1.22 — O mi custos

NotationDate10th - 11th c.
TypeFrench
NotesNotation was added to lines xiv-xvi, a disposition that cuts across the three-line strophes of the text. The individual neume forms, although differing slightly in morphology, retain an axis of circa fifteen degrees to the right of the vertical.
No similarities can be traced between the three surviving notated melodies in either melodic profile or organization.
TranscriptDiplomatic
Transcription
 Omicustos-VATreg1616
Alphanumeric
transcript
1a, 1c, 1a, 1a, 1c, 1a, 1a, 1c, 1a, 1a, 1c, 2b, 1d, 1a, 3b | 1b, 1b, 1a, 1c, 1a, 1a, 2a, 1d, 1a, 1d, 1a, 2b, 1d, 1a, 3b | 1b, 1b, 1a, 1d, 1a, 1a, 2a, 1d, 2a, 2b, 1a, 1a, 1c, 1a
Comparison
between neumes
 XOmicustos-1   XOmicustos-2
MelodyThe first halves of lines xv and xvi demonstrate a similar sequence of neumes. The last four syllables of lines xiv and xv likewise receive a similar sequence of neumes. Rearranged into strophic form, these resemblances may be summarized as: ab, cd, ad'.
Musical editions
Leclercq-Bonnes, Jean de Fécamp, pp. 222; Sevestre, Du versus au conduit II, p. 186; Barrett, Ritmi ad cantandum, p. 414

The transcription of the alphabetical notation by Beyssac in the edition of O mi custos presented in the volume by Leclerq and Bonnes departs from the notated letters at 1.9, where the written b should be realised in modern notation as a ‘b flat’. Pitches are also given for the third line without any indication that the reconstruction at that point is a conjectural reading of the neumatic notation since letters were added only to the first two lines.
Sevestre’s realization of the letter notation contains an error at 1.6; the h should be transcribed into modern notation as an a rather than a b. Barrett provides a realization of the letter notation only.
TransmissionIn the absence of any correlation between the three recorded melodies for O mi custos, it is not possible to speak of melodic transmission in relation to this text, which is in itself a striking result given the survival of three notations for this text from late tenth- or eleventh-century Northern France. What can be said on the basis of the occasional differences between the melodies recorded in neumes and letters in Paris lat. 1928 is that even a locally transmitted melody was subject to alteration.