No, I haven't seen, but the numbers correspond to the duration of rests
in the first choir's part (and the nine semibreve long section not
included in the tablature). If you look at the score[1], you can see
there are rests that last for two semibreves on page 25, for five
semibreves on page 27, for 11 semibreves on pages 30–32, for three
semibreves on page 36, for six semibreves on pages 38–39 and for 13
semibreves on pages 40–42. Then there is a nine semibreve long section
on pages 33–34 that is missing from the tablature.
There is no second lute part on the spreads in question (neither in red
notes nor reversed), which is the reason why I thought that the possible
second lute part might not be in the same manuscript.
[1]
http://ks.petruccimusiclibrary.org/files/imglnks/usimg/4/41/IMSLP145459-WIMA.26bd-battu.pdf
Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. kirjoitti 10.9.2020 klo 0.08:
Well, as we have discussed, the red notes are apparently played from
the same score on a second lute, and elsewhere in Eysert, there are
apparently both parts of some duets, some reversed to play off the same
MS (haven't run across them yet). That suggests that there may not be a
second part book, which doesn't mean a second part isn't lurking in
some other random MS.
I we ignore the #º notations entirely, Part 2 sounds quite all right to
my ears as is, so the notations might mean something entirely
different...
Andre Nieuwlaat is going to hunt around and see if he can find a second
part. Perhaps it would have similar notations to indicate missing bars,
meant to be played from the version in Eysert.
Have you seen notations like this anywhere else in the lute
literature? I haven't.
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
