Unterschiede

Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.

--- gr_indiv:0665 [2025/04/27 22:07] – xaverkainzbauer
+++ gr_indiv:0665 [2025/10/19 14:23] (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]]
+------------------
 [[0664]] ← → [[0666]]
+{%syn:title:grad:0665%}
-{%syn:title:grad:0665%} [[grad:0665|⏹️]]\\
+[[0658]] ⟽ **[[cento_gr:cento_co1|CO 1]]** ⟾ [[0666]] <fc #ffffff>xxx</fc> [[grad:0665|⏹️]]
+<fc #ffffff>xxx</fc> GT 271 - GN 1/237 - BzG 38/36 ; 41.42/36
-GT 271\\
-BzG 38/36 ; 41.42/36 - GrN 1/237
 ------
 Ein kompliziertes Stück, schon im 10.Jh nicht mehr einheitlich tradiert: \\
@@ Zeile 17: / Zeile 19: @@
 <fc #4682b4>"//mi//-sericordia //do//-mine"</fc> Die beiden TrcAkz gehen zum "si" (la-si-la). Die Faustregel (einhellige Meinung Agustoni, Joppich, R.Fischer) wenn Kl do schreibt, dann war es "si". Abgesehen davon steht das "si" des Torculus zum jeweiligen Finalton "mi" ( mise**-ri**-cordia domi-**ne**) im Abstand der reinen Quint.
 -------
 Lass dein Angesicht leuchten über deinem Knecht, mache mich heil in deiner Barmherzigkeit.\\
@@ Zeile 25: / Zeile 26: @@
 Lord, do not let me be put to shame, for I have called upon you.
 -------
+A complicated piece, already no longer uniformly transmitted in the 10th century: \\
+<fc #4682b4>“et salvum”</fc> The transition of the two syllables in L + Bv34 equaliter, but not in Ch. \\
+<fc #4682b4>“//fa//-ciem”</fc>  The third Pes is confirmed in Bv34, Mod + Mp. The transposition in Kl  (do revision) also supports this.\\
+<fc #4682b4>“servum tuum”</fc> T1 on the complexity of the transposition in T1 vide: BzG 36,36f. The transposition at this point is obvious. The question is how and where it is reversed, because a beginning of the Co on “mi” (higher transposition of the first part “Illumina faciem tuam super”)  is unlikely; G381 with its equaliter at the end of the psalm verse argues against this. The retransposition must be seen before “tua misericordia”; from “tua” onwards, the melody is a self-contained protus authenticus.\\
+<fc #4682b4>“tuum et”</fc> in E equaliter, sic!\\
+<fc #4682b4>“et salvum”</fc> only in BzG quartal ascent, in the sources everywhere third"!.
+“et //sal//vum”. In A  thirdPes.  Our solution therefore thirdPes “mi-sol,” with which the retransposition is complete.
+<fc #4682b4>“//in// tua”</fc> The sursum in E argues against Tol.
+The “bar lines” in T1 indicate the range in which a transposition takes place.
+<fc #4682b4>“//mi//-sericordia //do//-mine”</fc> The two TrcAkz go to “si” (la-si-la). The rule of thumb (unanimous opinion of Agustoni, Joppich, R. Fischer) is that when Kl writes do, it was “si.” Apart from that, the ‘si’ of the Torculus is at a distance of a perfect fifth from the respective final note “mi” (mise**-ri**-cordia domi-**ne**).
 -------
 {%syn:analyse:grad:0665%}