The selection of pieces corresponds to the Braga liturgical use as recorded in P-BRs Ms. 32 with the only exceptions being 1) the textual variants of Antiphon 005193; 2) the presence of the incipit for the Antiphon 'Novit dominus' in the fragment, which is missing in Ms. 32; 3) the fragment has a shorter selection of chants. Finally, due to the very poor condition of the bottom half of the verso of the fragment, the reading of the text of the responsory verse ID 007348a is extremely difficult but it seems possible to distinguish some textual variants compared to Ms. 32.
One full-page column. 8 red lines for notation alternated with text.
Condition of document:
Single-leaf fragment in poor condition. The fragment serves now as book cover. The left vertical margin was trimmed to fit the size of the book and the trimming has caused loss of contents. The ink is either vanished or difficult to read due to much dirtiness and a big spot of humidity in the bottom half of the fragment.
Fragments 3 (available at http://pemdatabase.eu/source/43000) and 1 from the Arquivo da Sé of Braga share the same codicological features (text and music palaeography, mise en page, decoration etc.) and it is possible to surmise that the two fragments originally belonged to the same book. Specifically, Frag. 1 was originally part of the Proprium de tempore while Frag. 3 of the Proprium sanctorum.
Description of the notation:
Big size neumes. The difference between a lozenge and a more or less square punctum is always clearly defined. The axis of the notation is vertical. The lozenge is randomly used at different heights always as part of compound neumes in a descending melodic movement. The lozenge is not used in isolation.
This fragment belongs to a group of fragments currently held in P-BRs and P-G which share the same style of notation: P-BRs Fragments 1, 3, 10 (fragments 1 and 3 originally belonged to the same codex); P-G C 1372, C 1429, N 133 (fragments C 1372 and N 133 originally belonged to the same codex), N 161 and P 217. From a notational standpoint, the main difference between these sources is the shape of the custos, however, P-G C 1429 and P 217 are too mutilated and today we don't know if custodes were originally written on these sources or not.