Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1968, Page 31
altered the distribution of the notes to the syllables. The 3 notes be-
longing to “—rum” he has moved so that they belong to “mi—”. Why?
Of course, because he reckoned “—rum” as a light syllable, which ought
to have only a short duration; “mi—”, on the contrary, is a heavy syl-
lable, able to bear a series of notes. For a similar reason he has sim-
plified the melisma over the last syllable of the line: “—num”.
But this proceeding has put him in a quandary. When the 3 notes
on “—rum” are moved backwards to “mi—”, he gets one syllable too few
for the 3 foregoing notes, and is compelled to bind 2 of these notes to-
gether as belonging to one syllable. And more: the syllable “spar-”
must keep its 3 notes. What then with “—rum”? For that syllable he
must add a note which does not exist in the original.
Since this book was published, the view of the correct rendering and
performing of medieval church music has changed, — witness the in-
struction given in the Manuale Missæ et Officiorum, mentioned above.
As said there, all the notes should have the same duration, without
regard to their appearing singly or in a flock on a single syllable. And
as the normal note-length the quaver is recommended.
The scientifically correct transcription in modern notation of the
music of, for example, the first line of the great Olavus-sequence “Lux
illuxit letabunda”, should then be thus:
Lux 11- lu- xlt le- ta- bun- da
Or of the last line of the short one, “Predicasti dei care”
lun-ge ee- 11 el- vi- bue.
Although this manner of transcribing is not used in the present trea-
tise, the reader may easily interpret its transcriptions as having this
form, if he likes.
Several considerations have, however, induced the author to present
the music of the sequences in modern notation in a form not so strictly
“scientific” (if that is the word) as this one.
XXIX