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 <[email protected]> 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>
