On musicological grounds: certainly C2. In this period, cut-C and C2 were, in practice, equivalent despite the latter implying "modus cum tempore." Please don't ask me about _that_, because I'm at the limit of my understanding! References for this would include: Apel: The Notation of Polyphonic Music 900-1600, and DeFord: Tactus, Mensuration and Rhythm in Renaissance Music
On paleographical grounds: certainly C2. That's what the arabic numeral "2" looked like! Compare with innumerable other manuscripts of this period. Reference: Capelli: The elements of abbreviation in medieval Latin paleography, translated by Heimann and Kay, at pp.19 and 29. If you're doing a lot of transcription of renaissance music, I strongly recommend equipping yourself with these sources. DeFord is available for a modest price as an e-book. The others are freely available online. Capelli is invaluable for figuring out the impenetrable system of abbreviations ("sigla") used by scribes in underlay. HTH -- Graham > On 8 Oct 2020, at 05:35, Adam Griggs <adammgri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello again lilypond-user, > > Looking for some advice. > > I started with this MS: > http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=royal_ms_8_g_vii_fs001r > > Find attached a montage of the time signatures of the four parts. > > That looks like 'C2' to me. Anyone concur? <snip>