medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
The text of the first line of what now appears to be 'Sederunt principes' has
indeed been altered: it was originally 'Et enim sederunt', which is how the
Introit for the Mass of St Stephen begins. The melody matches that Introit, more
or less, in the Liber Usualis 414. I can only think that it was confused with
the Gradual for the same mass, which begins 'Sederunt principes, et adversum me
loquebantur' (LU 416).
On the other side, 'Solve iubente deo' appears to be the versus of the Alleluia
for the feast of St Peter's Chains, LU 1576, not the Magnificat antiphon on LU
1579. Both the end of the antiphon melody and the versus differ from the LU
melody, though there are resemblances here and there. It is, however, more
variation than one would expect between different usages. The text does not seem
to be rewritten.
Bonnie Blackburn
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Bonnie Blackburn
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford OX2 6EJ
tel. +44 (0)1865 552808
fax +44 (0)1865 512237
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Dillon" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: [M-R] Recent forgeries part I.2
> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
>
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2009, at 9:28 am, christopher crockett wrote, quoting
> Bob Kraft:
>
>>
>> >and the underwriting is still decipherable (Et enim sede).
>>
>> sorry.
>>
>> you lost me entirely there.
>>
>> perhaps we are not looking at the same image.
>>
>> but i'll be jiggered if i can see an "Et enim sede" anywhere on this page
>>
>> http://www.neumann-walter.de/NW/November2007/27.11.07/33.jpg
>>
>> and i can see no "underwriting" below the main text of the chant, anywhere,
>> either.
>>
>> you Manuscript guys sure do have sharp eyes.
>
> I can see it just as Bob does, in the line that now has: e de
> It may not be quite as plain as a pikestaff, but it's there. If you look
> closely at the space after the second 'e' on that line you should be able to
> make out what at first glance might appear to be an 'x'. It's actually the
> join between an uncial 'd' and an 'e'. Work backwards from thaty and you
> should be able to reconstruct the rest.
>
> <SNIP>
>> >And it doesn't take much paleographical skill
>>
>> now your talking my language.
>>
>> >to observe that the newly written "d" in that line
>>
>> the "Se*d*e" line...
>>
>> http://www.neumann-walter.de/NW/November2007/27.11.07/33.jpg
>>
>> >is not appropriate to the original hand -- see the final line on that
>> page
>> (domine deus) or the Solue line on the next page ending with "de."
>>
>> or the "d" in "aduersu[m]" just below the "Sede".
>>
>> yes, even i can see that.
>
> or the 'd' in the erased 'de' referred to above.
>
> Best,
> John Dillon
>
> **********************************************************************
> To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
> to: [log in to unmask]
> To send a message to the list, address it to:
> [log in to unmask]
> To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
> to: [log in to unmask]
> In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
> [log in to unmask]
> For further information, visit our web site:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|