On 08 Aug 2014, at 21:28, Pierre Couderc wrote: > Well, I see the point, it is interesting but I have no comment: I feel > to be not enough competant...
I'm not competent enough either, but I just skimmed both Apel's and Hiley's monographs on plainchant (Hiley's Western Plainchant, not the later and much slimmer Gregorian Chant), and I couldn't find nothing about particular orientation of the oriscus. Nor I can't recall any such discussion from few other books on the subject I've read. Hiley, in his comparative tables of neumes in manuscripts of different dialects, although he does discuss the oriscus in terms of different overall forms and what are the ligatures the different forms produce, there's nothing about the particular orientation in the oriscus' shape. It appears from the tables as it is being dictated simply by what makes sense graphologically for any given scribe, with that of Laon 239 taking the form of an upward-ending movement almost exclusively. But again, ligation appears to follow its own rules and St. Gall sources, for example, use different movement with different oriscus ligatures (those of you with an access to the book, see table on p. 361). Is it possible that earlier Solesmes editions based their oriscus on one particular manuscript, but later they'd simply switched to some other? On 07 Aug 2014, at 09:27, Olivier Berten wrote: > Is the oriscus auctus documented somewhere? When I look for it in > google, the only reference I find is Gregorio... Where does the term 'oriscus auctus' itself comes from anyway? Does anyone have any record on this? Élie? Regards, Grzegorz Rolek _______________________________________________ Gregorio-users mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-users
