Disputatio:Tonarium

Die 9 Maii 2024 — Estne haec pagina ad “Tonarium” movenda?

Haec est disputatio petitoria Vicipaediae quae ad formulam {{Movenda}} attinet, die 9 Maii 2024 paginae additam.

Capite Tonary § Bibliography apud Vicipaediam Anglicam viso, mihi videtur forma “tonarium” esse usitatior formā “tonarius”, et postremo puriore Latinitate (cf. “glossarium”, “tabularium”, “calendarium”, et cetera). --Grufo (disputatio) 22:19, 9 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Ita est, sed «tonarius» est comunius, aeque «tonale» et «intonarium» esistunt. Latina media aetatis mediae est plena varietatum. Platonykiss (disputatio) 00:47, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

“Sed «tonarius» est comunius”: Attamen in illa pagina quinquies “tonarium” oppetimus, tamquam quinquies oppetimus “tonarius” (e celeri inquisitione machinaria). --Grufo (disputatio) 01:28, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Ita est! Mihi opportet disputatio variare titulum, sed non restituere titulum articulus qui. Terminus praelatus apud ceteri cantores ut Odo (Aretinus) erat «tonarium», apud Reginum «tonarius», apud altri «Libellus tonarius» (terminus «libellus» est communis parlandum partibus libris tropario-prosarii)! Pagina allata potest utilis inspicere prioritates auctorum eo quod utor solum nominativo «tonarius».

Platonykiss (disputatio) 06:41, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Non bene intellego. Quid significet “Mihi opportet disputatio variare titulum, sed non restituere titulum articulus qui”? --Grufo (disputatio) 07:30, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Mihi opportet esse disputatio variare titulum hic, sed non disputatio restituere titulum articulus qui. Summa summarum, no. Titulus «tonarius» est rectus vel non est falsus.

Tibi ago gratiam pro receptio benignam et gratiam habere patie+tiam cum mea latina salebrosa. Platonykiss (disputatio) 08:11, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Sed haec est disputatio ubi de tonario vel tonali loquimur. Titulus huius disputationis congruendus est titulo paginae quae tonarium vel tonale tractat (quae hodie “Tonarius” appellatur, sed cras fortasse appellabitur “Tonarium”; ergo hodie haec disputatio “Disputatio:Tonarius” appellatur, sed cras fortasse appellabitur “Disputatio:Tonarium” – i.e. una pagina tantum disputationis de hac re nobis habenda est, et una cum sua commentatione movenda erit). Cur velis hanc disputationem movere? Certe titulus “tonarius” non est “falsus”, sed hic quaerimus num sit optimus. --Grufo (disputatio) 08:34, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Video te nova de nomine “tonarius” huic disputationi addidisse. Ea mihi suadent hoc initium paginae: “Tonarium vel (libellus) tonarius vel tonale est …”. Sed titulus unus tantum nobis eligendus est principalis, et adhuc credo optimum esse “Tonarium”. Porro posthac opperiar ut et alii suas sententias hic ferent. --Grufo (disputatio) 09:00, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Ita est, nominativus convertet ad genitivum coniunctione «libellus tonariūs». Interest monstrare usum flexibilem linguae aetate media, etsi comprehendo non esse facilis tolerare haec flexibilitatem apud ceteri philologos.

Cambiabam periodam in altu quod non eram accuratus. Remigio Prumiensis praeferebat «tonariūs», solum Odo «tonarium». Hodie sapimus esse Odonem Aretinum et non Odonem Cluniacensem. Platonykiss (disputatio) 09:05, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Aliud per «tonarium» semper est solutionem optimam et faciliorem. Articulus anglicus est longus, secundum me potuerit magnam motivationem perseverare laboram cum nonnullis verbis allatis. Platonykiss (disputatio) 09:35, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Inter linguam Latinam et Linguas Romanicas est continuum, sed quidam fines nobis pingendi sunt ut intelligibilitas servetur, praesertim cumque lingua mediaevalis videatur esse propior linguis Romanicis quam Latinitati classicae. Exempli gratia, tu verbo “cambiandi” hic usus es, at tale verbum, si interlocutor tuus nec Italice neque Francogallice neque Hispanice loquitur, difficile intellegetur (quia est mediaevale). Facile autem interlocutor tuus verbum classicum “mutandi” intelleget. Hoc dicto, hic non disputatur num oporteat Latinitatem mediaevalem corrigere, sed qui sit, fontes inspiciendo, modus optimus hanc rem referendi. Vocabulum “tonarium” est certe commune ([1], [2], [3], [4]). Aliqua commune est etiam vocabulum “tonarius”. Formam idoneam eligere possumus. --Grufo (disputatio) 10:16, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Latinitate classica nonne videtur tonarius homo, tonarium res? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:26, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

No, legete articulum in anglice. Etiam terminus «sonus» traducendum terminum graecum ὁ ἦχος erat mediaevalis. Non erat in aetate Hellenismus. Platonykiss (disputatio) 14:00, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

“Latinitate classica nonne videtur tonarius homo, tonarium res?”: Ita. In substantivis, suffixum -arius, -aria adhibebatur ad opera data indicanda (e.g. argentarius, metallarius, fontanarius, apothecarius, et cetera). Sed aliquando (rarius) -arius, -a, -um etiam est adiectivum relationis (e.g. secundarius, -a, -um, aquarius, -a, -um, etc.), ergo “libellus tonarius” mihi videtur esse forma acceptabilis. At hic est unus ex his casibus ubi si nomen masculinum vel femininum removetur (− “libellus”) nomen absolutum pro rebus fit neutrale (“tonarium”). Ignoro nomina classica suffixo -arius (non -arium) quae res, non homines, indicant. Si non omnino absunt, sunt rara. Idcirco mea opinio est paginam esse movendam ad tonarium, quia fontes habemus. --Grufo (disputatio) 14:15, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Multum gratiae. Platonykiss (disputatio) 14:25, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Secundum me interest comprendere ut facio in modo justo. Itaque mi quaero, si decerno uti termino «tonarius». In praesens mea quaestio est tantum modesta. Certe sum perditus inter linguas italica et latina...

Comprehendo justam declinationem est ipsam /u/, si est «tonarius». Inde est feminile?

Video tuae coniunctiones et lego termines electas ab expertibus, sed non reperio istae termines fontibus scriptis. Ademarus e.g. scribebat tituli verba nominandum quisque tonum ecclesiasticum (Pa1021, f.201') anno MXXV:

AVTENTVS PROTVS HOC EST AVCTORITAS PRIMA

Iam alius scriptor scribebat isto modo (Pa1084, f.155) anno CMXXXVI.

Concludo plurimae fontes non habent titulum. Platonykiss (disputatio) 13:52, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

“Lego termines electi ab expertibus, sed non reperio istae termines fontibus scriptis”: Etiamsi lingua mea quoque sit Italica, mihi ignosce si non omnia verba tua intellego. Apud Vicipaediam, periti cuiusdam disciplinae de quibus loqueris sunt fontes (“fontes secundarii”). Tu “fontes primarios” quaeris, at isti non sunt semper praeferendi fontibus secundariis. Exempli gratia, fortasse quidam codex se appellabat neque “tonarius” neque “tonarium”, sed haec sunt nomina quibus alii tales libros appellabant, et in his casibus fontes secundarii sunt magni momenti. --Grufo (disputatio) 14:46, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Concludo non esse disputationem definitionum, sed disputationem rerum atque artis memoriae musicae.

Colpa mea est. Dicebam habere patientiam. Cogito esse utilis inspicere meas descriptiones fontium articulo cum cautione. Adhuc maximum studium erat factum ab Michele Huglo (opus doctorale):

Huglo, Michel (1971). Les Tonaires: Inventaire, Analyse, Comparaison. Publications de la Société française de musicologie. 2. Paris: Société française de musicologie  Platonykiss (disputatio) 15:07, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Quod non intellego est: Cur non tibi placeat “tonarium” eligi titulum principalem, etiamsi plures fontes habeamus? Porro, si (e.g.) saeculo decimo et undecimo (cum grammatica Latina magnopere dolebat) nomen cummune fuit “tonarius”, at saeculis duodecimo, tertio decimo, et cetera, fuit “tonarium”, cur sit forma mendax in titulo nobis praeferenda? Exempli gratia, Odonis Cluniacensis Opuscula de musica, quae nomine “tonarius” utuntur, tam multas mendas grammaticales habent ut dubitem quin adhiberi possint exemplum bonae linguae… --Grufo (disputatio) 15:45, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Non sum contra sive pro «tonarius» vel «tonarium», sed sapio tractatum ipsum non esse ab Odone Cluniacense et Gerbert appellavit eumdem «Tonarium»!

Michel Huglo & Clyde Brockett (24 February 2010). "Odo [Oddo"]. New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians  Platonykiss (disputatio) 20:19, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Optime. Dehinc, post brevem moram (ut alii sententas suas ferant), paginam ad Tonarium movere possumus. --Grufo (disputatio) 02:51, 11 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Postremo paginam movi, sed Latinitas in numeratione fontium magnopere corrigenda est. --Grufo (disputatio) 02:22, 12 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Gulielmus (abbas Sancti Benigni)

Video articulum preparatum per Gulielmus. Non est clarus quam formam est justam. Gulielmus natus est insula Sancti Julii Pedemontio, inde nominatus est Guglielmo da Volpiano in Italica, Guillaume de Volpiano in lingua francogallica, William of Volpiano in Anglica et Wilhelm von Dijon in Theodisca. Legebam esse educatum Gulielmum in lingua Occitana-Theodisca adhuc praesentem in Pedemontio. Ipsam linguam parentes Robertus et Pirinzia loquivunt (aeque Nicolangelo D'Acunto et Simona Moretti da Treccani loquunt origine aristocratiae germanicae). Itaque etiam forma Vilelmus vel Wilhelmus fieri potest. Alumnus Raulus Glaber in Normannia scripsit «Vita Domni VVillelmi Abbatis primi Fiscannensis» (F-Pn lat. 5390, f.222).

Aliqui condiciones? Platonykiss (disputatio) 11:23, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Disputatio verbi «modus»

Propono altrum verbum: tonus ecclesiasticus.

Modus est interpretatio verbi graeci ἡ ἁρμονία et referet margo melodiarum (τὸ μέλος, pl. τὰ μέλη). Tonus invicem habet non solum unam melodiam, sed etiam plurimas: τὰ μέλη. Formulae melodiae sunt intonationes (τὰ ἠχήματα) ut anima certi toni, cuncta formula certae melodiae (melius: certi melus) constituit incisiones secundum textum cantus (perioda, membrum, articulus), terminationes apertae vel fortes vel concludentes. Una melodia (τὸ μέλος) componere cantum exemplum est. Quisque tonus habet propriam psalmodiam atque differentias (terminationes psalmodiae adaptatas ad initium antiphonarum).

Igitur musicologia loquit de synthesi inter theoriam antiquitatis et musicam praesentem (cantus planus ordinatus secundum octo tonos). Nomina ut lydius, dorius, hypodorius referrent modos: F—c—f, D—a—d, A—D—a etc. referrent locos et tribuos. Nunc sunt nomina octo tonorum cantus ecclesiastici. Tamen secundum institutionem harmonicarum lydius non erat speciem octavae D—d, sed e—E aeta antiqua. Non sapimus ut synthesis erat facta.

Oktoechos (ὁ ὀκτώηχος) secundum libellum tonarius definitur ab analysi cantus secundum artem memoriae musicae, deinde classificatio melodiarum a posteriori deducendum tonum suum. Simul non solum adiuva memoriae cantus, sed etiam mutat cantum. Platonykiss (disputatio) 16:47, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

“Modus” est vocabulum speciali significatione usitatissimum in fontibus. Non est mutandum. Interpretatio tonorum Pythagoricorum, e quibus modi mediaevales orti sunt, fuit mendax. Propter ea, multi hodie praeferunt modos mediaevales appellare “primum modum” vel “protum”, “secundum modum” vel “deuterum”, “tertium modum”, etc., ad vicem “modi Dorici”, “modi Hypodorici”, “modi Phrygii”, etc. Vide: Modus (medieval music) § Modal scales apud Vicipaediam Anglicam. --Grufo (disputatio) 17:15, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Hucbald explicuit classificationem a posteriori tractatu De harmonica institutione.

Editio Gerbertis (1784, i:119):

Quatuor a primis tribus, id est, lichanos hypaton [λιχανὸς ὑπάτων D], hypate meson [ὑπάτη μέσων E], parypate meson [παρυπάτῃ μέσων F], lichanos meson [λιχανὸς μέσων G], quatuor modis vel tropis, quos nunc tonos dicunt, hoc est, protus [ὁ πρῶτος], deuterus [ὁ δεύτερος], tritus [ὁ τρίτος], tetrardus [ὁ τέταρτος], perficiendis aptantur: ita ut singulae earum quatuor chordarum geminos sibi tropos regant subiectos, principalem [τὸν κύριον], qui autentus [αὐθέντης], et lateralem, qui plagius [ὁ πλάγιος] appellatur: lichanos hypaton [λιχανὸς ὑπάτων D] scilicet autentum protum et plagium eiusdem, id est, [tonorum] primum et secundum: hypate meson [ὑπάτη μέσων E] autentum deuterum et plagium eius, id est, [tonorum] tertium et quartum: Parypate meson [παρυπάτῃ μέσων F] autentum tritum et plagium eius, id est, [tonorum] quintum et sextum: lichanos meson [λιχανὸς μέσων G] autentum tetrardum et plagium eius, id est, [tonorum] septimum et octavum: ita ut ad aliquam ipsarum quatuor quantavis ultra citraque variabiliter circumacta, necessario omnis, quaecumque fuerit, redigatur cantilena. Unde et eaedem finales appellatae, quod finem in ipsis cuncta, quae canuntur, accipiant. Eas cum notulis paullo praesentibus positis annotamus. In graviorem cmpcf. Item acutiorem fcpm.

--Platonykiss (disputatio) 17:22, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Credo mihi esse clarum quid modi mediaevales sint. Quod non mihi est clarum est cur locutionem “toni ecclesiastici” in locum vocabuli pervulgati “modi” substituere velis. --Grufo (disputatio) 17:33, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Instrumentum utilissimum est Lexicon musicum Latinum medii aevi, sed non commendo initiare primam quaesitionem per verbum «modus» quid habet mille significationes. Ecce:

http://www.woerterbuchnetz.de/LmL

Modus (ἡ ἁρμονία) in contesto hinc: species octavae, tetrachordi (quartae) et pentachordi (quintae). Nota sunt altrae divisiones tetrachordi, non solum tonus et semitonium dicta pythagorica. Definitio est simplex.

Tropus (ὁ τρόπος) in contesto hinc: quaerere intervallos ex quattuor punctibus (protus, deuterus, tritus et tetrardus) atque dieses adiuva divisionum monochordis. Hucbald scripsit:

Unde et eaedem finales appellatae, quod finem in ipsis cuncta, quae canuntur, accipiant. Eas cum notulis paullo praesentibus positis annotamus. In graviorem cmpcf. Item acutiorem fcpm.

Quare?

Distinctio inter psaltes byzantinos et cantores latinos Regni Francorum, solum unum tetrachordum habet quattuor finales, ut cunctas melodias atque gravioras et acutioras transponere debet. Byzantini protopsaltes (vel kathegoumenoi Italiae, verbum locale Messina et Rossano) continuant protus, deuterus, tritus, tetrardus, protus etc. passandum magis quam duo octavas, deinde descendunt cum intonationibus plagium sonorum (τὰ ἠχήματα τῶν πλάγιων ἤχων). Faciunt per intervalla transpositiones (αἱ μεταβολαὶ κατὰ τόνον notatae apud latini sub verbum absonia: LmL), invicem apud cantores latini transpositio est partem classificationis. Ab Boethio praeberent octo modi, non duodecim! Non significat cuncta melodia est transposita ad tetrachordum finalium, quandoque cantores canunt in ecclesia.

Tonus est tonalitas modale, selectas formulas melus, intonationes (echemata) cum tropis, sequentiis, organis (modibus cantandum in polyphonia dictum discantum et organum) etc. (verba Hucbaldi erant «redigatur cantilena»), articulationem prosodiae textuum et constructionem grammaticae in cantu. Significat cantores tantum instructi sunt, ut sunt non solum capaces cantare supra textum sine notitia melodiae, sed etiam elaborare et decorare cantum. Duo systemata, tonus I-VIII, nomina secundum terminologiam graecam ut autentus (ἦχος πρῶτος) et plagius proti (ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ πρώτου), autentus deuteri (ἦχος δεύτερος) etc. Psalmodia est partem unusquisque tonus, excepta psalmodia toni pelegrini.

Nunc spero omnia clara esse. Platonykiss (disputatio) 18:18, 10 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Sed quemadmodum et ubi, apud hanc paginam, “tonum ecclesiasticum” in locum “modi” substituere velis? Possisne exemplum praebere? --Grufo (disputatio) 02:55, 11 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Immo.

Ut me cognosti, non debet nullam movere. Articulus modi tractat juste species octavae, invicem definitio et ordo specierum desunt (non solum octavarum, sed etiam tetrachordarum et pentachordarum). Desunt etiam articuli ubi rei ut «tonus» vel «tropus» tractati sunt (tropus est formam poesiae et compositionem musicae in caso troporum meloformarum, sed etiam verbum studendum rei musicae cum significatione transpositio octavarum apud harmonicos hellenicos). Tonus ecclesiasticum debet psalmodiam, echemata, usum intervallorum (atque diesum) et formulas melus tractare, sed etiam verbum apud Graecos «sonus» (ὁ ἦχος) est. «Sonus» valet articulum proprium quod differentiae ne sunt tantae. Melius est invicem articulum unum titolatum Oktoechos ubi octi toni tonarius (apud Franci) et Patriarchatibus Hierosolimitanum (tractatus dictus Hagiopolites, etsi scriptum monasterio Studionis) et Constantinopolitanum (enechemata cantus cathedralis Sanctae Sophiae) tractati sunt, idem cunctae differentiae inter eos. Verbum «tonarius» vel «tonarium» est derivatum ab verbo «tonus», non dicunt «modarium»! Ubi microtonos facere debet, dicet liber gradualis completum tonarius Willelmi Volpianis cum notatione letterarum et neumis mediofranciis. Atque commendo articulum «systema» in rebus musicae (verbum «musica» est petitum ab graeco ἡ μουσική, quandoque ars liberalis tractandum musicam praesentem occupat disciplina harmonicarum). Bisdiapason apud Boethium est systema magnum et perfectum (ametabolon), sed notatus erant duo altra (1) systema Dasiae presentatum Musica et Scolica enchiriadis, et (2) verba allata ab Aurelio Cassiodoro tractandum systema minus perfectum quindecim tonorum tractatu ab «Aureliano» Reomensis (capitulum sub titulum in atramento rubro «Quod habeat musica cum numero maximam concordiam» F-VAL Cod. 148, f.67), iam notatus et explicatum in modo profondiore ab Martiano Capella libro nono Satyriconis.

Accipis distinctionem inter tres verba modus, tropus et tonus? Hodie loquit nimium modorum quod educatio est mala. Abusus veniet ab lingua anglica (articulus «mode [II. Medieval modal theory]» Haroldis Powers dictionario New Grove est optimus, sed dat exemplum significationis exuberantis lingua anglica). In lingua latina acuratum esse debet. Est privilegium! Platonykiss (disputatio) 06:37, 11 Maii 2024 (UTC)

“Possisne exemplum praebere?”

Exemplum ad monstrandum quod? Platonykiss (disputatio) 06:44, 11 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Haec est nostra pagina: ubi, apud nostram paginam, velis “tonum ecclesiasticum” scribere? In cuius locum velis “tonum ecclesiasticum” substituire? Exempli gratia, ubi, apud hoc initium?

Tonarius, seu tonarium seu tonale, in Christianitate Occidentali est liber liturgicus^(en) qui varias cantuum Gregorianorum res secundum modum (tonum aevo medio appellatum) eorum cantilenarum intra eorum octoplicem modorum formulam per incepta textualia perscribit. Tonaria antiphonas horarum canonicarum^(en) saepe comprehendunt, quarum modus formulam adiungentis textus recitati^(en) constituit (toni psalmodici^(en) si antiphona cum psalmus canitur, aut toni canticulorum si antiphona cum canticulo^(en) canitur), sed cantus planos responsoriorum vel Missae cum recitatione formulaica non consociatos etiam aut potius prescribere possunt.

--Grufo (disputatio) 18:27, 11 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Intellego. Articulus «tonus» est sine historia et inutilis quod ignorat verbum in contesto artis liberalis musica. Commendo articulum novum «Oktoechos» et tonum ecclesiasticum sostituire tonum debet:

Tonarius, seu tonarium seu tonale, in Christianitate Occidentali est partem dictus libellum libris cantuum (graduale atque antiphonarium) qui varias cantuum Gregorianorum res secundum tonum ecclesiasticum (cuius species octavae sub verbum modum descriptae sunt) eorum cantilenarum intra eorum octoplicem tonorum formulas per incepta textualia perscribit.

Continuatio:

In antiphonaribus tonaria antiphonas horarum canonicarum saepe comprehendunt, in gradualibus (libris cantuum Missae) tractant cuncta genera cantus antiphonalis cum et sine psalmis. Antiphonae libris gradualis (introitus et communiones) et antiphonari introducunt psalmum indicatum libro et sunt iterati in psalmodia.

Verbum justum per tonos psalmodicos (etsi verba sint correcta) est «psalmodia» (gr. ἡ ψαλμοδία), sed articulus «Tonarius» offert opportunitas monstrare differentias ad exemplum imagines manuscriptorum. Alternatim sit articulum «psalmodia» ubi etiam psalmodia a Mediolano ed a Constantinopoli possunt res. Nota psalmodia invitatorii est antiquora, psalmodia simplex verisimilis innovationem carolingam.

Continuamus cum nova parte (nexi cum # eant ad fontem):

==Usus et forma tonarius==

Primum tonarium notus est fragmentum in psalterio monasterii Sancti Richarii saeculi VIII inventum. Istud tonarium erat partem psalterii, sed nondum iunctum ad psalmodiam psalmorum et canticorum quod pauci canti Missae sunt indicati, non solum antiphonae, sed etiam offertoria (OFF). Utilitas pristinorum tonarium erat classificationem toni canto plano generaliter. In breviaribus et sacramentaribus ut sacramentarium graduale Sancti Dionysii sunt solum rubrices tonales margine paginae.

Tonarium potest introductionem in antiphonarium ut antiponarium Hartkeris Coenobio Sangallense cum indice antiphonarum completo in ordinem terminationum in psalmodia nominati «differentiae» seu «figurae». Appendix tonarius libro graduale tractat solum genera cantuum antiphonalium Missae introit et communio. Exemplum est tonarium libro graduale monasterii Einsiedeln quo solum pars communionum conservatus est. Communius est libellus tonarius tropario-prosario ut tropario-prosarium Ademari ubi libellus tonarius (quaequinque pars libellum appelatur) incipit cum parte supra antiphonarium (antiphonae et responsoria) (f.251) et deinde cum parte supra librum gradualem (f.255), hinc cuncta genera cantuum Missae indicati sunt. Quoque tonarium sub formam tactatum notatus est, inde potest esse partem collectionis tractatuum de musica ut tonarium Hogeri Werdensis cum diagrammis notationis Dasianae, tonarium Bernonis Prumiensis cum neumis sangallensis manuscripto monasterii Laureshamensis ubi differentiae sub nomina graeca secundum Hucbaldem ordinati sunt, vel tonarium cum neumis italicis collectione Archicoenobii Montis Casini. Tonarium unicum est librum gradualis tonarius monasterii Sancti Benigni scriptum sub abbatem Willelmum Volpianis ubi cuncta genera cantuum Missae sunt separata in libellos. Quisque libellus est subdivisus octo partibus secundum ordinem octo tonorum. Deinde Willelmus continuavit ut abbatem conditorem in Normannia ubi sua notatio est diffusa.

Deinde classificationem formarum offerre opportet ut articulo anglico «Variae formae tonarius». Platonykiss (disputatio) 07:22, 12 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Credo vocabulum modi non esse mutandum. Etiamsi Latinitas mediaevalis verbum toni adhibebat, hodie modus est nomen commune, adhibitum ad quemcumque ordinem tonorum appellandum et haud in musica mediaevali tantum restrictum; idcirco sunt locutiones “modi Graeci”, “modi hodierni” – cf. Olivarii Messiaen “modos restrictā transpositione” (Francogallice modes à transposition limitée) – et cetera. Nostra commentatio iam dicit tales modos “aevo medio appellatos esse tonos”. Postremo, Latinitas mediaevalis est una pars tantum cunctae Latinitatis, et nobis non est fingendum quid fontes hodie praeferant. Hoc dicto, credo nomen vetus (i.e. “toni mediaevales”, vel “ecclesiastici”) esse memorandum (sicut iam facimus). Immo capitulum de historia modorum est bene desideratum. --Grufo (disputatio) 08:49, 13 Maii 2024 (UTC)

E.g. Vide “tetrardus” apud Carolum Du Cange et al. (1883-1887). Glossarium mediæ et infimæ Latinitatis. Niortii: Favre. “TETRADUS, Quartus canendi modus, complectens tonos duos, septimum et octavum.”. --Grufo (disputatio) 09:09, 13 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Orthographia «Tetradus» vero rara est!

Tetrardus ut apud Hucbaldem est communius. Etiam apud compendium «alia musica»:

Quorum videlicet troporum, sive etiam sonorum, primus graeca lingua dicitur Protus; secundus Deuterus; tertius Tritus; quartus Tetrardus: qui singuli a suis finalibus deorsum pentachordo, quod est diapente, differunt. Superius vero tetrachordum, quod est diatessaron, requirunt, ut unusquisque suam speciem diapason teneat, per quam evagando, sursum ac deorsum libere currat. Cui scilicet diapason plerumque exterius additur, qui emmelis, id est, aptus melo vocatur.

Sciendum quoque, quod Dorius maxime proto regitur, similiter Phrygius deutero, Lydius trito, mixolydius tetrardo. Quos sonos in quibusdam cantilenis suae plagae quodammodo tangendo libant, ut plaga proti tangat protum, deuteri deuterum, triti tritum, tetrardi tetrardum. Et id fas est experiri in gradalibus antiphonis.

Afferit articulo «Hagiopolitan Octoechos». Platonykiss (disputatio) 09:42, 13 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Ne dicam dolo, id est muscipula comprehendere verba «modus» et «tonus» cognomitatos. (On pourrait faire ça dans la langue de Olivier Messiaen, mais jamais en latin !) Ne scripsi in alto. Verbum «modus» dicet omnia et nulla.

Hinc scribo qui sunt quattuor modos apud graecos, sed non apud latinos:

1) Modus dorius regnat sonos proti (autentum cum finale a atque plagium cum finale D): D—a—d.

2) Modus phrygius regnat sonos deuteri (autentum cum finale b atque plagium cum finale E): E—b—e.

3) Modus lydius regnat sonos triti (autentum cume finale c atque plagium dictum «sonus grave» cum finale F): F—c—f.

4) Modus mixolydius regnat sonos tetrardi (autentum cum finale G atque plagium cum finale C): C—G—c. Ideo tractat quaestionem emmelis quod est mutatio et transitio inter modos phrygium et mixolydium!

Hi quattuor sufficient! Platonykiss (disputatio) 09:52, 13 Maii 2024 (UTC)

“Verbum «modus» dicet omnia et nulla”: …secundum definitionem quam tutemet elegisti. Attamen secundum communem definitionem hodiernam, modus est ordo tonorum semitonorumque (et positio “notae dominantis” casu modorum mediaevalium, ad modos plagales et authenticos separandos). Vide e.g. hic: “Ut autem de singulis reddaris certior, scias primum modum, videlicet protum …”; et postea hic: “Secundum modus, videlicet deuterus, qui …”; et cetera. “Hinc scribo qui sunt quattuor modos apud graecos, sed non apud latinos”: Modi mediaevales sunt quidem octo. --Grufo (disputatio) 10:25, 13 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Recte!

Modus in contesto hinc (synthesis inter harmonias et tonos ecclesiaticos) sunt species diapason seu octavae atque tetrachordi et pentachordi. Platonykiss (disputatio) 10:33, 13 Maii 2024 (UTC)

“Contextus hic” est Vicipaedia, ubi “modus” significat quod tu appellas “tonum”, quia hoc est vocabulum quod saeculis sequentibus innotuit ad octo “tonos ecclesiasticos” indicandos… --Grufo (disputatio) 10:39, 13 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Tonus ecclesiasticum et sonus (ὀ ἦχος) sunt verba mediaevalia et sunt nata ab synthesi cum arte musicae. Praeterea verbum tonus appellatur intervallum pythagoricum in proportione una parte inter novem (8:9) monochordis.

Debet respondere ad periodam: “Modi mediaevales sunt quidem octo.”

Id est quaestionem systematis:

1) Systema magnum et perfectum (τὸ σύστημα ἀμετάβολον) cum mixtura tetrachordium coniunctorum et disiunctorum, bisdiapason apud Boethium traducendum Ptolemaeum habet octo modos.

2) Systema Dasianum (Musica et Scolica enchiriadis) cum tetrachordis disiuncis (diezeugmena in sensu separatis ab tono) notatum apud graecos sub nomen systema rotae (τὸ σύστημα τοῦ τροχοῦ, notatio mediobyzantina et descriptum tractatibus παπαδικαὶ) habet quattuor modos. «Alia musica» demonstrat quod cantores latini habebant notitiam profundam differentiarum tractandum octoechos graecorum et ipsos tonarius.

3) Systema minus perfectum cum tetrachordis coniunctis (synemmenis) descriptum ab Aurelio Cassiodoro (verba allata ab Aureliano Reomensis superior attuli cum nexo ad manuscriptum F-VAL cod. 148 faciendum exemplum articuli «systemata in musica») et Martiano Cappella (sine notitia notationis Alypii) habet invicem quindecim modos.

Prospectus historicus est desideratum plurium articulorum quod nimis saepe deest, sed etiam contestum cum altris verbis. Verbum «modus» est essentialem intellegentia verborum «tonus ecclesiasticus», «tropus» atque «systema musicae» vel «systemata musicae», sed quodque verbum habet propriam definitionem ut explicavi superior. Articulus «modus» species octavae et tetrachordi tractare debet, sed articulus «oktoechos/octoechus» echemata, formulas melus, psalmodiam, invicem numquam species! Platonykiss (disputatio) 11:19, 13 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Quod est? Continuamus laborem articuli? Scripsi cuncti tres articuli anglici de oktoecho, de tonario et de musica byzantina. Ipsi de oktoecho in graeco et in arabo interpretati sunt. Hinc invicem feci exemplum proprium secundum necessitates. Platonykiss (disputatio) 05:11, 14 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Non sum sic peritus de modalitate mediaevali ut certe discernere possim utrum modi mediaevales fuerint vero octo an quattuor, neque utrum modi plagales semper fuerint distincti ab authenticis an potius differentes “notae dominantes” gradatim emerserint. Cantibus Gregorianis annum unum tantum studui. Sed hic de nomine adhibendo disputatur, non de numero modorum. De hoc sententiam meam iam dedi. --Grufo (disputatio) 05:55, 15 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Ut scripsi numerum modorum pendere ab systemate. Soni et toni in ecclesia a Roma, Mediolano, Constantinopoli vel Hierosolimitano semper sunt octo in canto liturgico. Quaestio non pendet ab musica ubi numerus modorum variat vi, sed ab theologia et ab liturgia secundum institutionem cyclorum octo hedomadarum. Ea de causa tractati Musica et Scolica enchiriadis temptant integrare octo modos, sed ad irritum cadet quod quarta (A–D) sub quattuor octavae modorum autenticorum est foris systematis Dasiani. Systema Dasianum erat utilis cantandum discantum (in polyphonia). Non est clarum si Aurelianus Reomensis intellexerit verba allata ab Aurelio Cassiodoro vel si systema quindecim modorum erat usum in canto plano. Platonykiss (disputatio) 06:32, 15 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Postilla. Nostra pagina Modus (musica) haud modos mediaevales tantum narrat, sed omnes modi musicales illic tractari possunt. At si vis, novam paginam de modis mediaevalibus tantum, Oktoechos appellatam, creare potes. Sed illic semper tibi scribendum erit “modi (aevo medio toni appellati)” – i.e. nomenclatura hodierna tibi adhibenda est, quam lectores non periti de aevo medio intellegere possint. --Grufo (disputatio) 06:16, 15 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Debet essere clarum usum nomenclaturae hodiernae esse nebulam ignorantiae. Fieri potest in lingua anglica ubi verba sunt peta, sed in lingua latina et graeca verba habent significationem diligentem. Estis hinc per curam et diligentiam ipsam. Sapimus experientiam non esse facilis. Platonykiss (disputatio) 06:45, 15 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Haud ignorantia codicem anni 1686 duxit ad verbum “modum” praeferendum, sed ordinaria evolutio linguae. Nullum verbum classicum Latinum neque Graecum “modos mediaevales” significabat, quia nondum erant “modi mediaevales” in antiquitate. Et in antiquitate ambo vocabula “tonus” et “modus” res magnopere dissimiles eius indicabant de quo hic disputamus. --Grufo (disputatio) 06:58, 15 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Sufficiat sapere significationem verborum «modus» et separare significationes inter verba «tonus», «tropus» et «modus». Sine dubio erat synthesis. Cistercienses habere magnam illusionem notati sunt, sed clarum est selectare nomenclaturam ab Hucbaldo (ligetis verba allata superior). Itaque usi sunt vera terminologia mediaevale, etiam correcta et non ignara! Ecce fons aeta Sancti Bernardi et unum articulum dedicatum reo ab Christiano Meyer. Meyer, Christian (2003). "Le tonaire cistercien et sa tradition". Revue de Musicologie 89 (1): 57–92 .

Mi quaesivisti exemplum et vobis eum dedi: “varias cantuum Gregorianorum res secundum tonum ecclesiasticum (cuius species octavae sub verbum modum descriptae sunt) eorum cantilenarum intra eorum octoplicem tonorum formulas per incepta textualia perscribit”.

Nunc est apud vos ne ministrare eo et continuare articulum initiandum. Platonykiss (disputatio) 07:08, 15 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Habemusne fontes qui “tonos ecclesiasticos” scribunt? Si absunt, vocabulum non est fingendum. Credo ipsam ecclesiam, recentiore Latinitate, vocabulum “modi” adhibuisse – exempli gratia, quemadmodum appellabat Ioannes Baptista Martini “modos mediaevales” cum contrapunctum docebat Mozart? --Grufo (disputatio) 09:47, 15 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Cardinale Martini erat magnum professorem et mentorem conservatorii Bononiae, non solum contrapuncti de eo scrivet librum notatum. Possum dare explicationes quod species octavae erant reos ad contrapunctum tractandum ab quindecimo saecolo, sed non est relevandum nostro contesto.

Cunctae fontes Quadrivii tractunt tonos, tropos et modos (atque liber tonarius apud Cistercienses)!

Fortasse articulus anglicus «modus» adiuveat qui tractat cuncta systemata et historiam ab hellenibus et interpretationes differentes. Proprietas tonarium est duo optiones (ordo est claram, sed non ipsam apud protopsaltes byzantinos ut ῆχος πρῶτος, δεύτερος, τρίτος, τέταρτος, πλάγιος τοῦ πρώτου etc.):

1) Terminologia graeca ut «autentus Protus», «plagis» seu «plagius proti», «autentus deuterus» etc.

2) Terminologia secundum Hucbaldum ut «tonus primum» seu «primus», «secundum», «tertium» etc.

3) Nomina specierum octavae vel modorum sunt modum dorium (D—d), modum hypodorium (A—a), modum phrygium (E—e) etc. Apud Boethium sunt octo modos cuius octavum appellatur «hypermixolydium» (non «hypomixolydium»!). Non est stricte necessarius quod est dorium (D—d), differentia est pentachordum in alto et tetrachordum deorsum (D—G—d), non D—a—d ut modus dorius! Platonykiss (disputatio) 17:42, 15 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Iterum: Non dubito quin Latinitate mediaevali id quod hodie appellamus “modum” saepe appellatum sit “tonus”, sed non credo Latinitatem mediaevalem nobis esse sine contextu adhibendam. Si vis, in pagina scribere potes “modos” appellatos esse “tonos” medio aevo, sed haud obliviscens nostros lectores eos appellare “modos” (postremo recentiores “modus maior” et “modus minor” lectoribus perclari sunt). Pagina huius obliviscens non est bona pagina. Pagina Anglica mihi videtur esse bonum exemplum imitandum. --Grufo (disputatio) 19:24, 15 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Quid est synthesis, sed haec tres verba non confondere debet. Melius per comprehensionem synthesis est articulum anglicum «Oktōēchos hagiopolitanos».

Hinc aliud exemplum cum imagine notationis Dasianae, titulus fontis «Incipit commemoratio brevis de tonis et psalmis modulandis». Non est «commemoratio de modis et psalmodia modorum»! Ligetis fontes et videtis manuscripta! D–d ut species octavae est aequalis, sed quaestio qui phthongus est finalem est quaestionem toni, non modi. Si G sol ut est finalem et non D sol re, sapimus species tetrachordi et pentachordi, sed disputatio psalmodiae et echematis non tangit modum, tangit tonum. Hodie et in medio aevo! Nunc propono substituire verbum «modus» ab verbo «species octavae», adiuvat evitare confusionem. Deinde utemur verbum «modus» denuo.

Hodie modos esse octo scalas conservatoribus instructunt, sed non sapunt nullam tonorum, phthongorum ipsorum ut finalis et tonos cadentiales neque formularum melus. Quid est non solum errorem et ignorantiam, sed etiam negationem patrimonii. Platonykiss (disputatio) 19:49, 15 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Articulus novus «Octoechos»

Fortasse melius sit paginam “Octoechos” creare quam ultra disputare? Exactae definitiones toni, modi et tropi, lectoribus monitis, illic scribi possunt. P.S. Melius “c” quam “k” apud Vicipaediam – i.e. “Octoechos”, non “Oktoechos”. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:47, 16 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Dedi exemplum et sumus paene ad finem laboris priusquam laborem magnam ut sit articulus «Oktoechos». Ago gratiam pro commutatio vivida et non iam turbo vos. Platonykiss (disputatio) 07:40, 17 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Noster IacobusAmor paginam “Octoechos” incepit. Si cum eo collaborabis, haec mihi videtur esse opportunitas commentetionem Latinam meliorem Anglicā scribendi. --Grufo (disputatio) 21:09, 17 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Quando articulus hinc finitus est, possumus etiam facere articulum concisum «Octoechos» cum prospectu medio aevo. Octoechos constantinopolitanus habet 14 sonos, non 16. Nunc estis longissimo via cum 4 articulibus. Primum videre laborem collectivum hinc debet, cum commentaribus latinibus vel anglicibus... Platonykiss (disputatio) 09:14, 18 Maii 2024 (UTC)

"Nunc estis longissimo via cum 4 articulibus." LOL. Incertum videtur num aliquis examen Turingense suscipere possit? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:46, 18 Maii 2024 (UTC)

:o) It depends on you! I made many suggestions, how one can do own articles here. If you just prefer to translate some of my articles as some did before you, I will have (after some months or years, whatever it takes) a look at them, and I can improve things. But I need some proof that teamwork leads here to a fine article. I copied the sources, you did not like my Latin describing the sources (which is fine for me, I am always curious to learn). But you label and tag something instead of correcting my mistakes. Thus, I made here very concrete suggestions how the article starts to refer to the images that you chose here (and it was on your behalf). But nothing happens here, even it could be done in just a few minutes. It is not so complicated. Make this article right and we might look for other articles. I think I was generous with suggestions... I just think these are lovely subjects and you could do something nice, since this is the language here. If my presence is preventing you from doing it, I will just go. Platonykiss (disputatio) 14:22, 18 Maii 2024 (UTC)

You must be confusing me with someone else; I didn't tag the sources (Grufo did), nor did I choose the images (Lesgles did). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:52, 18 Maii 2024 (UTC)

That is all fine teamwork, I did something further, but you need to copy it into the article and then you will see, how the links work (the #-links jump directly to the source, if it corresponds with the index given in the field "ref"). I wrote it here, since Grufo asked for suggestions, so that you can improve my Latin if necessary.

I inserted now everything that you see, how it works, the suggested changes of the introductory section have less unknown terms (that you sing also cantica, not canticula—it is actually an anglicism, just think of canticum canticorum, another poetic part of the Tanakh, and there you are–, with psalmody, you treat in an own article about psalmody which does not exist yet). I did not change the syntax of the existing period, but just replaced certain terms by more adequate ones. I also moved one of the pictures from the gallery into the text, that you see how to integrate them. For the picture of William of Volpiano's tonary, you need to do a proper analysis (have a look here).

Now you are free to do, whatever you like. Improve the text there or delete the new section again (please note that I went there more into detail to describe the inserted picture, the chant genres and its incipits have been checked carefully) or rewrite the whole thing... But please, do something instead of spreading tags, because until now this stub was not only insufficient, it had also serious mistakes, because your Latin might be better than mine, but some terms were simply in the wrong place (there are just two chant books with musical notation and they must be named here, I inserted the links to the relevant articles)! Platonykiss (disputatio) 08:54, 19 Maii 2024 (UTC)

The Latin text began as a translation of the English article; you'd have greater influence in the world of information by directing your efforts at improving the English text. ¶ An articulus in classical Latin is basically a 'joint, knuckle, finger', with extended senses of a 'single word' in grammar and a 'heading, part, section' in texts. For the English word article in reference to newspapers, magazines, or encyclopedias, you probably want the Latin commentariolus or commentarius or commentatio or even res. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:47, 19 Maii 2024 (UTC)

I know, the «commentarius» like the «glossae» at the margin is rather this page, why not «argumentum», even «vox» or «index vocis»? Just to remind you, I used it that way above talking about the syntax of language and how to rebuild it in chant (the hand was also used as a metaphor for the period, thus you have «membra» and «articuli»). But «res» is also not the right word (although I love the philosophical implication that one has to stay with the things referred here, not with lunatic definitions, exactly the motivation of the rich exchange here!), because it refers to the "subject" of the article (the term works in Italian, never in Latin). The correct term by the way for an encyclopædia in English is entry, better than article which rather refers to a contribution in a journal. But nevertheless, the modern term article stems from the finger-part, not the other way round, and the same is true for "period" which still exists in English with the original meaning until the present day.

What can we do for it? As I already wrote, using this language as you do here is a privilege, because you do understand the proper meaning of any word in the original sense!

By the way, the original article "Octoechos" became very long and some administrators insisted to split it chronologically into three parts. But they made this additional article to refer to its three parts and others put many other contents to it afterwards. I would not waste a second to improve all this nonsense, because if you read my articles, you will already understand why John of Damascus could not have invented the Octoechos. Just do it, if you like! This is, why I mentioned four articles. The three parts refer all to Byzantine music history which is probably not so useful here.

For this very reason I suggested here (see above) to refer it geographically (1) to the Oktoechos of sticherarion notation (the so-called Hagiopolitan Oktoechos) which was the model for the Western tonary, even if the treatise called «Hagiopolites» was obviously an introduction to the unnotated chant book «tropologion» in the Constantinopolitan redaction (of the Mone Stoudiou). There the hymnography was oriented to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, while the (2) Oktoechos of the cathedral rite at Hagia Sophia (with liturgical and court cermonies) was quite different. As I said the former was the basis on which Carolingian cantors invented their tonary with (3) an Oktoechos of their own design.

I did not correct the term Gregorian chant (although the use in plural is extremely weird to say the least! Note that my source list offers more specific groups, I admit «Alamanniae» is pretty weird, too, but St Gall neumes were not only used in the Alpine aerea around Lake Constance, but in southern and central Germany, Switzerland and Austria) in the article, because there is not such a thing like an Ambrosian or Roman tonary. But the name "Gregorian" derived from an illusion, because Charlemagne asked Pope Hadrian for a sacramentary of Gregory the Great whom Charlemagne imagined to be the founder of the Schola cantorum. Of course, Hadrian gave him a contemporary one which was a «Hadrianum», not a «Gregorianum»! Those philologists who call it «Gregorianum» are everything, but not historians! Platonykiss (disputatio) 14:59, 19 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Quaestiones apertae

We are all here to do good. The biggest problem in the bibliography is the use of the italic. We don't write Tonarium Augiensis (effictum anno MI in Augia insula) but rather Tonarium Augiensis (effictum anno MI in Augia insula).

Other times the problem is the Latin; for example, what is the meaning of the ablative (dative?) here in “tropario et sequentiario”?

Tonarium tropario et sequentiario Augiense ...

Or what is the meaning of the genitive in “notationis sangallensis” here?

... sub differentias cum notationis sangallensis

And so on. I would be happy to improve the Latin, but I cannot improve what I don't understand. --Grufo (disputatio) 18:04, 18 Maii 2024 (UTC)

I see, please just ask all your questions and I am at your disposition. I opened here a new section, where you can ask all of them!

1) I have no control over the italics, because I simply used the wikipedia cite:template {{cite web|title=title|work=description}} (the option «fontem recensere» is required to change the content in the field or to insert new fields). Please look up yourself, how it works! If you do not like the italics you have to change the style sheets (which work slightly differently according to the language). But since you would like to change the format within one field, you should use an extra field for the "date", but I am not sure it works with Roman numbers:

• Hermannus Contractus (MI). "Bamberga, Bibliotheca civitatis, collocation". Tonarium Augiensis. Augia insula .

Code: {{cite web|last=Hermannus Contractus|author-link=Hermannus Contractus|title=Bamberga, Bibliotheca civitatis, collocation|work=Tonarium Augiensis|date=MI|location=[[Augia Dives|Augia insula]]}}

You see, it does! But you are limited here, you can use two dates connected with a middle long stroke, if the datation roughly says 11th century, you must choose a precise number like "ML". I guess that can be fixed to your satisfaction.

As you can see, you can also specify another field for location. Thus, we can easily avoid that I have to use the combination of ablativus and genitivus. So far, I preferably used the genitivus for the provenance like: «Tonarium libro... abbatiae...(anno)».

2) With «Tonarium tropario et sequentiario Augiense» I actually meant "Tonary within the Troper-sequentiary of Reichenau" and used the ablativus. Was I wrong?

3) A description such as «sub differentias cum notationis sangallensis» means psalmody sorted under «differentiae» (acc.pl.) (the term means psalmody endings) which are notated with St Gall neumes (expressed here as instrumentalis constructed with ablativus plural by use of the conjunction «cum»). It is not genitive singular, but ablative plural (notatio is feminine): «notationibus sangallensibus». I changed it to the singular since I did not use the term neume. Platonykiss (disputatio) 07:56, 19 Maii 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not understand your tag language. If you know a more comprehensible word for the tonal symbols such as «AuPr» or simply «I.» (please have a look at the manuscript), you are free to use it. I leave the detailed description to you. The terms psalmodia, psalm and canticum I had already explained here, you are welcome to open two other articles for the missing items «psalmodia» and «cantica» (I even made concrete suggestions concerning its content), in case you have not already explained the latter in the article «psalterium». You better recommend the English version. The German wikipedians are as lazy as you are. The article was in a desperate condition for many years, since someone tried to translate a paragraph from the English version based on an automatic translation. I fixed it with the proper terms in German and added a paragraph with a description of the state of the art. Now they will just need another year to patrol my changes! Desperate case... Platonykiss (disputatio) 06:52, 21 Maii 2024 (UTC)

I would be happy if this article improved thanks to your contributions, but your Latin cannot be understood, therefore English and German Wikipedia are the only possible alternatives. --Grufo (disputatio) 08:10, 21 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Even from the point of view of my poor Latin, the article has already considerably improved thanks to me, your Latin whoever that was, was in no way clearer and the terms used here were simply wrong (if not wrong concerning orthography and grammar, definitely used in the wrong place). Thus, I can happily return the compliment. If you have further questions, just ask them here in plain language (I do understand many and will answer back in the one chosen by you). For now, I suggest you describe the historical development of tonaries, fill in some nice quotations from Latin treatises (you do not even need to bother about a translation, but adapt the editions to the manuscripts, because there are many imprecisions). I offered here already a rich number of quotations (with Greek terminology translated into Latin with my correct reconstruction of the Greek terms as well as the one with tonus suggested by Hucbald). And do not use terms like « mode » the French way, when you deal in Latin with «modus» (even if I adore Messiaen's teaching of « chant grégorien »). And just enjoy yourselves being here and doing such a work in a nicer and more profound way. Platonykiss (disputatio) 08:23, 21 Maii 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your attitude. I gave the courtesy of annotating the corrections to do. You only need to apply them (you have to hover with your mouse or click to see them). Is there something you do not agree with of what I wrote? What are you complaining about? I stopped at some point because I don't have to go through every sentence that other editors write. --Grufo (disputatio) 09:09, 21 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Obviously not just the articles here need improvement. Do not waste your time wondering about "my attitude", just work on yours, because you will not change me.

I expected that you inserted my paragraphs with your corrections, because I made my suggestions here (using the paragraphs almost unchanged just by replacing the wrong terms) on your request. But since you did nothing whatsoever, I was forced to insert my suggestions on my own. Now, do not expect me to remove the tags, since you feel so superior concerning Latin. I am grateful for my experience and the exchange here and I have no regrets whatsoever and also no complaints to make. But there are several "attitudes" here and they prevented us to become one team.

This is the reason, why I decided not to disturb you here any longer. I might have an eye here from time to time, and that is it. Platonykiss (disputatio) 09:32, 21 Maii 2024 (UTC)

“Now, do not expect me to remove the tags, since you feel so superior concerning Latin”: I am not sure you get the spirit of Wikipedia. This is a completely voluntary project. Editors edit what they want, if the want, when they want. Nobody has to do anything. The purpose of writing scholia instead of applying the corrections myself is what I already said earlier: I do not understand what you write, and therefore I cannot completely correct the text. The page cannot remain in this state, and since this is a voluntary project nobody has to change it. But you can likely expect that someone will remove altogether the parts that cannot be understood if the page remains in this state. --Grufo (disputatio) 09:46, 21 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Instead of making all these observations, why do you not just ask your questions here, and I add for you "whenever you like"? I asked you already several times to do so and thus, realised that you are not familiar with cite templates which are extremely useful, because readers can fill their bibliographies just by one click.

I would rather not comment here on the "spirit of wikipedia"... You are just lucky that secret services have usually no skills in Latin language to spam here around and bully and even exclude other users abusing their administrative rights which should never have given to them. Not even those who invented and programmed wikipedia, are any longer willing to contribute to the English wikipedia, because the idea of free exchange has been raped and perverted into a propaganda machine. They said it in public interviews! This is just another aspect of what I meant, when I wrote: «Est privilegium!»

If you could preserve for yourself a rather naive attitude, it is fine for me, but you all do lack passion here. Unfortunately, most articles are very poor in content, and concerning a topic like this you have a rich corpus of sources and a developed rich language you can explore in treatise literature.

There was few I could learn there from you, but maybe I should just leave you here to discover it on your own. But I assure you that I did all I could to make you more familiar with certain terms. They are notoriously used here in a way which reveals that some authors do not understand them properly.

I try to explain it. If you deal with languages like Greek and Latin, you cannot use these terms like they are used in those languages which borrowed them from there. Thus, you might like a certain article, because it was written well in a certain language, but in Latin you have direct access to certain terms which needs more care, whether it is or is not a loanword. Thus, I wrote so much about Greek loanwords here which have become in modern languages the loanword of a loanword! When Hannah Arendt wrote her book about totalitarianism, she also dealt with her mother tongue where this term, almost unpronounceable in English, was just "totale Herrschaft". She refered directly to the Nazis' use of the language which was ugly, but simple.

The biggest problem of the "wikipedian spirit" is a certain hen attitude. The worst case is the German wikipedia, where they reduced themselves to watchdogs of their own edits as if they have eaten wisdom in baskets. It is almost impossible to improve anything there without becoming outspoken to a degree that the English would perceive as rude! Unfortunately, when you really know them, you also know that you should not waste any time with them, because otherwise, they will get even worse. In other languages they could develop contents much further–for the very simple reason that edits do not need to be approved. The key is to be friendly and encouraging (which I think you are), and interfere less (which was quite ok here, but you got a lot of feedback, probably too much for your taste). There can be no doubt that less interference is much less demanding and also less work, but maybe you like here a familiar atmosphere and I do respect that... Here you have the result (the «glossae» here are almost in a Carolingian way excessive).

I tried to help you here, since I am the one you tried to translate (as you already admitted). You can ignore me, I feel not offended. Platonykiss (disputatio) 11:17, 21 Maii 2024 (UTC)

“Instead of making all these observations, why do you not just ask your questions here, and I add for you "whenever you like"?”: Sure. Why do you write

Primum tonarium notus

instead of

Primum tonarium notum

? What does it mean

Sed nondum iunctum ad psalmodiam psalmorum et canticorum quod pauci canti Missae sunt indicati

? Why do you write

Utilitas pristinorum tonarium

instead of

Utilitas pristinorum tonariorum

? Why do you write

erat classificationem

instead of

erat classificatio

? (Moreover classificatio is not classical Latin.) And also, why do you write

toni canto plano

instead of

tonorum cantūs plani

? Why do you write

in breviaribus

instead of

in breviariis

? Why do you write

in sacramentaribus

instead of

in sacramentariis

? What does this word mean

rubrices

? I am not sure how you could find this Q&A here more useful than the scholia I wrote in the article, when at the end of the day it is the article that needs to be modified.

“But in Latin you have direct access to certain terms which needs more care, whether it is or is not a loanword”: I perfectly understand your point. What you don't understand though is that the Latin you access is medieval Latin, which not always takes into account how Latin was before and how it became afterwards. Musical modes have not been discussed in Latin only by medieval people, which means that medieval nomenclature might need contextualization. Furthermore this is Wikipedia, and even Suetonius sometimes might need to be “wikified” before being transcribed here. --Grufo (disputatio) 12:59, 21 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Be assured there is no tag language in the world that can replace a personal exchange. You are quite fluent in it (I was amazed by it!), but I fear it was rather wasted on me.

1) “Primum tonarium notus”: Not by me, I am afraid! I just moved the picture from the gallery and added a verification of the source in the caption. But in the role of a Latin student I would say «notum». I can only guess that the contributor wished to say "one of the oldest known sources for a tonary" which I would translate as «unum fontem notum antiquissimum tonarium conservatum»

2) “Utilitas pristinorum tonariorum”: I might remind you that I suggested in the first section, where we discussed the title of the whole article and if it needs to be moved, to use both forms in a flexible way. I guess that Aquitanian cantors would definitely use the expression «libellus tonarius» and then «tonarius» is a genitive and tonarius is a u-declination like melus which has according to my poor Latin the other genitive plural ending. But if you decide to use it here as a conventional neutrum declination in order to avoid a confusion of the reader, I would leave the last word to you or you insert ū.

3) “erat classificatio”: I am aware of it, but here I refer to a contribution by Peter Jeffery who used the Latin expression «a posteriori» in English. I can insert the reference, if you like. The argument is that Greek tropologia used between the 5th and 12th centuries have been a chant book without musical notation, but a modal signature like πλ Β to indicate the ἦχος (sonus in Latin) of the hymn. Here the signature decides what the cantor does. Concerning the tonary we deal with a modal classification a posteriori which decides about the tonus.

4) “tonorum cantūs plani”: I actually prefer the genitive singular of tonus, cantus planus is a pars pro toto, it could be introitus, communio, also offertorium or any other chant genre, but you decide whether ablative or genitive is better.

5) “in breviariis” and “in sacramentariis”: I am always lost, when I have to use the ending -ibus and when -iis.

6) “What does the word «rubrices» mean”: A note at the margin as I already wrote. If you have a look at the manuscript you see that a later hand added a symbol of tonal classification either according to the Byzantine or Hucbald's system to each hymn in the book of Mass chant (therefore Gradual). In case of the Gradual-Sacramentary of Saint Denis, it is the Byzantine system. At the height of the communio «Dominus dabit benignitatem» (f. A1', first page of the Gradual beginning with Advent) there is a modal signature A PROT at the margin for «Autentus Protus». The scribe did not care to classify any other chant of the same Mass.

Of course, I do understand the difference between Middle and Classical Latin, since I was instructed with the classical texts like anyone else. I also do understand the stylistic differences. But so far I came not across users who are able to build periods the way Cicero did, and I assume that sticking to classical vocabulary has more to do with dictionaries used here which is rather laziness than confronting the question, whether such limitation is useful for medieval subjects. In my professional context it is the discussion which is an Ancient term stemming from harmonics, and which of them like tonus and sonus are used as medieval terms with a specific meaning related to medieval church music. Aristoxenos did not know a term like ἦχος. It did not exist yet. And if someone says that the octave D—d is supposed to be Dorian, not even Boethius could have understood what gave you this idea! This is what our whole discussion here is about! The LmL is very good, really wonderful, but the Greek language is missing and I know the editors well enough that I would even say I doubt that they do know and understand the Ancient Greek context. It is a deficit, a bilingual form would be more adapted to the subject! Platonykiss (disputatio) 14:14, 21 Maii 2024 (UTC)

“I might remind you that I suggested ... to use both forms in a flexible way”

And indeed they both appear in the page. But to which one of the two forms (i.e. tonarius or tonarium) would “Utilitas pristinorum tonarium” belong? What case is “tonarium” in that sentence?

“I am aware of it”

If you are aware, why did you write “classificationem” in the accusative case?

“I actually prefer the genitive singular of tonus”

You wrote “classificationem toni canto plano”, which I would translate as “Classification in a plain song of the mode” (btw, the ablative of cantus is cantu).

“I am always lost, when I have to use the ending -ibus and when -iis”

But then why instead of thanking and trying to learn you protest when someone tries to help?

“A note at the margin as I already wrote.”

Could you quote one dictionary in which the word “rubrices” appears? And, once again, what do the other things that you did not address mean?

--Grufo (disputatio) 14:39, 21 Maii 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am touched that you pay so much attention to my mistakes.

I apologise that I left one of your questions unanswered. The translation of “Istud tonarium erat partem psalterii, sed nondum iunctum ad psalmodiam psalmorum et canticorum quod pauci canti Missae sunt indicati, non solum antiphonae ad introitum (AN seu A), sed etiam responsoria gradualia (RG seu R), versus alleluiatici (AlL), offertoria (OF) et communiones (Adco seu Adc).” is:

"This particular tonary was part of a psalter, but not yet in combination with psalmody of psalm verses and canticles [you see that I even saved your idea to mention cantica here, but I postponed it for the discussion of this early source, since it is a psalter which has the canticles as well, but its tonary's focus on Mass chant, where canticles do usually not appear except for the Old Gallican rite, has nothing to do with a psalter! Nevertheless, since this is just a fragment, one might guess that this early tonary had already a lost second part treating the psalmody of the antiphonary related to antiphonae and responsoria prolixa.] because just a few Mass chant was listed here, not only introits and communiones [which are sung as refrain during psalmody], but also graduals, alleluia verses, and offertoria. [You can change the order of the items adapted to my translation, if it makes more sense for you, in the Latin text I just followed the order of the Mass as in the tonary, because it refers to the picture.]"

The other example, also quoted here in the complete context: “Utilitas pristinorum tonariūum/tornariorum erat classificationem toni cantū plano generaliter a posteriori.”, I would translate this way:

"The use of early tonaries was the classification of the church tone in plainchant in general a posteriori/ afterwards [in the sense of applied afterwards to an existing oral transmission of plainchant. You see that I avoided to apply the plural as you did above with Gregorian chant, because the plural for such a term since it means a memory for a local repertoire, is problematic and also not so elegant. The use of ablative here separates the modal classification from plainchant, while a doubled genitive might confuse some readers.]."

The footnote explains that this Latin expression was chosen by Peter Jeffery, that a modal classification was deduced in tonaries, but implied in the Eastern chantbook tropologion or troparologion, because another modal signature set before a hymn text would simply change the whole melody.

This is important as a characterisation of the tonaries' nature, but back to the beginning. This early kind of tonary, though it was copied by the same hand, does not really fit to a psalter, because the psalmody and its differentiae were not properly explained or notated by letters or neumes as they were in later tonaries. It was nothing more than a modal classification and here also used to classify the church tone of genres like offertorium, responsorium graduale and alleluia verse. They had either no psalmody of psalm verses as in the former case, or a more elaborated recitation of a short psalm (in Milan also called «psalmellus») like during the latter ones, where a specialised cantor recited the psalmellus as a soloist between the repetition of the responsorium by the choir. But concerning its musical morphology psalmody as melodic pattern (formulae melus) was the basis, as the hexameter was concerning the psalms as one of the poetic parts of the Tanakh (other parts were composed as prosa and must be read, while these poetic parts like the biblical odes were sung). Platonykiss (disputatio) 00:22, 22 Maii 2024 (UTC)

Rubrica: probably a term such as «symbolum tonale» could do the job together with an explanation «secundum Hucbaldem ad exemplum VII. per tonum septimum vel secundum terminologiam byzantinam ad exemplum A Tetr per autentum tetrardi». The latter was used in the Gradual-Sacramentary of Saint Denis. The tonary fragment of Saint Riquier and these rubrified symbols on the margin of a sacramentary might look quite different on a first sight, but their purpose was just modal classification and nothing more. Thus, not too useful in a psalter, but at least you could choose the psalmody according to a certain church tone. Platonykiss (disputatio) 08:31, 22 Maii 2024 (UTC)

I am not at all focused on your mistakes – in fact I only signaled them in the article, as it is the duty of anyone who cares about Vicipaedia. You, on the contrary, wanted to open an entire discussion here about them.

• As I wrote in my scholium, istud maps codesto in Italian; would you use codesto in that case? If the answer is no, then you have to replace istud with hoc.
• As for the first sentence that I marked with {{Verba obscura}}, what I don't understand is “quod pauci canti Missae sunt indicati”: with “indicati” do you mean “reported”, “listed” (i.e. transcribed)? In that case I would just rewrite it as “quia pauci sunt cantūs Missae”. If you really want to use the verb “to list”, you can use “enumemerare”. “Indicare” here does not work.
• The plural of cantus is cantūs.
• Tonarius -us, m. is not a word. It's either tonarius -i, m. or tonarium -i, n.. So the genitive plural is only tonariorum.
• Rubrices is not a word either; the word you are looking for is rubrica -ae, f. – but I still do not understand its usage here. If it is a particular meaning used in the middle age, you can add double quotes around the (corrected) word followed by an explanation of the special meaning in brackets. That is: «sunt “rubricae” tantum tonalium (i.e. … [ACCLARATIO VERBI “RUBRICAE”] …) apud marginem paginae».

--Grufo (disputatio) 18:19, 22 Maii 2024 (UTC)

All I understand from your remarks is that I chose the words well. I never used codesto in Italian, but it seems right here. It is not «enumerare», I think you got seduced by the term item I used. It is neither a transcription. As an ethnologist I do often transcriptions fixing the precise pronunciation by IPA symbols and using notations that people in my field do not always understand. How can I explain? If you use mensural notation for Troubadours chant you might call such a reception a transcription (because the rhythm of Troubadours chant has nothing in common with the philosophy of mensural chant, you do something that does not really work). Just risk a look at the manuscript and you will understand immediately. The picture is right there. The tonary has nothing else than the incipit which is basically the representation of chant in every breviary. The text has nothing strange for cantors, because they used sacramentaries, where the whole text was written down as you can see in the sacramentary of Saint Denis. The melody they knew by heart!

The adjective «pauci» is important, because German philologists like Hartmut Möller made a distinction of the short form, which means the list just offer some examples, but is not complete, while Hartker tried hard to list all antiphons which do exist in the antiphonary. The Germans call the latter case full tonary, thus Saint Riquier is the short form, while Hartker made a full tonary. I personally prefer the term full tonary to point at the fully notated version of William of Volpiano. Thus, even under risk to appear here overcritically, I think indicate works fine. It is definitely not «quia pauci sunt cantūs Missae», it does not mean that if few examples appear here that this was the whole repertoire of mass chant as your choice of words insinuate, but there is no doubt that all of these few examples are taken from the Holy Mass, not from anywhere else. I think I made myself clear about it with my guess that there might have been a second part for the other chant book antiphonary, even if it is just guess-work. A psalter is just a psalter, it does not matter, where psalmody appears. The book was usually used by monks to memorise the text as a whole, and according to the Benedictine rule, it should be done within two weeks, that the whole psalter was recited with psalmody. Well... theory and practice! But there can be no doubt, that the division of the psalter was essential to memorise it (in Byzantium the term was kathismata and it was also organised in liturgical cycles).

Forget about the term "rubrica", it just sprang to my mind, since this modal signatures had been written at the margin, but my last suggestion should work to refer to these signatures. But if you think that the conjunction apud with accusative works better than the usual locative, it is fine for me. Platonykiss (disputatio) 21:09, 22 Maii 2024 (UTC)

“All I understand from your remarks is that I chose the words well”: Of course! How could it be otherwise! “Istud tonarium erat …” translates in English as “That tonary near to you, reader, but which is far from me, the writer, was …”. “I never used codesto in Italian”: Believe me, I can see that. Anyway I am done. Maybe others can relate better with your attitude. --Grufo (disputatio) 23:56, 22 Maii 2024 (UTC)

I understand this must be frustrating.

I try to say it this way, a demonstrativum which has a deictic quality that an English translation like "Such a particular tonary like this here" would fit (as reference to the inserted picture). I do not know, if your description is helpful, but at least you mentioned nothing to object against its use here. It refers to its context like the preceding period, but as well to the picture.

I chose the verb indicare, since the term index is in it. Maybe as the master of tags here you have also in wiki certain symbols. Enumerate in wiki would be #, right? Now have a look at the manuscript. Do you see items listed by numbers in the manuscript? I do not.

There are items, but in wiki they are organised *. But if you have a close look at the early fragment, you see that the items are ordered in some way. First "A" which means «antiphona ad introitum», then "RG" which means «responsorium graduale», then "All" which means «versus alleluiaticus», then "OF" which means «offertorium», and finally "adc" which means «antiphona ad communionem».

This order corresponds to the one of proper mass chant in the order as it appears during the celebration of the mass (the introit is the one sung entering the church, then those in connection with scriptural lessons etc.) which in Latin is called «proprium missae» which means the chant of every day or better: the chant that changes everyday. If you have some experience with those manuscripts, Latin or Greek, you can further check (even if there are just few items for each chant genre), how is the order between the items of each category. Whether Greek or Latin, the order is either beginning with advent until the feasts of November like Saint Martin, or like the order established by the Stoudites monks who started the sanctoral with 1 September, the feast of Symeon Stylitis, until the end of August (also Slavic manuscripts are organised that way). And if the sanctoral is not separated from the cycle of moveable feasts, the latter usually begins after the 2 February of the sanctoral with Septuagesima (the long Lenten tide) and ends with Pentecost or Allsaints (since Orthodox Christians celebrate it one week after Pentecost).

Trust me, I wrote you everything you need to know, how the items are organised or might be organised! And yes, there might be a reason, why I chose here certain terms and not others. But if you have a suggestion, let me know it, and we will see, if it is really better. Forgive me, if this is not always the case. My Latin is a baby language that is not always comprehensible (or usually incomprehensible). You can see that I thought about the details carefully, but only a few readers will grasp all of them. My suggestion is to elaborate further on it. Maybe just one short period, that this is a short form with just few examples. Then explain step by step the principles, how the items are organised.

Really important is only that the function of the early tonaries is to find the «tonus» in the sense of church tone behind each chant. In English you can also say mode, because it refers broadly as an ethnomusicological term to any kind of melody type, even raga in India or dastgah in the Persian speaking countries. But do not try this in Latin, since it lacks precision. The church tones are more alive in practice, the term «modus» concerns the melodic frame which can change to other species of the fourth (tetrachordum) or the fifth (pentachordum). If you have a composition classified as «tonus secundus» according to Hucbald, the beginning might start modestly within a third between D and F and the melos might later rise to a G, then it changes in such a profound way that D is no longer base note, but C as if C—G is now the melodic frame (which is another species of pentachord). But it all is included in the term «tonus secundus» without having changed to another one.

For now I leave you in peace, but we have worked really hard here and this is very good. I can remove your scholia, if you like, but only if you explicitely allow me to do so. If you prefer to do it on your own, since this is your article, I will not change anything. Platonykiss (disputatio) 06:16, 23 Maii 2024 (UTC)

“I can remove your scholia, if you like, but only if you explicitely allow me to do so. If you prefer to do it on your own, since this is your article”: This is not at all “my article”, and no one “owns” pages on Wikipedia. If removing the scholia means applying the suggestions I would be very happy if you did that. If instead it meant leaving the mistakes I don't see the sense of it. But if you are really convinced that everything you wrote is correct you can still ask for a second opinion at our Taberna. --Grufo (disputatio) 10:06, 23 Maii 2024 (UTC)

De origine psalterii Gallicani

Ligetis articulum anglicum «Psalterio Caroli Magni» dedicatum ad manuscriptum ubi letteratura disputandum scriptorium est indicata. Platonykiss (disputatio) 11:17, 19 Maii 2024 (UTC)

"Music" as a term in English, Arabic and Latin

stems from the Greek term ἡ μουσικὴ and, as I wrote here above it was used, when the Antique science (which the Pythagoreans just called an exercise, τὸ μάθημα, actually the term which became in English "mathematics" or shorter: "maths" since the quadrivium consists of four) of harmonics (αἱ ἁρμονικαὶ) was applied to contemporary "music"! The term was used the same way in Arabic and it was borrowed also there from Greek, and treatises under this title treat the autochthone music theory dealing with naġme (melody-types to avoid the term mode which would be at least not incorrect in English) and īqā‘at (rhythms), the earlier term preceding maqām‘at which became not in use in this context before 1400.

Boethius used «Institutione musica», although his translation of Claudius Ptolemy—as creative as it was—could not be called a synthesis yet. The scribe who copied this treatise at the scriptorium of Einsiedeln (CH-E cod. 358, p.145), wrote the very knowledgeable title:

INSTITVTIONIS MUSICAE ID EST ARMONICAE 

Platonykiss (disputatio) 10:54, 20 Maii 2024 (UTC)