1.16 — Fuit domini dilectus

NotationDate10th c.; ?
TypeAquitanian
NotesA formal script employing Aquitanian forms that was added to several other poems in the manuscript: for a brief description, see the entry for Qui de morte. Of particular note here is the porrectus (3d), which is found alone in this example of the script, as added to the eighth syllable of lines ii-iv.

TranscriptDiplomatic
Transcription
 FuitDomini-Paris1154-1   FuitDomini-Paris1154-2   FuitDomini-Paris1154-3
Alphanumeric
transcript
1b, 1b, 1b, 1b, 1b, 1c, 2''b, 1b, 1c, 1c, 2a, 4e, 1c, 2b, 2b | 1b, 1c, 4e, 2b, 1b, 1b, 2b, 3d, 1b, 1c, 1c, 2b, 1c, 1b, "2b" | 1c, 1c, 4e, 2b, 1b, 1b, 2b, 3d, 1c, 1c, 1c, "2b", 1c, 1c, "2b" | 1b, 1c, 4e, 2b, 1c, 1c, 2b, 3d, 1b, 1c, 1b, "2b", 3a'', 2b, 2a || 1b, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 2''b, 1c, 1c, 1c, 2a, 4e, 1c, 1c, 1c || 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1b || 1b, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1b, 1c, 2''b, [ ], 1c, 1c, 2a, 4e || 1b, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 2''b, 1c, 1c, 1b, 2a, 4e || 1b, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 2''b, 1b, 1c, 1c, 2a, 4e || 1b, 1c, 1c, 1b, 1c, 1c, 2''b, 1c, 1c, 1c, 2a, 4e || 1b, 1b, 1c, 1c, 1b, 1b, 2''b, 1b, 1b, 1b, 2a, 4e || 1b, 1c, 4e, 1b, 1b, 1b, 1b, 2b, 3d | 1c, 1b, 1b, 1c, 1b, 1c, 2''b, [ ], 1c, 1c, 2a, 4e || 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 2''b, 1b, 1b, 1b, 2a, 4e || 1b, 1c, 1b, 1b, 1b, 1c, 2''b, 1b, 1c, 1c, 2a, 4e, 1c, 2b, 2b || 1b, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 2''b, [ ], 1c, 1b, 2a, 4e || 1b, 1c, 1b, 1b, 1c, 1c, 2''b, 1c, 1c, 1c, 2a, 4e || 1b, 1b, 1b, 1b, 1b, 1b, 2''b, 1b, 1c, 1c, 2a, 4e, 1b, 1b, 2b || 1c, 1c, 4e, 1b, 1b, 1b, 2a, 3d | 1b, 1b, 1b, 1c, 1b, 1c, 2''b, 1b, 1b, [ ], 2a, 4e || 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 2''b, 1c, 1c, 1b, 2a, 4e || 1b, 1b, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 2''b, 1c, 1c, 1c, 2a, 4e || 1b, 1c, 1b, 1b, 1b, 1b, 2''b, 1c, 1c, 1b, 2a, 4e, 1c, 1c, 2b || 1b, 1b, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 2''b, 1c, 1c, 1b, 2a, 4e, 1b, 1b, 2b || 1c, 1c, 4e, 2b, 1c || 1b, 1c, 1b, 1c, 1c, 1c, 2''b, 1c, 1c, 1b, 2a, 4e || 1b, 1c, 1c, 1c, [ ], 1c, 2''b, [ ], 1c, 1c, 2a, 4e | [ ], [ ], 4e, "2b", 1b, 1b, 2a, 3d || 1b, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 2''b, 1b, 1b, 1b, 2a, 4e, 1b, 1b, 2b | 1b, 1c, 4e, 2b || 1b, 1c, 1b, 1c, 1c, 1c, 2''b, [ ], 1b, 1c, 2a, 4e, 1c, 1c, 2b || [ ], [ ] ,[ ], [ ], [ ], [ ], [ ], [ ], 1c, 1c, 1c, "2b", 3a'', 2b, 2a
MelodyThe repetition of neumes from the first line of the first strophe in subsequent strophes indicates melodic repetition by strophe. Melodic repetition may also be observed within the strophe: the second and third lines display an almost identical sequence of neumes, as does the fourth line aside from its final three syllables. The indicated melodic pattern may be summarized as: A, B, B, B'. Neumes have also been added to portions of internal lines of later strophes; in particular, lines thirty-two, sixty, seventy-eight, eighty-six, ninety-one and ninety-six. The first five of these neumed passages correspond to rhetorical highpoints in the text; the last marks the end of this version of the text. The first two of these additions, both final lines of their respective strophes, partially depart from the pattern of neumes in the first strophe, transforming the fourth-syllable clivis (2b) into a punctum (1b). In line thirty-two accommodation is made for an extra syllable by repeating a pitch between the fourth and fifth syllables (Desola-tas e-um). For similarities between this notated melody and that recorded for Tertio in flore in Na IV. G. 68, see the book entry for Fuit Domini.
Transmission
Only the opening twenty-four strophes of Fuit Domini are copied in Paris lat. 1154. These strophes are the most dramatic in their re-telling of
the account of the raising of Lazarus in the Gospel of John. The occasional addition of notation to moments of heightened rhetoric is reminiscent of the way in which particularly dramatic textual passages, usually corresponding with direct speech, were on occasion singled out in liturgical recitation and highlighted on the page through the exceptional addition of notation.
There are further witnesses to the singing of Fuit Domini beyond the single musical notation for the text recorded in Paris lat. 1154. Fuit Domini appears in a Poitiers Pontifical copied in the late ninth century (Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal 227), where it appears as part of the mandatum ceremony (following on from Tellus ac aethra). Only the first seven strophes and the final doxology are included in the Pontifical, strophes which recount and interpret the story of Mary (Magdalene?) washing Christ’s feet. The appearance of Fuit Domini in this context establishes beyond reasonable doubt that a shortened version of the text was sung at least in Poitiers as part of the mandatum ceremony on Maundy Thursday.
A second French manuscript of the late ninth century (Autun, Bibilothèque municipale 29 (S. 31), s. ix3/3, South-East France? – Bischoff,
Katalog I, no. 162) transmits a version of Fuit Domini alongside Bede’s commentary on Mark. The incipit (Incipit versus de Lazaro et ad cantandum carmina) may be taken as further evidence that Fuit Domini was sung, although it is also possible that the second part of this formulation, ad cantandum carmina, refers either in addition or exclusively to the poem that follows in the manuscript, Tertio in flore
The opening two lines of the second strophe (Haec Maria… mixto balsami) are later recorded as verses for a response used for the Feast of Mary Magdalene. The earliest manuscript to transmit these lines as a response is dated to c. 1095; several other manuscripts transmitting the response date from the later Middle Ages (Gozzi, Composizioni musicali, p. 201). The melody recorded for the two lines when used as a response bears no relation to the melody recorded in Paris lat. 1154.