P-BRs (Braga) Arquivo da Sé Frag. 003
|P-BRs Frag. 003||Recto||[...]cimo aetatis sue anno mortem perdidit||Agnetis||M||R||1.1||006442|
|P-BRs Frag. 003||Recto||Infancia quidem conputabatur in annis sed||Agnetis||M||V||01||006442b|
|P-BRs Frag. 003||Recto||(Dex)tram meam et colum meum||Agnetis||M||R||1.2||006436|
|P-BRs Frag. 003||Recto||Posuit signum in [fa]ciem meam||Agnetis||M||V||01||006436b|
|P-BRs Frag. 003||Verso||Amo Christum in cuius thalamum introivit||Agnetis||M||R||1.3||006084|
|P-BRs Frag. 003||Verso||Mel et lac ex eius ore||Agnetis||M||V||01||006084a|
|P-BRs Frag. 003||Verso||Induit me dominus ciclade auro texta [...]||Agnetis||M||A||2.1||003328|
Same chants for 'Agnetis' as in the manuscript representative of the liturgical use of Braga Cathedral P-BRs Ms. 28, fols. 24r-25r (fol. 24r at http://pemdatabase.eu/image/4576). The only difference between the two sources is the choice of the verse for the responsory 'Amo Christum' (Cantus ID 006084). Ms. 28 has 'Annulo suo' (Cantus ID 006084b) while Frag. 3 has 'Mel et lac' (Cantus ID 006084a).
Fragments 3 and 1 (available at http://pemdatabase.eu/source/42984) 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.
Large 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.