", but the 'mediocriter' in E can be understood as the opposite statement ("sa"). It is up to the singer, the schola, to decide whether they want to contrast the mother's anxious statement with the son's self-confident (cheeky) statement ("sa", Kl), or whether the mother's statement should sound more desperate ("si", E).\\\ |
| |
| **3** <fc #008000>quaerebamus te</fc> Here, too, the Prr continues and leads to the end-of-sentence torculus on "fa".\\ | **3** <fc #4682b4>quaerebamus te</fc> Here, too, the Prr continues and leads to the end-of-sentence torculus on "fa".\\ |
| <fc #4682b4>"quae-//re//-bamus"</fc> The kPes on the unstressed internal syllable speaks in favour of a [[formulae:alloq|FML alloquium]]. A pes "sol-la", corresponding to “sursum”, would lead to the incorrect stress "quae**ré**bamus". It is different later with "quia in his"\\ | <fc #4682b4>"quae-//re//-bamus"</fc> The kPes on the unstressed internal syllable speaks in favour of a [[formulae:alloq|FML alloquium]]. A pes "sol-la", corresponding to “sursum”, would lead to the incorrect stress "quae**ré**bamus". It is different later with "quia in his"\\ |
| |
| **4** <fc #008000>et quíd est quod quáerebatis mé</fc> The two accents are marked with the accentual torculus (kTrcACC) "la-si-la", they are of equal value, but not yet the meaning of the CO. \\ | **4** <fc #4682b4>et quíd est quod quáerebatis mé</fc> The two accents are marked with the accentual torculus (kTrcACC) "la-si-la", they are of equal value, but not yet the meaning of the CO. \\ |
| The son's question to his mother has a certain poignancy, which is aptly expressed by the tritone tension to the "fa", but this is not compatible with the devout piety at the end of the 19th century and beyond. In the GR, a child of its time, the sharpness is darkened and fogged with si-be-molle. Likewise at:\\ | The son's question to his mother has a certain poignancy, which is aptly expressed by the tritone tension to the "fa", but this is not compatible with the devout piety at the end of the 19th century and beyond. In the GR, a child of its time, the sharpness is darkened and fogged with si-be-molle. Likewise at:\\ |
| <fc #4682b4>"nesciebat-//tis//"</fc> In all three cases, Kl confirms the "si" with his "do".\\ | <fc #4682b4>"nesciebat-//tis//"</fc> In all three cases, Kl confirms the "si" with his "do".\\ |
| The sentence ends with amplified TrcFSE ("fa-fa-solfa").\\ | The sentence ends with amplified TrcFSE ("fa-fa-solfa").\\ |
| |
| **5** <fc #008000>an nésciebátis</fc> The "do" is reached for the first time: **Bivirga urgens**. From here on, the accents of the core utterance all lead to "do": \\ "an nescie**bá**tis quia in his quae **pátris** me-**í** sunt (oportet me esse)". The accent on "meí" is due to the cursus (planus). The Prr on the last syllable continues:\\ | **5** <fc #4682b4>an nésciebátis</fc> The "do" is reached for the first time: **Bivirga urgens**. From here on, the accents of the core utterance all lead to "do": \\ "an nescie**bá**tis quia in his quae **pátris** me-**í** sunt (oportet me esse)". The accent on "meí" is due to the cursus (planus). The Prr on the last syllable continues:\\ |
| |
| **6** <fc #008000>quia in his quae patris mei sunt</fc> | **6** <fc #4682b4>quia in his quae patris mei sunt</fc> |
| <fc #4682b4>"quia //ín// his"</fc> is not an FML alloq. The "do" of the accent "//pá//-tris" is continued on the final syllable with tristropha and reached one last time with the PesSbp on "me-//í//". The summit tone "do" and the PesSbp make it clear that it is about "**patris mei**" in contrast to the "pater tuus" of the second cento. Once again, the Prr "sunt" continues:\\ | <fc #4682b4>"quia //ín// his"</fc> is not an FML alloq. The "do" of the accent "//pá//-tris" is continued on the final syllable with tristropha and reached one last time with the PesSbp on "me-//í//". The summit tone "do" and the PesSbp make it clear that it is about "**patris mei**" in contrast to the "pater tuus" of the second cento. Once again, the Prr "sunt" continues:\\ |
| |
| 7 <fc #008000>oportet me esse.</fc> The farewell takes over the nkPes "sol-la" from the beginning twice. The TrcFSE -> do is introduced with the short but nonetheless verbalising **Climacus** (orange) instead of the usual Clv. The oriscus (pes quassus) on "opor-///tet//" is to be understood as a signal for the end: The following Trc must therefore be on the finalis "re", the Clm before it can only be "fa-mi-re"; on any other level it would produce its own tenor level. The Oriscus-Pes contradicts this. | **7** <<fc #4682b4>oportet me esse.</fc> The farewell takes over the nkPes "sol-la" from the beginning twice. The TrcFSE -> do is introduced with the short but nonetheless verbalising **Climacus** (orange) instead of the usual Clv. The oriscus (pes quassus) on "opor-///tet//" is to be understood as a signal for the end: The following Trc must therefore be on the finalis "re", the Clm before it can only be "fa-mi-re"; on any other level it would produce its own tenor level. The Oriscus-Pes contradicts this. |
| ------- | ------- |
| {%syn:analyse:grad:0655%} | {%syn:analyse:grad:0655%} |
| |
