All verses of O Filii et Filiae
  • Does anyone know of a copy of O Filii et Filiae that has all 12 verses set to notation? Our choir becomes intimidated when there is just straight text before them. Chant notation would be great, but modern notation is fine.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,770
    Had this in my music file, although I think I may have a better copy somewhere.

    Quite a few copies use modern notation, some with a slight variation of the melody.

    Also there are polyphonic arrangements, alternating between chant.

    image
    OFiliietFiliae.pdf
    1022K
  • aldrich
    Posts: 230
    I think I have a re-typeset version of this, @expeditus, in the books I printed last Lent for my choir. Do you need translations on the margin?
  • On which of the Benedicamus melodies it is troped?
  • aldrich
    Posts: 230
    Hi, expeditus,

    .pdf attached
    O filii et filiae (2).pdf
    935K
  • Aldrich, as always, your work is a visual treat. Thank you for sharing.

    In Verse 5, should the translation read "...than Peter?"

    I have a question about the translation of Verse 3:
    "And Mary Magdalene, and Mary the wife of Jacob, and Mary the wife of Salome did come to anoint the Body, alleluia."

    Was Salome the wife of Zebedee? Is she also referred to as Mary Salome? Were Mary Jacobi and Mary Salome both the sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary? The 3 Mary's are mentioned in the ever-revered Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Marys

    Another online post had mentioned that Mary Magdalene was accompanied by Mary Jacobi, the sister of the Blessed Virgin, and Mary Salome, the mother of the apostles James and John, and wife of Zebedee.

    Does anyone know what Catholic Tradition has to say about the supposed identity of those names mentioned in Verse 3?

    Thank you, aldrich.
  • aldrich
    Posts: 230
    Hmn, I assumed they were patronymics. It appears that Maria Jacobi is Mary the mother of James, and Maria Salome is simply Mary Salome.

    As for their identities, I really cannot say something.

    I'll send you an updated .pdf if you need it.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,209
    Mark 15:40 mentions three women who witnessed the Crucifixion: "There were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome."

    This verse leads to a little information about relatives of Jesus.

    This Mary who is mother of James and Joses is also mentioned elsewhere in the Gospels:
    Mk. 15:47 : "Mary the mother of Joses"
    Mk. 16:1 : "Mary the mother of James"

    The information in Scripture suggests that Mary, the mother of James and Joses, is not the Mother of our Lord, because Jesus is described as *the* son of Mary, and no one else is described as her son; nor is any woman described as her daughter.

    Yet James and Joses are mentioned, along with men named Judah and Simon, as among the relatives ("brethren") of Jesus (Mk. 6:3). Mt. 13:55 has "Joseph" instead of "Joses". James later becomes the first bishop of Jerusalem, and Simon becomes the second: Eusebius mentions this in his Ecclesiastical History, and quotes the 2nd-century historian Hegesippus, who says that after James' death Simon the son of Clopas was everyone's favorite to become the bishop, since he was a cousin of the Lord. So Simon's father Clopas is perhaps a brother to St. Joseph. This shows how the relatives of Jesus ended up with a highly regarded position in the early church at Jerusalem, which is a change from the way they are depicted earlier in the gospels (John 7:5).

    John 19:25 in turn says: "Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene." It's not clear how this can be integrated with the other references. Is it possible that "his mother's sister" refers to Salome? Or is the passage designating the wife of Clopas as being also the "sister" of Mary (in an extended sense)? So we don't have all the answers on how to deal with this information in Scripture. Still, the passages are consistent with the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of our Lady.
    Thanked by 2expeditus1 aldrich
  • Coming back to this hymn, which melody do you guys sing?

    - The modern one with round notes from The Liber Usualis 1961?
    http://www.gregorianbooks.com/p.php?p=LU1875
    - or the old one with Gregorian square notes as in the Parish Book of Chant?
    http://www.gregorianbooks.com/p.php?p=PBC157,PBC158

    We had to make a choice in our choir last week and we eventually chose the old Gregorian melody. Which is always a challenge as people tend to lengthen the second syllable like in the modern notation...

    Maybe some of you know why the melody was changed? Is it because people were already singing it this way so it had to be taken in account in the latest editions of the chant books?

    For information:
    - The Liber Usualis 1947 has the melody with Gregorian square notes,
    - The Liber Usualis 1952 has the (different) melody with modern round notes.

    Source: http://chantdiscography.com/?liber (at the bottom)

  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,209
    This version is most common:

    http://www.hymnary.org/hymn/ACH1913/page/489
    Thanked by 1Jacques Perrière
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,187
    chonak's version is just the square note version in round notes. And it's the one i'm most familiar with, too.

    I think that the LU1875 version is a more recent simplification(?) of the older tune. Both are, in fact, essentially in triple meter. But the LU1875 simplification tries (too hard, in my estimation) to have every stressed syllable on the downbeat.

    The other tune uses a triplet for the first three syllables of each line, which is a perfectly good practice when setting iambic texts, since it is not uncommon for the first foot of a line to be somewhat ambiguously iambic (ie. it might be pronounced with the accent on the first syllable).

    Thus:
    O sons and DAUghters LET us SING!
    THE king of HEAV'N the GLOrious KING

    Versus:
    o SONS and DAUghters LET us SING!
    the KING of HEAV'N the GLOrious KING