History - Intravit autem rex
Jun 17, 2023 (DomMocquereau)
fixed typo inherited from the Liber antiphonarius
gabc
"(c4) IN(g)tr\u00e1(gj)vit(h) au(g)tem(hjh~) rex,(iji..) *(;) ut(i) vi(j)d\u00e9(k)ret(j) di(ji)scum(hi)b\u00e9n(h)tes,(g.) (;) et(g) vi(g)dit(h') i(j)bi(i') h\u00f3(g)mi(hi)nem(h'_) (,) non(e) ve(gh)st\u00ed(g)tum(f') ve(h)ste(f') nup(g)ti(gf)\u00e1(e)li,(e.) (:) et(d) a(e')it(f) il(gh)li:(g.) (;) A(h')m\u00ed(j)ce,(i'_) (,) qu\u00f3(j)mo(h')do(g) huc(gh) in(g)tr\u00e1(e!fg)sti,(g.) (;) non(gv_FD) ha(e!fg)bens(g') ve(h)stem(gf) nup(g)ti(gf)\u00e1(e.)lem?(e.) (::)"
remarks
See the Corrigenda of the Liber Antiphonarius (which itself has a typo; the page is 570).
The question remains as to whether the liquescent form should be followed or the standard torculus, which is what the corrected score (removing the dot) gives in both cases.
sources
[{"chant_id":"13096","source":"48","page":"5710","sequence":"02","extent":"1"}]