Unterschiede

Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.

--- gr_indiv:0658 [2025/10/19 12:38] – xaverkainzbauer
+++ gr_indiv:0658 [2026/02/16 18:02] (aktuell) – xaverkainzbauer
@@ Zeile 1: / Zeile 1: @@
+[[cento:centologia#centones_missalis|🔘]] [[0017|IN]] [[0174|GR]] [[grad:0465|TR]] [[0325|AL]] [[0480|OF]] **<fc #BD0C11>CO</fc>** <fc #ffffff>xxxxx</fc>
+✅ [[0613|2️⃣]] [[0610|3️⃣]] [[0599|4️⃣]] [[0601|5️⃣]] [[0621|6️⃣]] [[0624|7️⃣]] [[0615|8️⃣]]
+<fc #ffffff>xxxxx</fc> [[ant:0001|AN]] [[ant:7009|RP]] [[ant:9862|IV]]  [[alia:alia|alia]]
+------------------
 [[0655]] ← → [[0660]]
 {%syn:title:grad:0658%}
 [[0655]] ⟽ **[[cento_gr:cento_co1|CO 1]]** ⟾ [[0665]] <fc #ffffff>xxx</fc> [[grad:0658|⏹️]]
@@ Zeile 22: / Zeile 25: @@
 Vorläufige Position: CO 0658 unterscheidet sich von RP 7328 an zwei Stellen "allelu-//ia//" und "//al//-leluia".
--------
-Freut euch, ihr Gerechten, im Herrn, Halleluja!\\
-Den Aufrichtigen ziemt Lobgesang, Halleluja.
-Rejoice, ye righteous, in the Lord, alleluia!\\
+  Freut euch, ihr Gerechten, im Herrn, Halleluja!
-Praise is due to the upright, alleluia.
+  Den Aufrichtigen ziemt Lobgesang, Halleluja.
--------
+  Rejoice, ye righteous, in the Lord, alleluia!
+  Praise is due to the upright, alleluia.
+This CO is also RP [[ant:7328]].
+Unfortunately, Ch and MR are missing as sources (only incipits). In the comparison L - E, two layers emerge. The question is triggered by the correction of “re” in <fc #4682b4>“allelui-//a// 1”</fc> by the GrN to “do”.\\
+The correction is justified, among other things, by Bv34, Bv35, and Y. Now the rule of thumb applies: Bv + one of the two Aquitanians (A or Y) are the correct result. Bv versus A+Y is 50:50. In addition, Bv39, older than Bv35, writes “re”. However, the situation is even more complex. It concerns the ‘upbeat’ tension to “fa”: **re** to fa or **do** to fa in four places? (see [[grad:0001]] and [[grad:0125]]) :\\
+<fc #4682b4>“//ius//-ti”\\
+“//in// domino”\\
+“allelui-//a// 1”\\
+“//al//-leluia 2”    </fc> cf. et: [[gr_indiv:0706]]
+Bv34, Kl, Mp write fourth “do-fa” - A+Y + (Zt) notate third “re-fa”. Now Kl + Mp are witnesses for the do revision (correcting the third “upbeat” to the fourth belongs to the scope of the do revision) and are therefore weak witnesses. Bv34 (and Bv35) remain as the only diastematic sources for the fourth. Strangely enough, however, Bv39 writes third! Bv40+33, adiastematic with imperfect diastemia, are also more likely to be read as a third in case of doubt. L gives no indication here. E remains the most important witness:\\
+E notes a large interval (“do-fa”) with ‘inferius’, which is additionally confirmed by ‘sursum’ next to the Epiphonus graph. Unfortunately, the ‘inferius’ has been corrected retrospectively (?!) with ‘mediocriter’. The diachronic view of the source material is relativized by Bv (the older Bv 33,40,39 third, the younger Bv35,34 fourth). It would be tempting to simply ignore the litterae in E and note “re-fa,” as the GR does, if Bam did not confirm E with ‘inferius’ and “levare,” and that without a corrective “mediocriter”! \\
+The GrN writes quart here, but in the parallel passage CO 0706 “Petite” it writes third.
+One possible view of the source situation: Quart is traditio frOr, Terz frOc. As always, frOc later prevailed in the Mass repertoire. Bv, on the other hand, switches to frOr at the end of the 11th century.
+<fc #4682b4>“al-//le//-luia 2”</fc> The nkTrc notation stands alone in Bv as “mi-sol-fa.” The “inferius” in Bam is contradicted by the ‘equaliter’ in E. The position in L suggests “fa-sol-fa”.\\
+One problem remains with the following kClm notation, which could mean “sol-**mi**-do” in Bv, but also “sol-**fa**-do” in A+Y.
+Provisional position: CO 0658 differs from RP 7328 in two places, “allelu-//ia//” and “//al//-leluia”.
 -------
 {%syn:analyse:grad:0658%}