Provenance: Probably copied for the church of St. James in Brno. Date unknown.
Published study and inventory: Martin Horyna and Vladimir Maňas, "Two mid-16th-century manuscripts of polyphonic music from Brno," Early Music 40 (2012): 553-76.No DIAMM entry.
Source of pieces in Choralis Constantinus II: Copied from a source based on the printer's exemplar (see below).
Choralis Constantinus II contents:Character of variants in Choralis Constantinus II pieces:
The Brno scribe (or the scribe of his immediate exemplar) took an unusual number of liberties with the source. Five numbers (noted above) are assigned to different feasts, sometimes with different texts. Some textual details reflect what were probably local variants of the Choralis texts. Numerous differences in pitch and rhythm were apparently motivated by the scribe's personal taste. Some rhythmic variants adapt the music to different text underlay. Repeated minims preceding a cadence are often joined in order to avoid placing an unaccented penultimate syllable on a minim.In addition to varying the texts and music in small ways, the scribe corrected several errors that must have been present in the printer's exemplar, since they are found in both the print and other copies of the exemplar. (There can be no doubt that the printer's exemplar was the scribe's ultimate source, since CZ-Bam 14/5 shares many errors with other sources that were copied from that source.)
For a detailed discussion of the provenance and scribal initiatives in the manuscript, see David J. Burn and Ruth I. DeFord, "A Recently Discovered Source for Henricus Isaac's Mass Propers: Transmission and Scribal Initiative in Brno, City Archive, MS 14/5," in Henricus Isaac (c.1450/5-1517): Composition - Reception - Interpretation, ed. Stefan Gasch, Markus Grassl, and August Valentin Rabe, Wiener Forum für ältere Musikgeschichte II (Vienna, 2019), 65-104. In that article, the authors claim that CZ-Bam 14/5 was copied from the print, rather than the printer's exemplar, on grounds that the Erlangen manuscripts have several correct readings in places where CZ-Bam 14/5 and the Choralis print share common errors. The Erlangen manuscripts were thought at that time to be based on the printer's exemplar. A comprehensive comparison of all surviving sources of the Choralis II repertoire has since shown that those manuscripts were based on Ott's original source, and that some errors entered the transmission at the stage of the preparation of the printer's exemplar.
Despite the revision of the stemma, all of the claims made for scribal initiative in CZ-Bam 14/5, including corrections of specific errors, have been confirmed by comparison of the manuscript to other copies of the printer's exemplar.