"Omnes qui in Christo" corrected chant question
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,110
    The Communio for the Baptism of the Lord has a change in the corrected editions (both in the Graduale Novum and in the Liber Gradualis) that puzzles me.

    Here is the chant in the Graduale Triplex. At the end of the word "baptizati", the chant ends on "do"; the chant continues on the word "estis" on the same pitch: "do".

    image

    In both of the corrected editions, the first pitch on the word "estis" has been raised to "re". This is from the Graduale Novum, but the Liber Gradualis has made the same change.

    image

    There appears to be conflicting melodic instructions in the St. Gall neumes, with both a "r", indicating higher pitch, and an "e", indicating an equal pitch.

    It appears the Triplex favored the "e" whereas the corrected editions favored the "r". I've begun to dabble in semiology, and I'm wondering why both of the corrected editions decided to make the same change from the Triplex. In most cases, I can easily see that the corrected editions got it right when they changed the melody. In this case, I'm perplexed.
    Screenshot 2025-01-10 094157.png
    882 x 528 - 173K
    Screenshot 2025-01-10 094336.png
    1355 x 603 - 424K
    Thanked by 1PaxTecum
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,025
    I'm just guessing: is the interval re-mi perhaps more natural to the second mode that the interval do-mi? Does ‘baptizati estis’ mimic ‘estis Christum’?
  • FSSPmusic
    Posts: 331
    Here are the notes from the critical apparatus in Beiträge zur Gregorianik 23:
    Kl; Mod (118.2); Verdum 759, Sarum (124.5), and Moosburg (82.12): only pes re-fa (Verdum in transposition sol-te). In Bv 34, A, and Y the first two notes are not found at all, but the neume begins with fa; in Ch 1st note significantly higher; virga for the first note in B; but E: e for the 1st note, s for the 2nd note!

    I have modified some of the sigla to conform to the usage of this site. Consider that the editors might be mistaken. At -zati es-, Mp gives F D (not a clivis!) C, which corresponds to the oldest extant source, L.
    Thanked by 1MarkB
  • Here's a routine reminder: Critique principles, not people.
  • Christopher
    Posts: 2
    @MarkB
    In their book Introduction to the Interpretation of Gregorian Chant, on page 169, Luigi Agustoni and J.B. Goschl explain that the "e"(qualiter) letter can have different meanings.

    "In the manuscript neume notation - especially in E - one finds that the equaliter is used both for a unison relationship and a semitone relationship. It probably corresponds to the fact that in the middle ages there were some contexts in which the interval from [mi-fa, ti-do, la-te, either ascending or descending] was smaller than a half step."

    They then give several examples demonstrating the different uses. They also explain and demonstrate how it doesn't always refer to the two notes immediately on either side, but can be used to indicate a repeat of a melody/motif.

    In the example you have provided here, there is not the question of a half step. So, in addition to what the various other diastematic manuscript renderings (provided by FSSPMusic above) and what Agustoni and Goschl explain, it would seem that in this instance, the "e" is saying that the first note of estis is the same note as the first note of the clivis on baptizati, i.e. RE. That also explains the use of the "s"ursum.

    Interestingly enough, both the "s"ursum of of SG and the tironian sign for "supra" in the Laon notation can be used not just for rising intervals but also for descending intervals, especially when descending only a half step. In these instances, they are used to say "be careful, don't go down to far."
Add a Comment