1.28 — Ut quid iubes

NotationDate10th c.; ?
TypeAquitanian
NotesA notation whose dark ink colour resembles that of A solis ortu in the same manuscript. The presence of occasional lighter forms may indicate residual work of a second scribe; there is, for example, a second punctum (1c) visible in the photographic reproduction over the first syllable of line iii that has remained untranscribed so as not to present a confused melodic profile. The darker notation comprises Aquitanian forms, whose distinctive features include a tractulus (1b) that curves upwards and to the right, an oriscus whose initial and final strokes curve inwards and a frequent use of the quilisma.
No similarities between the two surviving notated melodies for this text can be discerned with any certainty.
TranscriptDiplomatic
Transcription
 Utquid-Paris1154
Alphanumeric
transcript
1c, 3a'', 1b, 1c, 1c, 2b, 2a, 1b | 1c, 3a'', 1b, 1c, 1c, 2b, 2a, 1c | 1c, 1b, "2b", 1c, 1b, "2b", 1c, 2b | 1b, 1b, "2b", 1c, 1c, 1b, "3b", 3''D | 2a, 2a, 2b, 1c | 4f''', 1b, 2b, 3a'', 2b, 2a, 1b
Comparison
between neumes
 XUtquid
MelodyThe neumes for the first and second lines are similar in form and disposition. The only patterning that can be recovered with any confidence may therefore be summarized as: A, A, B, C, D, E.
Historical transcripts
 Utquidiubes Utquid_Coussemaker
 Utquid-Sanden Utquid_Sanden
Musical editions
Coussemaker, Histoire de l’harmonie, tr. 7; Jammers, Musik in Byzanz, p. 80; Sanden, Entzifferung, p. 205

The principles used in Coussemaker’s reconstruction of the melody recorded in Paris lat. 1154 are the same as those used for the reconstruction of A solis ortu: for full details, see the earlier entry. The regularity of the trochaic accent pattern lends itself to the the 3/4 realization with a 2:1 ratio between accented and unaccented syllables as already described in the commentary on Coussemaker’s  reconstruction of Aurora cum primo mane. The balanced phrase structure is abandoned for the shorter four-syllable line, which is set as a phrase of three bars. Quilisma and oriscus signs are not realised and liquescences are again treated as rising appoggiaturas.
Jammers provides a reconstruction of the melody recorded in Paris lat. 1154 on a five-line stave without initial clef. This means that the size of
interval is indicated (second, third, fourth etc.) without specifying type (major, minor, perfect, augmented etc.); in other words, melodic shape is detailed without the concretisation that comes with the assignment of a particular mode. The rhythmic realisation is isosyllabic with the addition of an extra beat at the end of all lines except the third, which is the only line in which the final accented syllable in the line is set to a single note.
Sanden’s reconstruction of the melody recorded in Paris lat. 1154 follows principles of neumatic interpretation derived from Guido’s Micrologus. The two main features of this interpretation are a parallelism between metrical lengths and neumatic rhythm, and a system of interlocking pentachords. Both the reconstruction and the accompanying justification are difficult to comprehend and are undermined by basic errors in the transcription of the neumes.
TransmissionNo similarities between the two notated melodies can be discerned with any certainty.