Unterschiede

Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.

--- gr_indiv:0746 [2025/10/19 14:27] – xaverkainzbauer
+++ gr_indiv:0746 [2026/02/16 17:49] (aktuell) – xaverkainzbauer
@@ Zeile 4: / Zeile 4: @@
 ------------------
 [[0745]] ← → [[0747]]
 {%syn:title:grad:0746%}
-[[0726]] ⟽ **[[cento_gr:cento_co1|CO 1]]** ⟾ [[0752]] <fc #ffffff>xxx</fc> [[grad:0746|⏹️]]\\
+[[0726]] ⟽ **[[cento_gr:cento_co1|CO 1]]** ⟾ [[0752]] <fc #ffffff>xxx</fc> [[grad:0746|⏹️]]
+ <fc #ffffff>xxx</fc> GT 572 - GN 2/262 - BzG 53/20
-GT 572\\
-BzG 53/20 - GrN 2/262
 -------
 <fc #4682b4>"//Tu// puer"</fc>     Bv  contra Aq: Bv "**re**-fa-sol" - Aq "**mi**-fa-sol". In MR spricht die beginnende Virga gegen "re". E das sursum //unter// dem ersten Ton ist unzweifelhaft //für// "mi". Zw + Mp "re" sind der do-Revision zuzuschreiben. Verblüffend Kl mit "mi" !\\
@@ Zeile 34: / Zeile 31: @@
 <fc #4682b4>"//vi//-as eius"</fc>  Kl füllt als einzige Hss den Terzsprung auf, keine andere Hass schreibt ein Quilisma. Das ist reine <fc #ff0000>Plerosis</fc>!\\
 <fc #4682b4>"vias //e//-ius"</fc>  Der SatzendeTrc geht in Kl über die Terz. Das ist <fc #ff0000>do-Revision</fc>, wie sie in dieser Konsequenz nur in Kl angewendet ist.
--------
-Du, Kind, wirst Prophet des Höchsten genannt werden.\\
-Denn du wirst dem Herrn vorangehen, ihm den Weg zu bereiten.
-You, child, will be called a prophet of the Most High.\\
+  Du, Kind, wirst Prophet des Höchsten genannt werden.
-For you will go before the Lord, to prepare the way for him.
+  Denn du wirst dem Herrn vorangehen, ihm den Weg zu bereiten.
--------
+  You, child, will be called a prophet of the Most High.
+  For you will go before the Lord, to prepare the way for him.
+<fc #4682b4>“//Tu// puer”</fc>     Bv  contra Aq: Bv “**re**-fa-sol” - Aq “**mi**-fa-sol”. In MR, the beginning virga speaks against “re.” E the sursum //under// the first note is undoubtedly //for// “mi.” Zw + Mp “re” are attributable to the do revision. Amazing Kl with “mi”!\\
+<fc #4682b4>“Tu //pu//-er”</fc>  E celeriter over the entire neume, hence the current spelling for the torculus graph. Last Tom “mi”, only in Kl, Zt, Mod and Mp  do revision. Bv33 and also Ch confirm this with their spellings of the following tristropha. \\
+“//pro//-pheta” E kClv with celeriter.
+“pro-//phe//-ta” Kl writes a passing tone (Quilisma?), where all others write a bare third Pes.\\
+The following recitation “la” is not accented in any source, only Mp feels compelled to note an epiphonus to “sa” on the morpheme
+<fc #4682b4>“//alt//-issimi”</fc>.
+<fc #4682b4>“altissi-//mi//”</fc> ScaFlx initially articulates “fa-sol-la-mi”. MR (the following virga) and L (humiliter) confirm the “mi” of the Beneventan and Aquitanian traditions, interestingly also Mp.\\
+<fc #4682b4>“//vo//-caberis”</fc>  \\
+TrcRes “fa-la-so-la”. Ch notates the third ascending with quilisma.
+ScaSbp 5 steps,  pressus at the end in E. All adiastematic manuscripts (except E) simply notate 6 notes. The diastematic sources Bv34 (also Bv33) and Kl use oriscus notation. The notation in Zt can no longer be read as quilisma: the wave motion is constitutive in every clivis. \\
+<fc #4682b4>“voca-//be//-ris”</fc> The CAD mega is notated in MR in its West Frankish peculiarity with Quilisma. Y does the same! Kl pays double homage to the do revision: The concluding Clv is raised to “fa-re,” the Quilisma position, which is entirely possible in Ka as a passing tone (passing tones are not subject to the do revision rule) is nevertheless raised to “fa.” Ka is aware of the third ascension. Nevertheless, the passing sign (Quilisma) must be “saved”: Not a single jot or tittle of the law may be lost.\\
+<fc #4682b4>“//prae-//ibis”</fc> The praetonic “la” in Kl and Zt is refuted by Aq and Bv; likewise by the sursum in E on the following Por (see also L + Ch).\\
+<fc #4682b4>“prae-//i//-bis”</fc> Por “la-sol-si”. The adiastematic notation indicates the third ascending with Quilisma. Zt also writes a 3-note neume (!). Bv33 writes Quilisma, Bv34, which no longer recognizes Quilisma, writes a passing tone.  The si-be-molle of Kl, Zt, and Mp is possible, but despite Kl, we argue for si-be-durum. There is no modal or melodic reason to introduce a b here. What remains is the subjective, emotional evaluation: a sweet, intimate “praeibis enim,” or a factual, proclamatory one.
+The usual argument—that all sources that can even notate a B flat also write B flat—is reversible: only when a B flat is sung is the sign invented. Regarding Kl: the “B flat revision” (C revision) on the first note of the Por would require a ‘F’ as the final note and make an “E” impossible. Neither exists; the surrounding tenor level is “sol.”\\
+<fc #4682b4>“faciem domini parare”</fc> Here, the Cistercians compose quite freely.\\
+<fc #4682b4>“faci-//em do//-mini”</fc>
+The two TrcRes are articulated at the beginning in all adiastematic sources, but not in the diastematic ones. A+Y cannot be notated differently; their spelling is //not// to be read as initial articulation.\\
+<fc #4682b4>“faciem domi-//ni//”</fc>  L The oriscus at the beginning of the Trc spelling would have to be an additional tone if the oriscus were a tone. Here, in contrast to the two previous TrcRes, it indicates initial articulation, where the first tone is assigned to its own syllable, the first tone of the remaining Trc is no higher than before, equal in height to the previous tone, on the tenor “re”.\\
+<fc #4682b4>“pa-//ra-re//”</fc>  The oriscus graphies in Bv33 stand as a specification of the tenor level “re” and as (instead of) the first tone of the respective porrectus. See E and L. In Ch, ala, the first tone of the second Por, there is also an oriscus to indicate the unison connection (the tenor level “re”). The role of the oriscus is no longer so clear to the writer of MR: is it a separate tone “pa-//ra//-re,” or just an ‘attention’ sign “para-//re//”? Ch explains the oriscus as a tone, but this is not compatible with L and E.
+To explain Kl, the oriscus sign would have to be read as two tones. The consequences for any understanding of a fairly closed Gregorian tradition would be catastrophic. Mp reads these signs as two tones, Mod does not.
+<fc #4682b4>“//vi//-as eius”</fc>  Kl is the only manuscript that fills in the third leap; no other manuscript writes a quilisma. This is pure <fc #ff0000>plerosis</fc>!\\
+<fc #4682b4>“vias //e//-ius”</fc>  The end of the phrase Trc goes over the third in Kl. This is <fc #ff0000>do-revision</fc>, as applied in this consequence only in Kl.
 -------
 {%syn:analyse:grad:0746%}