1.19 — Homo quidam

NotationDate10th/11th
TypeFrench
NotesThe neumes added to the refrain in the right hand margin are the work of a different scribe from the notation of the verses. Both notations are French, although the reclining angle of the ascenders approaches that of German notations, and show a considerable variation in the construction of individual forms that is suggestive of an early date, perhaps the late tenth century. A comparable script is found in Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek Rep. I. 93, a tenth-century tonary with additional notated songs featuring French notation from the Mosel area. The neumes added to the refrain are distinguished by relatively erect virgae (1a) often with an initial rising left to right curve. The neumes added to the verses are characterized by virgae with a right-leaning head and clives (2b) with a final drag to the right. The formal variation is particularly marked in the angle of the ascender of the pes (2a) and the puncta (1c), whose forms range from dots to marks drawn at varying angles with variously drawn out strokes of the pen.
The four transcribed melodies (aligned in the book entry) appear almost identical in content and parsing. The only substantial difference between the versions occurs in the first line of the fifth strophe. In Ful Aa 62, Abraham is shifted to the melodic figures associated with syllables 6 to 8. In Bu 7, the word order found elsewhere is reversed (Patrem vocat Abraham becomes Abraham patrem vocat) with melodic outline for syllables 5 to 7 following the profile given in Ful Aa 62 for syllables 6 to 8.
TranscriptDiplomatic
Transcription
 HomoquidamBudapest1   HomoquidamBudapest2
Alphanumeric
transcript
1c, 1a, 2a, 1c, 1a, 1a, 1c, 1a, "2b", [ ], [ ], 1c, 2a, 1c, 1a, 1c, 2a, 1c || (Verses) 1c, 1a, 2a, 1c, 1a, 1a, 1c, 1a, "2b", 1c, 1c, 1c, 2a, 1c, 1a, 1c, 2a, 1c | "2b", 1a, 2a, 1c, 2b, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1a, "2b", 1c, 1a, 1c | 1a, 1c, 1a, 2a, 1c, 1c, 1a, "2b", 1c, 1c, 1a, 2b, "2b", 1c, 1a, 1a || 1c, 1a, 2a, 1a, 1a, 2a, 2b, 1c, 1c, 1a, 2b, 1c, 1c, 2a, 1c | "2b", 1c, 1a, 1c, 1a, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1a, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1a, 1c | 1c, 1a, 2a, 1a, 1c, 1a, 2b, 1a, 1c, 1a, 2b, "2b", 1a, 1c, 1a, 1a || 1c, 1a, 2a, 1c, 1c, 3a', 2b, 1c, 3a', 2b, 1a, 1c, 2a, 1c | 1a, 1a, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1a, 2b, 1c, 1c, 1a, 1c, 1a, 1c, 1a, 1c | "2b", 1c, 1a, 2a, 1a, 2a, 2b, 1c, 1c, 2b, "2b", 1a, 1c, 1a, 1c || 1c, 1a, 2a, 1c, 1c, 2a, 2b, 1c, 1c, 1a, 2b, 1c, 1c, 2a, 1c | 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1a, 1c, 1a, 2b, 1c, 1c, 1a, 1c, "2b", 1c, 1a, 1c | 1a, 1c, 1a, 2a, 1a, 1c, 1a, 2b, 1c, 1c, 1a, "2b", 1a, 1c, 1a, 1a || 1c, 1c, 2a, 1c, 2a, 2b, 1c, 1c, 1a, 2b, 1c, 1a, 2a, 1c | 1a, 1a, 1a, 1a, 1c, 1a, 2b, 1c, 1c, 1a, 1c, 1a, 1c, 1c, 1c | 1c, 1c, 1a, 1a, 2a, 1a, 1c, 1a, 2b, 1c, 1c, 1a, 1c, "2b", 1c, 1a, 1a || [ ], 1a, 2a, 1c, 2a, 2b, 1c, 1c, 1a, 1a, 1c, 1c, 1a, 1c, 2a, 1c | "2b", 1c, 1a, 2b, 1c, 1c, 1a, 1a, 1a, 1c, 1a, 1c | 1c, 1a, 2a, 1a, 1c, 1a, 2b, 1c, 1c, 2b, "2b", 1a, 1c, 1a, 1a
Comparison
between neumes
 XHomoquidam-1   XHomoquidam-2   XHomoquidam-3   XHomoquidam-4
MelodyThe explicit use of the first line of the poem as a refrain in Lo 19768 and Wie 1888 strongly suggests that the copying of the first line separately in the right-hand margin implies its use as a refrain. The observations made for Lo 19768 with regard to textual and musical alignment also hold for this notation due to the close concordance in the pattern of neumes.
Musical editions
Stäblein, Monumenta monodica I, nr. 1014; Sevestre, Du versus au conduit II, p. 103; Haug and Björkvall, Rhythmischer Vers, pp. 146-7.

The version of the melody that Stäblein takes as the basis for his edition is that recorded in a fourteenth-century Gradual (Fulda Aa 62). Pitches are easily recovered from the notation due to its four-line staff (with f and c marked). Stäblein edits only the refrain and first verse of the five recorded with notation, but notes variants in later strophes in the commentary; liquescences and quilismata, which are not indicated in the transcription, are similarly recorded in the commentary (Monumenta monodica I, p. 619). Text and melody are aligned in eight columns, with one or more syllables assigned to each column according to melodic adaptations made for omitted or supernumerary syllables. The edition is neutral with respect to rhythm in so far as it presents noteheads without stems.
Sevestre adds a transcription of the neumes in Wien 1888 above the melody from Fulda Aa 62 transcribed into modern notation with stemless
noteheads. Her edition of the melody in Fulda Aa 62 silently corrects one error by Stäblein (V 3.5, single pitch), while introducing another (R 3.1-3, eC e g). The introduction of liquescences at R 1.9 and V 2.3 has no basis in the notation in the Fulda manuscript.
Haug and Björkvall in the course of presenting a version of Homo quidam for commentary also align a transcription of the neumes in Wien 1888 above a melody transcribed into modern notation with stemless noteheads, but in this case the melody is taken from Kassel theol. 4. As in Stäblein’s edition the neumes, pitches in modern notation and text are aligned in columns down the page in order to facilitate understanding of the adaptations. 
Unlike Stäblein, the adaptations of the first strophe and refrain are separated out (partly due to the demands of the analytical commentary)
and in subsequent strophes where supernumerary syllables are accommodated melodically by the addition of pitches at the beginning of the line these are recorded in a column before the first syllable.
Transmission
Two of the early medieval notated versions of Homo quidam are transmitted in liturgical sources (London Add. 19768 and Wien 1888), in
which the versus is assigned to Easter or Pentecost, and take the form of six strophes with a refrain, thereby implying use as a processional song. This liturgical version of the versus is first recorded in tenth-century sources; in ninth-century non-liturgical collections, which include Paris lat. 1154, a verse collection that was later extensively notated and all of whose items may be presumed to have been sung, a longer version of the text is transmitted consisting of thirteen strophes with a final doxology but no refrain. Whether any relation obtained between the liturgical melody, which remained stable from at least the tenth-century onwards, and the melody used for the non-liturgical version of the text cannot be determined on the basis of the surviving evidence of the sources alone. The difficulties involved in projecting the fluctuating syllable count of the text would nevertheless suggest that any melodic rendering would have been idiosyncratic and thus more likely to remain associated with this particular text.