1.28 — Ut quid iubes

NotationDate10th c.; ?
NotesThe notation was probably added at the same time as the text, which has itself been dated to the tenth century: see B. Bischoff, 'Gottschalks Lied für den Reichenauer Freund', Mittelalterliche Studien II, Stuttgart, 1967, p. 29. A restricted range of signs is employed, but their execution is notable in so far as the angle of the tractulus (1b) varies from the horizontal to a slight upward slant depending on the direction of the melodic motion and thus also the movement of the hand across the page.
No similarities between the two surviving notated melodies for this text can be discerned with any certainty.
2a, 1c, 1a, 1c, 1b, 1a, 1a, 1a | 1b, 1c, 1a, 1a, 1b, 1a, 1a, 2V | 1a, 1b, 1c, 1c, 1a, 1a, 1a, 1b | 1b, 1a, 1b, 1c, 1a, 1b, 1a, 1c | 1a, 1a, 2V, 1c | 1a, 1b, 1a, 1c, 1c, 1b, 1a || 1a, 1a, 1c, 1a, 1b, 1a, 1a, 1a | 1b, 1b, [ ], [ ], [ ], 1a, 1a, 1a | 1a, 1b, 1b, 1c, 1a, 1a, 1a, 1b | [ ], [ ], 1c, 1b, 1a, 1b, 2b, 1c | 1a, 1a, 2V, 1b | 1a, [ ], 1a, 1b, 1c, 1a, 1a
between neumes
MelodyNo melodic or melodic-poetic patterning is recoverable within the strophe. The almost entirely syllabic melody is similar in profile between the two notated strophes.
Historical transcripts
 Utquidiubes Utquid_Coussemaker
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.
No similarities between the two notated melodies can be discerned with any certainty.