The meaning of iij in Gregorian chant
  • FriarAthanasius
    Posts: 6
    What is the meaning and proper usage of ij & iij in Gregorian chant, specifically in the Orbis Factor (X) Kyrie? Basically I am typesetting chant so that the first kyrie is led by the hebdo and then repeated by all, same with the Christe eleison. I know that ij accompanies those but for the final kyrie a different kyrie is done at the end and I am not sure what to put (.ij, .j ?)
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,502
    I take it that ij means the same as (bis), or (repeat). You repeat a single time--sing the same thing a total of twice.

    iij means sing it a total of 3 times.

    I don't think any marking is necessary to say that you don't repeat something at all. So nothing would be needed at the end.

    None of these markings is an indicator of which choir sings. They just indicate repeats.

    So one would write: phrase one, iij. Phrase 2, iij. Phrase 3, ij. Phrase 4, no marking. (That is, Phrase 1, 3x, phrase 2, 3 times, phrase 3, twice, Phrase 4, once.)

    I could be wrong, but I think this is correct.
    Thanked by 1E_A_Fulhorst
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 993
    Yes, this is correct. 'ij' means: sing two times. 'iij' means: sing three times.

    As an aside, modern (post 1969) chant books usually only have the indication 'bis', because there are no parts in the Kyriale that are to be sung three times.
    Thanked by 1E_A_Fulhorst
  • FriarAthanasius
    Posts: 6
    So .bis would mean to just repeat it once?
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 993
    Yes. It has exact the same meaning as 'ij': sing two times.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,177
    Kathy's interpretation is right: ij means twice, iij means thrice, no marking means once.

    For the Kyrie Orbis Factor (XI), as well as most of the other Kyries, the underlay is:

    Kyrie eleison. iij ... the phrase is sung 3 times.
    Christe eleison. iij ... the phrase is sung 3 times.
    Kyrie eleison. ij ... the prhase is sung 2 times.
    Kyrie eleison. ... the concluding prhase is sung once.

    The overall structure is that of a "9-fold" Kyrie: 3 Kyrie eleisons, 3 Christe eleisons, 3 Kyrie elseisons. The only difference is the that the music is different for the third rendition of the second set of Kyrie eleisons.
    Thanked by 1E_A_Fulhorst
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,196
    They're Roman numerals: "ii" and "iii". Why the last letter is written as "j" isn't clear, since the letter "j" is a relative innovation.
    Thanked by 1E_A_Fulhorst
  • Bobby Bolin
    Posts: 418
    From what I recall "i" and "j" are one in the same. I'm wondering if this just makes it easier to read...
    Thanked by 1francis
  • Mark M.Mark M.
    Posts: 632
    ITERUM JUBILUS.

    That's what it stands for. At least, I'm sure I saw that in a friend's Liber, or something… although much to my frustration, I can't seem to remember or locate that original source.

    "Iterum" means "again" or "a second time"; "jubilus," in this case, would seem to be a noun meaning "a shout of joy." (I'm checking online sources there, for what it's worth.") In any case, "ij" would mean once more (i.e., twice total), and "iij" would mean twice more (three times total).

    Now, I'm a bit curious what exactly is meant by "bis" -- I've seen this in my Gregorian Missal. I'm pretty sure it means "twice," but the usage of "bis" here doesn't seem to encompass the distinction between "ij" and "iij."
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 993
    but the usage of "bis" here doesn't seem to encompass the distinction between "ij" and "iij."

    Please remember that in the OF the invocations of the Kyrie are always sung twice (also in Kyrie Orbis factor (XI), mentioned above). That's why in the OF chant books the designation 'bis' suffices to indicate that a phrase has to be repeated only once.

    There's one instance in the Graduale Romanum (1974) where something has to be sung thrice: the Agnus Dei invocations in the conclusion of the Litany of Saints. Here the GR says 'ter' ...
  • Mark M.Mark M.
    Posts: 632
    Very interesting! (Incidentally, I started a thread about the sixfold-vs.-ninefold question earlier this year… the discussions that followed got rather heated!)
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,391
    All the above are right, so I don't need to respond.
    I do think that he who purports ij to be a signifer for iterum jubilus is merely assigning words rather arbitrarily to make a made up sense that is, actually, an incorrect one.
    Those who asserted that the total number of i's and j's indicated the number of times to repeat the chant to which they are attached win the Heath toffee bar.
    iiiiiiiiiiij = repeat 12 times..... whatever the number of i's the last one will be followed by one j. That's the convention.

    Now, for the next question (worth 10 points): what two things are signified by the *?
  • Protasius
    Posts: 468
    Twelvefold would be expressed xij., if such an pathological case came up.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,196
    I'm skeptical about any long strings of "i"'s; maybe if we made up a book for Byzantine prayers, we'd have to include
    Kyrie eleison. (xii)

    -- oh, yeah: xij.

  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,791
    So, four would look like iy, right?
  • Mark M.Mark M.
    Posts: 632
    Now, for the next question (worth 10 points): what two things are signified by the *?

    Two things? Hm.
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,175
    Final j instead of i is a graphical convention in mediaeval Latin. Still seen today in the spelling of the noble name Pamphilj .

    The * implies "choir joins here" and "skip to the beginning of the psalm (when not a double feast)" -- two consequences of one meaning "here is the end of the intonation"
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • joerg
    Posts: 137
    @Richard Mix: No, four is iiij
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,466
    nah. (viij)
    hey. (iij)
    goodbye.
    Thanked by 6Kathy noel jones, aago Chris Allen Jenny Mark M. ClergetKubisz
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,502
    nah (xi)
    Hey, Jude.
    Thanked by 5Adam Wood Chris Allen Jenny Mark M. ClergetKubisz
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Throw the P/W types for a loop:

    Waves of mercy, waves of grace
    Everywhere I look, I see Your face
    Your love has captured me
    Oh my God This love
    How can it be

    nah. (xii)
    nah. (xii)
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,466
    na (xvj)
    BATMAN (iij)
    Thanked by 6Gavin Mark M. Kathy Andrew Motyka E_A_Fulhorst ClergetKubisz
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,196
    Cielito Lindo: Ay (iv)

    There's the story of how Pope John Paul II adopted the spelling "Joannes Paulus" upon his institution. The Vatican Latinist Reginald Foster (so the story goes) was producing the Latin text for a papal document and edited the J to an I, with the note "There is no J in Latin." He got a note back, "There is now."

    But the older tradition won out in the end: the Pope's tomb is engraved "Ioannes Paulus".
    Thanked by 3Mark M. E_A_Fulhorst ClergetKubisz
  • Mark M.Mark M.
    Posts: 632
    I do think that he who purports ij to be a signifer for iterum jubilus is merely assigning words rather arbitrarily to make a made up sense that is, actually, an incorrect one.
    I'll certainly believe this, out of a sense of trust for MJO if nothing else!

    But I swear I did actually see "iterum jubilus" in print somewhere. It was a 1960 (61? 62?) Missal, I think (but with music), not a Liber… and it was in a footnote near the beginning of the book. I'll ask my friend again the exact source and page number.
  • aldrich
    Posts: 230
    It's in the Traditional Roman Hymnal (SSPX).
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,196
    Yes, that book presents the same explanation, but it's not plausible that Latin speakers would write "again, again the jubilus" for a threefold repetition ("iterum iterum jubilus") and abbreviate it as "iij", when they could more simply write "thrice" ("ter") or write a numeral "iij".

    What's happened here is a sort of folk-etymology in which someone makes up a phrase after the fact to "explain" a written expression.
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen E_A_Fulhorst Andrew Motyka
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,466
    You mean SSPX just makes stuff up and calls it traditional? How shocking. I am shocked.
    Thanked by 2Gavin Andrew Motyka
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,196
    Well, I doubt they made it up. The idea has been circulating, and did appear in some book (as Mark M. mentioned above.)
    Thanked by 1E_A_Fulhorst
  • Earl_GreyEarl_Grey
    Posts: 903
    And C=common time
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,391
    They did make it up.
    Someone, anyhow, had to make it up becuase it is specious, plus, after the fact.
    Too, It might even be a red herring!!! (They're everywhere, you know.)

    Just like Bis menas Big impious student!,,, or bragging impious sophomore!
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    The "J" as a semi-consonant does not exist in Latin.

    In the Latin Course I studied at college, "I" and "J" were used interchangably.

    For Example:

    "ejus" and "eius"
    "Iesu" and "Jesu"
    "iij" and "iii" (i.e. the number 3)
    "Iubilate" and "Jubilate"

    There is no particular convention to it's use, although from personal observation it does seem to be used mostly when the "i" is followed by another vowel.
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,175
    I am reminded of this starting around :45.

  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,466
    My sense of this is two-fold:

    -An i with a curved bottom (looking like a J) is used as a typographical convention in some instances, and does not represent a different letter. "iij" is such an example. the curve on the descender simply "ties" the last i into the other two two make it clear that that the three Is are a whole unit.

    -The curve on the descender in words like Jesu/Iesu and Iubilate/Jubilate is evidence of a slow shift in pronunciation, a shift that might, in a less dead language, birth a new letter. The anecdote above regarding JPII's use of the letter J in his name represents a single interesting point along a long and organic process, and illustrates that Latin is, in fact, still a living language.
Add a Comment