|Notation||Date||10th c.; ?|
|Notes||Two scribes added notation to this poem. The neumes added to the first stanza, refrain and lines xix and xxi resemble in their ink colour, form and disposition those added to Ut quid iubes in the same manuscript. For a brief description, see the entry for Ut quid iubes.
The neumes added to the second stanza are also Aquitanian in style, and are characterised by a thin tractulus (1b) form and a very small oriscus.
|1c, 1c, 2a, 2a, 1b, 1c, 1b, 1c, 2a, 1c, 2b, 2b | 3a'', 2b, 2a, 2a, 1b, "2b", 1b, 1c, 2a, 1c, 2b, 2b | 2a, 2b, 2a, 2b, 1c, 1c, 2b, 1b, 1b, 3d'', 2b, 1c | 2a, 2b, 2a, 2x'', 1c, 1, 2b, 1c, 2a, 1b, 1b, 1b | 3a'', 1c, 3c, 1c, "2b", 2"x, 1c || [ ], 1c, 1b, 1c, 2b, 1c, 2b, 1b, 1b, 1b, 1b, 1b | 1b, 1b, "1c", 1c, 2b, 1b, 2b, 1b, 1b, 1b, 1b, 1b | 2a, 1b, 1b, 1c, 1b, 2''x, 1b, 1b, 2b, 1c, 2b, 1b | 1b, 1b, 1b, 1b, 4b, 1b, 1b, 1b, 1b, 1b, 2b, 1b | 2b || 1c, 2b, 1c, 1b, 1b, 2b, 1b || 2b, 1c, 1c, 3a'', 1c
|Melody||The neumes added to the first strophe by the first scribe outline a melody with internal patterning within the strophe that may be summarized as: ab, a'b, cd, c'd' (or A, A', B, B'). Neumes added by the first scribe to later lines depart to varying degrees from the pattern of the first strophe; in line xxxvii, the departure is possibly motivated by the heightened rhetoric of the direct address to St Columbanus (for comparable instances, see the entry for Fuit Domini). The notation added by the second scribe to the second strophe indicates a melody that has little in common with that recorded by the first scribe. Again, melodic repetition within the strophe can be traced; in this case, a pattern that may be summarized as A, A', B, C.|
Coussemaker, Histoire de l’harmonie, pp. 90-1; Fétis, Histoire générale IV, pp. 473-8; Ludwig, Die Musik, p. 160; Handschin, Über Estampie, p. 122; Spanke, Sequenzenstudien, p. 290; Sesini, Poesia e musica, pp. 167-71; Vecchi, Poesia latina, p. 362; Chailley, École musicale, p. 133; Jammers, Aufzeichnungsweisen, p. 6; Cattin, Music of the Middle Ages I, p. 128; Stevens, Words and Music, pp. 52, 493; Sevestre, Du versus au conduit, III p. 3; Barrett, Notated Verse I, 175-82, II pp. 91-3; Barrett, Ritmi ad cantandum, p. 410; Haug, Ritual and Repetition, p. 90; Barrett, Stylistic Layers, p. 535
Coussemaker, Histoire de l’harmonie, pl. II. p. 1; Fétis, Histoire générale IV, p. 474; Sesini, Poesia e musica, pp. 168-9; Sevestre, Du versus au conduit III, pp. 4-5; Barrett, Notated Verse II, pp. 89-90
Coussemaker, Histoire de l’harmonie, tr. 5; Fétis, Histoire générale IV, pp. 477-8; Sesini, Poesia e musica, p. 170
Coussemaker’s reconstruction of the melody recorded for A solis ortu in Paris lat. 1154 accords with his view that such songs were part of a popular tradition that was distinct from plainchant and formed a precursor to contemporary song. The melody is thus reconstructed in the image of a common practice song with a modern tonality (G major) and metre (2/2). The phrase structure is also regular with balancing four-bar phrases for each line of poetic text with the exception of the refrain; within this scheme, the routine pattern of accented syllables is aligned with emphasised beats of the bar. In addition, a single beat rest is placed at the caesura in each line as well as immediately before and after the refrain. Notational signs indicating special modes of delivery are for the most part not realised in the reconstruction: oriscus signs are ignored, while the quilisma is realised as either two (2, 1) or three (5, 1) rising pitches. One liquescent sign is realised as a rising appoggiatura (5, 5) and the letters io (5, 3) are misread as a neume.
The reconstruction proposed by Fétis follows the principle that each syllable of text is equal in length. In addition, Fétis understands the Aquitanian tractulus sign (which appears as an extended dash) to indicate a double length. He also doubles the length of the final syllable in each line and half-line. The result of applying these principles to reconstruction in a modern time-signature is a realization in 3/4, in which singlelength syllables are set to crotchets and double-length syllables to minims. As for pitch, Fétis chooses a first mode realization, which corresponds to D minor in modern notation, with the stated justification that minor tonalities set in the lower range of the voice were used for ancient lamentations and complaints. The reading of the neumes is erratic: the Aquitanian pes is misread as a scandicus, the quilisma is inconsistently realised (compare 2, 1 and 5, 1), the letters io at 5, 3 appear to have been misunderstood as a neume, and the clives at 3, 4 and 4, 1 are misread as pedes. In the second strophe, the criteria used for distinguishing between a punctum and a tractulus are unclear.
Sesini’s reconstruction is isosyllabic, resulting in transcription into 5+7/4, and features expressive markings and shortened bar-lines. These latter additions arise from a conviction that the performance of such songs was similar to modern performances of chant, with higher pitches generally louder, especially when combined with accented syllables, and a broad arch shape to the dynamics of each line. Quilismata and liquescences are realised and conventionally signalled by the addition of a wavy line and smaller notes respectively. The oriscus is either ignored (3, 10) or treated as a liquescence
(4, 4 and 5, 6). The letters io are again misread as a neume. In the fourth line of the second strophe, the version of the text found in Patrologia Latina (PL 106, 1257) is followed rather than that recorded in Paris lat. 1154.
The different melodies recorded for the opening two strophes in Paris lat. 1154 suggest that more than one way to render this text through melody was known. Whether the different melodies indicated are alternatives, whether different melodies were used for alternate verses, or whether the two recorded melodies are only examples of two different types of melodic rendering that might be used for such a text must remain an open question.