Qui vult veníre post me, ábneget semetípsum: et tollat crucem suam, et sequátur me.
Whoever wishes to come after Me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me.
Mt 16:24
This text is almost too familiar. At least as Catholics, it’s so (un)comfortable to focus on the acts of denial, like abstinence and fasting, while overlooking some of the semantic subtleties here that may add a richer spiritual reflection. Two words particularly struck me: semetípsum and sequátur. Although the word semet means “himself”, the suffix ípsum is also self-referential, thus creating extra emphasis. We so often judge the penitential acts of others – or compare ourselves to them – when it is actually much harder to personalize these penances and understand what God may be asking of us individually. The term sequátur is a conjugation of sequí, meaning, “to follow”, and this is one of two Latin terms with that definition. The other is ducére. Ducére always takes on a passive form, “to be followed”, while sequí always takes an active form. The active verb used in this context gives a more dynamic reading by placing more emphasis on our choice to follow Christ, rather than “being led” passively by Him.
In my reconstruction, I retained the melody as found in the Vatican edition except in two places: I added the bottom note of the pes on vult and transformed the final syllable veníre from a clivis to a torculus. The e between qui and vult thus demonstrates that the initial note of the pes should also be RE. In both Laon and St. Gall, three notes on veníre are given: in Laon, a pes followed by an uncinus (with an a for augére, meaning “to hold”, on the top note); in St. Gall, a torculus (really more of an initio debilis) with many added letters, c, m, and t, for celeriter, mediocriter, and tenete (quickly, moderately, and lengthened).
After consulting the Graduale Novum and Stingl’s reconstruction at Gregor-und-taube, I understand why these scholars omitted the penultimate DO subbipuncti on sequátur. I interpreted the cephalicus as shown in Laon to be a diminished clivis liquescent. However, the quilisma-torculus as shown in St. Gall demonstrates an augmented liquescent. The ambiguity of the Laon notation would allow for a reading of an augmented virga liquescent that would coincide with the reading of St. Gall, thus eliminating the need for the DO subbipuncti. I imagine that DO was a later accretion, since it would create a double-neighbor cadential figure around the final, RE. Because modal assignments and compositional rules became codified as the centuries passed, a reading without DO would thus probably reflect more ancient use. Although I still don’t understand why the melody in the GN and at Gregor-und-taube doesn’t reflect both added e’s given in St. Gall over et and sequátur, I’m hoping to gain more insight when I get a copy of their reconstruction as found in Beiträge zur Gregorianik.
Leave a Reply