1.11 — Audax es uir iuuenis

NotazioneDatazionesec. XI; ?
TipoFrench
NoteThe disposition of the neumes appears to indicate relative pitch height. The extra space afforded by the upper text line of the folio allowed the notator greater scope to indicate relative pitch height. The manuscript is damaged above the first syllable of the second line of this poem, at which point the notation is no longer legible. The use of alphabetic notation in the third line of the strophe suggests an association with the monasteries of Normandy reformed by Willilam of Fécamp, who is credited with the introduction of an a-p system of alphabetic notation from North Italy. The neumatic notation features a sickle-shaped punctum, which is customarily used in Northern French notations to mark the semitone step. The use of this punctum in the same manuscript to mark the degree 'mi' (see the entry for O mi custos), strongly suggests that either an 'e' or 'b' is signalled at 'es' and '(pulve)rem' in the refrain; in view of the tessitura indicated by the other letters in the refrain, the most likely indicated pitch is 'e'.
TrascrizioneTrascrizioni
diplomatiche		 Audax-Paris1928
Trascrizione
alfanumerica		3a, 1a, 1a, ''2b'', 2a, 1a, 1a, ''2b'', 1c, 1a, 1a, 2b, 1a, 2a, 1a | 1a, 2a, 1a, 2b, 1a, 1a, 2b, 1a, 1a, 1a, 1a, 1a, 1b, 1a, 1a, 1a | [ ], ''1c'', 1c, 1a, 1a, 5c'', 1a, 1a, 2b, 2a, 1b, 1a, ''2b'', 1b, 2a, 1a, 1c, 3d, 1a | 6e''', ''2b'', 3c, 1b, 1b || 3a, 1a
MelodiaNo melodic or melodic-poetic patterning is recoverable beyond the fact that the notation added to the opening of the second strophe suggests strophic return.
Edizioni musicali
Gillingham, The Social Background, p. 194

Gillingham provides a neutral rhythmic transcription, using noteheads without stems to indicate pitches without stipulating rhythmical values. The marks in the margin tentatively transcribed by Gillingham are not consistent with the main notational script since the rising pitches would have been indicated as virgae (diagonal strokes) rather than puncta (dots) if added by the main notator. The marks on the final syllable of attende (3, 3) are similarly inconsistent with the main notational script. The possibility nevertheless remains that both sets of marks are neumes added by a second hand. Gillingham’s proposed reconstruction contains several misreadings of the notation: 1, 1 and 2, 1 are scandicus signs not pedes; 1. 5 and 2. 2 are pedes not single pitch signs; 3, 10 is a sickle-shaped punctum (see below) not a liquescent punctum; at 3, 18 the letters indicate dcd not ef; and the sign at 4, 3 is a torculus not a pes.