Unterschiede

Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.

--- gr_indiv:0727 [2026/03/17 11:55] – xaverkainzbauer
+++ gr_indiv:0727 [2026/03/17 11:57] (aktuell) – xaverkainzbauer
@@ Zeile 22: / Zeile 22: @@
   shield and protection is his faithfulness.
+A transposed piece (cf.: BzG 24,26). This transposition is represented differently in the various manuscripts. The Aquitanian manuscripts A and Y must be taken as the starting point. Whilst A generally notates the melodic progression without regard to semitones (accidentals), Y shifts parts of the melody in order to notate it ‘in semitones’. (cf. Rupert Fischer BzG 23, 90). This results in the following situation for “Scapulis suis”:\\
+In relation to the beginning “Scapulis suis obum-” and the end “veritas eius”, the entire piece must be transposed up a tone, which would lead to “F#” and “C#”. We notate the transposition using a ‘bar line’ and Custos. A and Y are to be read vice versa: Y notates the middle section lower to represent the semitones correctly; A has the melodic progression correct, but we have transposed it lower.\\
+In Bv34 and Kl, the section ‘circumdabit te’ is already notated ‘correctly’ in relation to the other sources; Bv34 sets the first part “Scapulis suis obum-” lower (“fa-sa”) and thus correctly in relation to what follows. Mp notates in the “do-fa” range with consistent use of the low “si-be-molle”, but has therefore not transposed the middle section of the Communio either.\\
+In Bv33, the transitions between the phrases are not notated correctly ( ‘tibi / et’, ‘sperabis / scuto’ ) !
+<fc #4682b4>‘et sub pén-nis eius sperabis’</fc> the Cento **RP Ω i** indicates the absence of any stress. The accent previously lay on ‘pénnis’.
 -------
 {%syn:analyse:grad:0727%}