1.22 — O mi custos

NotationDate10th - 11th c.
TypeFrench
NotesA notation whose disposition indicates relative pitch height. Since the first line of text was copied at the top of the writing space on fol. 141r, the notator was able to differentiate the heighting of neumes more sharply at this point. The ink of both notation and text is now badly faded, especially from 'miseranter' through to 'super'. For this passage, the notation is almost illegible and the transcribed text has been reconstructed with the aid of the version recorded in Pal. lat. 1928.
No similarities can be traced between the three notated melodies in either melodic profile or organization.



TranscriptDiplomatic
Transcription
 Omicustos-Paris544
Alphanumeric
transcript
1c, 1a, 1c, 1a, 1a, 2b, 1c, 1c, [ ], 1a, 1c, 1a, 1b, 1a, 1c, 1c, 1a, 1b, 1a, [ ], 1a, 1b, [ ], 1c, 1c, 1b, 1a, 1b, [ ], [ ], 1a, 1b, 1a [ ], 3c, 1b, 1a, "2b", 1c, 1a, 1b, 1a, 1a
Comparison
between neumes
 XOmicustos-1   XOmicustos-2
MelodyNo melodic or melodic-poetic pattern is recoverable.
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.