Byzantine Chant, Radiation, and Interaction: Proceedings of the Congress Held at Hernen Castle, the Netherlands, in December 2015 9789042939516, 9042939516

Citation preview

29

Eastern Christian Studies

BYZANTINE CHANT, RADIATION, AND INTERACTION Proceedings of the Congress Held at Hernen Castle, the Netherlands, in December 2015

Edited by Christian Troelsgård Gerda Wolfram

BYZANTINE CHANT, RADIATION, AND INTERACTION

EASTERN CHRISTIAN STUDIES A series published by The Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, Nijmegen and The Louvain Centre for Eastern and Oriental Christianity, Leuven Edited by Joseph Verheyden Heleen Murre-van den Berg Alfons Brüning Herman Teule Peter Van Deun Volume 29

EASTERN CHRISTIAN STUDIES 29

BYZANTINE CHANT, RADIATION, AND INTERACTION Proceedings of the Congress Held at Hernen Castle, the Netherlands, in December 2015

Edited by Christian Troelsgård and Gerda Wolfram

A.A. BREDIUS FOUNDATION PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2022

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2022 Uitgeverij Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium) All rights reserved, including the right to translate or to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form. D/2022/0602/54 ISBN 978-90-429-3951-6 eISBN 978-90-429-3953-0

CONTENTS Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VII Byzantine and Oriental Chant Traditions. A Kind of Research History  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ­ Christian Troelsgård (Copenhagen) The Concept of ‘Old Melody’ in Modern Greek Chant. Two Characteristic Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 ­ Eustathios Makris (Corfu) ‘Bulgarian’ Chants in Musical Manuscripts . . . . . . . . 35 Svetlana Kujumdzieva (Sofia) Points of Interaction between the Byzantine and Armenian Sacred Musical Traditions. Three Documentary Witnesses .  .  .  .  . Haig Utidjian (Prague)

59

Byzantine Empire and Coptic Music . . . . . . . . . . 97 Magdalena Kuhn (Leiden) On Establishing the Limits of the Process of Assimilation of ­Byzantine Chant in Russia. A Question of National Styles .  .  . 111 Svetlana Poliakova (Lisbon) The Byzantine Musical Tradition and its Implementation among the Slavs of the Carpatho-Ruthenian Basin. A Historical Survey  149 Šimon Marinčák (Trnava) The Byzantine Tradition of the Allelouia Chants .  .  .  .  .  . 159 Gerda Wolfram (Vienna) Bilingual Alleluia Chants in Latin Manuscripts of the 11th Century and their Byzantine Counterparts . . . . . . . . . . .175 Nina-Maria Wanek (Vienna) Index of Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199 Index of Technical Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . .203

FOREWORD Since its foundation in 1981, the Brediusstichting has continuously contributed to the study of Byzantine musicology by holding a series of small, workshop-like conferences. At intervals of four or five years, scholars of Byzantine chant have gathered around the big, wooden table in the Bredius library, encircled by its richly filled bookshelves and enjoyed views over the late-medieval courtyard and the beautiful landscape around Kasteel Hernen. Every time the setting itself has proved successful and very stimulating in allowing formal and less formal exchanges to take place between scholars. This volume documents the outcome of the seventh meeting of this kind, held in December 2015, when a group of scholars of chant met with the theme ‘Byzantine chant, radiation and interaction’. The purpose of the meeting was to trace contacts, coherence and differentiation in chant traditions that, in one way or another, relate to Byzantine chant as a central vein amongst the Eastern chant traditions. The program also included a very well received public concert with Ensemble Organum, under the direction of Marcel Pérès. The concert was dedicated to the memory of the Greek cantor and scholar Lycourgos Angelopoulos (19412014), who has proved to be a great source of inspiration in his experiments to capture the ‘sound’ of Byzantine chant and the testing of its presumed historical performance practice. The theme of the conference was not only in perfect harmony with the personal and life-long interests of the founder of the Foundation A.A. Bredius (1903-1982), which encompassed many branches of liturgical music from Greek, Oriental, Slavic and Latin traditions, but is also still highly relevant to our times. On a broad front this relevance can be seen in the importance of producing and sharing knowledge of the cultural heritage of Europe, its character, origins, development and value, a goal which today is being challenged, even within the academic establishment. More specifically, the theme may also serve to enlighten current discussions about cultural exchanges and the historical contributions of ancient Christian minorities in the Middle East and their diasporas throughout the world, especially in the present climate where national, European, and international cultural roots and identities figure on the political agenda.

VIII

FOREWORD

We should therefore like to thank the Brediusstichting for organising this chant conference and we would like to add a special word of thanks to its curator, Victoria van Aalst. She, together with her voluntary assistants, has made all the practical arrangements necessary for us to be able to conduct our successful conference. In addition, we want to give her our personal thanks for acting as a completely reliable and efficient secretary and co-editor of these acts – in the face of many unpredictable difficulties. Finally, we would like to add some practical information: The literature consulted by the authors of this volume often relates so specifically to the musical tradition of a specific Oriental Church in its relation to Byzantine chant that it has turned out to be impossible to compile a coherent general bibliography. For bibliographical data we refer the reader to the lists of ‘abbreviations used in the footnotes’ at the end of most of the articles and, in particular, to the ‘index of names’ which makes it possible to identify the references throughout the volume. Christian Troelsgård & Gerda Wolfram, Copenhagen and Ithaka, September 2019

BYZANTINE AND ORIENTAL CHANT TRADITIONS A KIND OF RESEARCH HISTORY Christian Troelsgård

1. Introduction / ‘Oriental Chant’ as a Concept When he launched the series Studies in Eastern Chant (SEC) in 1966, Milos Velimirović mentioned in the preface that the initiative for it had originally been taken by Egon Wellesz, at that moment professor of musicology at Oxford, and Velimirović continued: ‘With growing interest in musicological circles for Byzantine music and the rapid developments in related fields — especially in studies about the music of the Slav peoples — a need arose to provide a forum for writings which might have appeared in a variety of periodicals not easily accessible to the musicologist.’ Eventually, five SEC volumes were published. Looking through the articles in these volumes one realises that in fact they have only dealt with Byzantine and Slavic Chant. The SEC was conceived as a supplement to the Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae (MMB), a project inaugurated in 1931 at the instigation of Carsten Høeg, who became its practical and executive dynamo. His colleagues and friends in realising the project were Wellesz as ‘chief ideologist’, and H.J.W. Tillyard who was already known as a tough academic voice in favour of a reconstruction of the medieval Byzantine chant through the application of editorial practices adopted from classical philology. In the MMB project, too, only Slavic chant sources have been included so far in addition to the Byzantine ones, although originally the intention was to include studies on many branches of Eastern chant. Wellesz’ earlier interests — as first documented in publications from 19171 — encompassed a range of ‘Eastern’ chant traditions. Subsequently, he also worked out a more detailed programme for a musicological approach to the field, published in 1917-1918 in Musica Divina, Monatsschrift für Kirchenmusik, published by the Roman Catholic 1   Wellesz, E., ‘Probleme der musikalischen Orientforschung’, Jahrbuch der Musik­ bibliothek Peters, 24 (1917), pp. 1-18.

2

C. TROELSGÅRD

Church Music Association in Austria (Verband für Katholische Kirchenmusik in Österreich):2 I. Vom Wesen der orientalischen Kirchenmusik II. Ursprung und Ausbreitung des altchristlichen Kirchengesanges III. Die byzantinische Kirchenmusik IV. Die religiöse Dichtung der Byzantiner V. Der syrische Kirchengesang VI. Die Kirchenmusik der Kopten und Abessinier VII. Die armenische Kirche und ihre Musik VIII. Die armenische Kirchenmusik IX. Das armenische Hymnar Wellesz’ programme might be seen as an early definition of the field of ‘oriental chant’ in the sense of the study of oriental Christian chant traditions from a common point of view. While inviting for comparative perspectives, it also tacitly took Western European music and Latin chant as points of observation. This ‘widening’ of the perspectives on European church music sided historically with the emergence of concepts such as comparative musicology and ethnomusicology, and, as we shall see, also with the discipline of comparative liturgy. 2. Byzantine Chant as a Reference Point Today, the musical traditions of the oriental churches still attract a lot of interest, not only because each of the Eastern chant traditions is still viewed as something unique and authentic, but also to document and better understand instances of co-existence of chant traditions, mutual interactions, dynamics of development, and the role of chant as a key force in building up religious and ethnic identities. Historically, the B ­ yzantine rite has been considered an important, central and stable point of ­reference, against which other ‘oriental rites’ could position themselves, 2   Wellesz, E., ‘Studien über den orientalischen Kirchengesang – (zur orientalischen Kirchenmusik): Vom Wesen der orientalischen Kirchenmusik’, Musica Divina, 1 (1917), pp. 41-43; ‘Ursprung und Ausbreitung des altchristlichen Kirchengesanges’, 2 (1917), pp. 103-108; ‘Die byzantinische Kirchenmusik’, 3 (1917), pp. 143-147; ‘Die religiöse Dichtung der Byzantiner’, 4 (1917), pp. 183-187; ‘Der syrische Kirchengesang’, 5 (1917), pp. 215-220; ‘Die Kirchenmusik der Kopten und Abessinier’, 6 (1917), pp. 244-249; ‘Die armenische Kirche und ihre Musik’, 7 (1918), pp. 16-19; ‘Die armenische Kirchenmusik’, 8 (1918), pp. 54-58; ‘Das armenische Hymnar’, 9 (1918), pp. 99-100.



BYZANTINE AND ORIENTAL CHANT TRADITIONS

3

comparable to the position of the Roman rite and Gregorian chant in Western Europe. The theme of our symposium in December 2015 was ‘Byzantine chant, radiation and interaction’. The participants were invited to document instances of contact points between the musical traditions of various religious chant traditions and Byzantine chant. Meaning is said to be created by analogy and delimitation respectively, i.e. what something is (like) and what it is not. Therefore, this handful of studies with instances of interaction, comparison and delimitation will hopefully contribute to a better understanding of each of the traditions involved — and of Byzantine chant. As a prologue to these papers, I shall here try to focus on some important stages in the establishment of some of the concepts connected with Eastern chant studies and try to explain how they seem to have acquired their meanings, importance and transformations through the ages. I shall do so by sketching a prehistory to the establishment of ‘oriental chant’ as a field of study at the beginning of the 20th century, identifying some ideological issues inherited from the earlier research history, and trying to link them to contemporary currents in chant scholarship. The intimate connection to the historical study of the relationships between Christian denominations — tensions and open conflicts included — must also be taken into account as a resonant background for the development of this field of studies. 3. The Concept of ‘Oriental Churches’ Middle Ages

in

Late Antiquity

and the

The concept of ‘oriental chant’ itself seems to be connected to the expression ‘oriental churches’, which is evidently a Romano-centric concept. In the literature of late antiquity, ‘oriental’ seemed to be used for patriarchates and dioceses east of Rome, e.g. in Eusebius, Church His­ tory, 7.5: «ἴσθι δὲ νῦν, ἀδελφέ, ὅτι ἥνωνται πᾶσαι αἱ πρότερον διεσχισμέναι κατά τε τὴν ἀνατολὴν ἐκκλησίαι καὶ ἔτι προσωτέρω» (But know now, brother, that all the churches in the East and still further away, which were formerly divided, have been united),3 which refers to the unity of various churches located in Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, ­Mesopotamia and Arabia. In Latin, a similar geography seems to prevail, 3  Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, with an English translation by J.E.L. Oulton, Loeb Classical Library, 265 (Cambridge, Mass., 1932), pp. 138-139.

4

C. TROELSGÅRD

for example in works by St Ambrose of Milan, St Augustine (e.g. the well-known episode in the Confessiones, where Eastern inspiration is mentioned for St Ambrose’s introduction of hymns and psalms in Milan),4 Prosper of Aquitania, and Rufinus of Aquileia, who writes in his commentary on the Creed: ‘Orientales ecclesie omnes pene ita tradunt: “Credo in uno deo patre omnipotente”’ (All of the oriental churches teach approximately this: ‘I believe in one God, the Father almighty’).5 In the earlier Middle Ages, however, apparently no-one referred to the ‘oriental churches’, as much more than a geographical, generally accepted Christian unity among churches following different rites, given that they acknowledged the teachings of the ecumenical councils. Well into the age of the crusades, however, Alberic of Trois-Fontaines (mid-13th century) wrote about an episode, in which Bishop Ionah of the Persian capital Susa experienced a miraculous transformation, while celebrating the Eucharist, of the outer form of the consecrated elements from his native ‘Eastern’ practice to the ‘Roman’: the big loaf of leavened bread became a little Host and the wooden cup with shells was transformed into a silver chalice. According to Alberic, this miracle should have caused many oriental churches (a.o. Armenian, Georgian, Syrian, Jacobite, and Nubian) to convert — little by little — to the Roman Eucharist practice.6 It might be interpreted to the effect that more outward differences between the rites had come into focus in the relations between Eastern and Western Christianity. On the other hand, in the Latin West one also finds a view of the Eastern churches as direct heirs of the early Church.7 Judging from a general analysis of literary sources from the Middle Ages, descriptions of the chant of the ‘others’ did not often go beyond stereotype applause  Augustine, Confessions, ii, with an English translation by W. Watts, Loeb Classical Library, 27 (Cambridge, Mass., 1912), pp. 30-31: ‘secundum morem orientalium partium’ (according to the practice of the eastern parts [of the Roman Empire]). 5   Rufinus of Aquileia, Commentarius in Symbolum Apostolorum, ed. Migne, J.-P., Patrologia Latina, 21 (Paris, 1849), col. 335B. 6   Alberic of Trois-Fontaines, Chronica, ed. Scheffer-Boichhorst, P., Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, 23 (Hannover, 1874), p. 886: ‘In huius Ione manibus, dum missam celebraret more sue gentis, hoc est secundum consuetudinem Surianorum, tale fertur accidisse miraculum, quod panis ille magnus fermentatus, unde fiebat sacrificium, in parvam et pulchram convertitur hostiam ad morem sacrificii Latinorum, et calix ligneus adnichilatur cum cochlearibus, recepto vero sanguine in argenteo calice; et hoc accidit in festo beati Iohannis baptiste huius anni, unde plures Surianorum ecclesie, Armenii, Georgiani, Lubiani, Nubiani et Iacobite ad consuetudinem sancte catholice et Romane ecclesie de die in diem per hoc miraculum ceperunt converti.’ 7   E.g. Albert the Great (on ordained men still being married), ‘Commentarii in quartum librum Sententiarum’, Opera omnia, ed. Borgnet, A. (Paris, 1894), p. 66: ‘in primitiva Ecclesia, et in Ecclesia Orientali...’. 4



BYZANTINE AND ORIENTAL CHANT TRADITIONS

5

or pejoratives, and no clear East/West-dichotomy regarding the classifica­ tion of chant traditions seems to be contained in medieval sources.8 In the documents and reports resulting from the first union councils following the so-called Great Schism of 1054 in Bari (1098) and Lyons (1274), it seems that the oriental churches were represented exclusively as ‘Greeks’, i.e. conceived as representatives of the patriarchate of Constantinople, and the discussions seemed to focus mostly on doctrine and canon law. Furthermore, at the much better documented sessions of union councils at Basel, Ferrara and Florence (1431-1445), Armenian, Coptic and Jacobite delegations attended along with the representatives of the Greek patriarch of Constantinople. These denominations eventually signed separate documents of agreement and/or union with the Roman Church. The joint liturgical celebrations of the union, however, caused some mutual animosity regarding the theological and aesthetic recognition of chant idioms associated with the different churches.9 4. Attitudes to the Eastern Rites Reformation Era

in the

Renaissance

and

In early modern Europe, when the ideals of the Italian Renaissance slowly became fashionable also north of the Alps, anything Greek was considered potentially more original, more authentic and directly transmitted from antiquity than what was received through intermediate Latin or Arabic sources. A veritable quest for Greek manuscripts and language teaching has been treated broadly in Renaissance studies. Alongside this general focus on original Greek versions of texts, especially the Bible and the Greek patristic literature, a marked interest in the traditions of the Greek Church arose in Western Europe. The major reform protagonists were great advocates of this positive evaluation of the Greek heritage, as far as they could get in touch with relevant sources. Erasmus’ undertakings in this direction are well-known. The German church historian F. Winkelmann has supplemented them with a characteristic of another reformer: ‘Luther schätzte im großen und ganzen die griechische Kirche 8   Troelsgård, C., ‘The Conception of the Chant of the “Other”: Evidence from Medieval Literary Sources’, in Cantus Planus, Papers Read at the 16th Meeting, Vienna, Aus­ tria, 2011, ed. Klugseder, R., Borders, J., et al. (Wien, 2012), pp. 408-412. 9   Glowotz, D., ‘Die musikalische Konfrontation der Ost- und Westkirche auf dem Konzil von Ferrara-Florenz’, Die Musikforschung, 59 (2006), pp. 1-16.

6

C. TROELSGÅRD

etwas höher als die römische ein, da sie die altkirchliche Entwicklung nicht völlig ausgeschieden habe, also Elemente einer möglichen Reinigung in sich trage.’10 In our modern times, remains of neo-classicist approaches from the late 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries and the classically inspired educational programme designed by Philipp Melanchthon sometimes make us forget, that Renaissance scholars and their early modern heirs took a huge interest in Greek Christian authors, alongside their commitment to the received text canon of classical antiquity. As a side effect, Greek liturgy and music attracted the interest of academics in the West, Protestants and Catholics alike. Anything that could be learned of Greek music of any age was welcomed as an instructive novelty, since knowledge of Greek music could provide a possible link to the music of the early Church, which was judged to be close to the extolled, though practically unknown, Greek music of antiquity. 5. The Early Modern Period – from Rutgers (1618) to Gerbert (1784) From the 16th century, the continued interest in ancient and patristic Greek learning eventually also produced a slowly growing knowledge of the terminology of Greek liturgical chant. One early instance of this curiosity is attested by the Dutch philologist Jan Rutgers (1589-1625) in his six books on ‘Various readings’, a heterogeneous collection of material related to his studies in Greek and Latin philology with special focus on emendations of the transmitted texts and strange Greek words. In a short essay, Rutgers reports some interviews he held with three travelling Greek churchmen, who toured Western Europe on a fundraising campaign for their home dioceses, because of the hard times imposed by Turkish overlords. The essay is written in a markedly ironic and light tone. Almost by coincidence, in addition to a list of some ‘half-barbaric’ (= demotic?) Greek words not encountered in any of the dictionaries available at the time and a ‘complete list’ (as Rutgers contends) of the monasteries on Mount Athos, the Greek clerks also informed Rutgers of the shapes and names of the Middle Byzantine neumes.11 The general public could soon learn more about Greek chant from the work by 10   Winkelmann, F., ‘Die Darstellung der byzantinischen Kirchengeschichte in den pro­ testantischen Kirchengeschichtswerken bis zur Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts’, Klio, 43 (1965), pp. 611-645; p. 619. 11   Rutgers, J., Variarum lectionum libri sex (Leiden, 1618), p. 132.



BYZANTINE AND ORIENTAL CHANT TRADITIONS

7

­ hios-born Leo Allatius’ (Λιωνὴς Ἀλάτζης, 1586-1669) on the various C types of Greek liturgical books, De libris ecclesiasticis graecorum, from 1645.12 Although Allatius’ focus is mostly on the text-only lectionaries and hymnographic collections without musical notation, he also briefly describes the notated book types Heirmologion and the Kekragaria of the Akolouthiai-manuscripts, and — finally — delivers a catalogue of melodes and Byzantine composers. The book was dedicated to Cardinal Mazarin’s librarian, Gabriel Naudé (1600-1653), who had asked for an exposition of the complicated system of liturgical books by a scholar who was himself well-versed in the subject matter, and Allatius, who succeeded Naudé as librarian of Cardinal Francesco Barberini in Rome in 1638, was exactly such a figure. The scholarly interest in the Eastern churches in this period ran in parallel with church policy, since the question of relations between the Roman Church and the oriental churches — also during the era of the ‘Counter-Reformation’ — remained a central issue in the Roman Church. In order to build missionary activities in the eastern Mediterranean on solid ground, such studies were a.o. carried out to gain precise knowledge of the Eastern rites and customs. The learned Dominican friar Jacques Goar (1601-1653) travelled in these regions and he published his major work: Εὐχολόγιον, sive Rituale Graecorum complectens ritus et ordines divinae liturgia, in 1647.13 For its time, this work delivers some excellent editions of the services of the Byzantine rite. In addition, it includes a very rich apparatus of notes, in which descriptions of both musical manuscripts and chant performance practice are well represented. In this period, scholars were still eager to learn more of Greek chant, and the public for such studies also extended to learned people outside the explicitly ecclesiastical sphere. The Jesuit polyhistor Athanasius Kircher (1602-1680) was interested in all sorts of encyclopedic knowledge and in 1650 he published one of the earliest text books in ‘general musicology’: Musurgia universalis sive ars magna consoni et dissoni in decem libros digesta.14 On the basis of the aforementioned publications and some as yet unidentified manuscript of the Papadike, which he may have studied in a library in Rome, he included an elementary introduction   Allatius, L., De libris ecclesiasticis graecorum (Paris, 1645).   Goar, J., Εὐχολόγιον, sive Rituale Graecorum complectens ritus et ordines divinae liturgia (Paris, 1647). 14   Kircher, A., Musurgia universalis sive ars magna consoni et dissoni in decem libros digesta, 3 vols (Rome, 1650). The section ‘De moderna Graecorum musica’ is found in i, pp. 72-79. 12 13

8

C. TROELSGÅRD

to the Middle Byzantine system of notation. It consists of a rather confused collection of graphic representations and (often quite random) transcriptions of minor musical phrases. Obviously, Kircher had a weakness for ‘completeness’, admitting at the end of his work that he should also have described the music of the Egyptians, the Arabs and all other oriental peoples,15 but the excused himself with the platitude that ‘the size of the work did not allow for this’! For the first time, however, Kircher had made longer bits from a ‘real’ source of Byzantine musical signs accessible. Approaching the era of Enlightenment and the creation of more distinct scientific disciplines, the Benedictine monk Bernard de Montfaucon (1655-1741) laid the foundations of Greek palaeography in 1708.16 He recognised the importance of Byzantine musical documents by including two trustworthy ‘facsimiles’ of original Byzantine musical manuscripts with notation, one sample of the ekphonetic type, the lectionary notation (p. 260), and one of the melodic type, the heirmos Χριστὸς ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐμφανῶς (p. 357). Martin Gerbert (1720-1793) in his De cantu et musica sacra a prima Ecclesiae aetate usque ad praesens tempus also featured ‘facsimile’ examples of Byzantine musical notation, mostly taken from a manuscript of the Papadike.17 Silvia Tessari has recently shown that an Italian abbot from Bologna, Cirillo Martini (c. 1721-1783), was instrumental in informing both Gerbert, the English music historian Charles Burney (1726-1814),18 and their Italian colleague Giambattista Martini (17061784)19 about elementary Byzantine chant manuscripts and notation.20 Gerbert apparently did not get a firm grip on the notation himself, even if he says that he has done a lot of work on the matter; his notes and papers were unfortunately lost in a fire at Sank Blasien in 1768 and he only reproduces the facsimiles from the copperplates that had already been incised.21 On the subject of interpreting the Byzantine neumes, he   A dubious strophe from an Ethiopic chant is found on p. 135.   Montfaucon, B. de, Palaeographia graeca (Paris, 1708). 17   Gerbert, M., De cantu et musica sacra, ii (Sankt Blasien, 1774), tables nos i-x. 18   Burney, C., A General History of Music, 4 vols (London, 1756-1789). 19   Martini, G., Storia della Musica, 3 vols (Bologna, 1757-1781). 20   Tessari, S., Byzantine Music and the Veneto Region: Studies in the Manuscript Col­ lections, Hellenica, 69 (Venice and Alessandria, 2018), pp. 59-90. 21   Description of the material in Gerbert, De cantu et musica sacra (see n. 17), ii, pp. 56-58, and Greek text edition of the Papadike from the ‘Tabulae Blasianae’ in Scrip­ tores ecclesiastici de musica sacra potissimum, ed. Gerbert, M. (Sankt Blasien, 1784), iii, pp. 397-398. In addition, a Greek letter by the Hieromonk Metrophanes Krtiopoulos, dated 15 16



BYZANTINE AND ORIENTAL CHANT TRADITIONS

9

reports a letter from the musicologist Giovanni Battista Doni (ca 15931647) to Cardinal Barberini to the effect that transcriptions into Western notation should be made in order to make Byzantine chant intelligible and to preserve its (supposedly old and genuine) form from oblivion, but Gerbert admits that he does not know of any outcome of this initiative.22 Gerbert occasionally mentions Syrian and other oriental liturgies that differ from the Byzantine rite, but generally he views Byzantine chant (of which he apparently had only vague knowledge) as the prototype chant tradition of the oriental churches. 6. Disappointed Philhellenes Sulzer and Villoteau

at the

End

of the

18th Century:

From the later 18th century we possess a couple of longer narratives on Byzantine chant authored by eyewitnesses, namely one by a colonel of the Austrian-Hungarian army, F.J. Sulzer (1727-1790),23 and one by a French musician and scholar, G.-A. Villoteau (1759-1839), who participated in Napoleon’s scientific expedition to Egypt.24 Both authors render the contents of interviews with local informants, though it seems that Villoteau got to actually know and understand his ‘informant’, or ‘victim’, the psaltes Gabraîl from Cairo, slightly better than Sulzer did his Wallachian chant master. Sulzer mentions (vol. 2, pp. 454-455), that Greek chant suffers from a bad influence from Turkish music regarding ornamentation and performance with rhinophonia (‘nose-chanting’): Wenn Ich hier von der griechischen Musik zu handeln verspreche, so verstehe ich darunter nicht nur den heutigen Geschmack und Gesang derselben, als welcher in der Singbarkeit der europäischen Musik ziemlich nahe Nürnberg 1626, with a short dictionary of Byzantine chant terms is published by Gerbert with Latin translation, iii, pp. 398-402. 22  Gerbert, De cantu et musica sacra (see n. 17), ii, p. 260: ‘Legitur inter opera Io. Bapt. Donii consilium ad Em. Card. Barberinum datum, pro conservanda psalmodia Gracorum, nostris reddita notis: ubi eandem notat inscitiam, præsagitque brevi interituram omnem cantus eorundem notitiam, nisi eo conservetur modo, quo etiam in usus nostros converti queant gratiae cantus Graci melodici apud nos insuetae. An unquam aliquid eiusmodi in lucem prodierit, haud scio.’ 23   Sulzer, F.J., Geschichte des transalpinischen Daciens, das ist der Walachey, Moldau und Bessarabiens, 2 vols (Vienna, 1781), ii, pp. 454 sqq. (Griechische Musik). 24  Villoteau, G.-A., Description de l’Égypte, xiv, État moderne: De l’état actuel de l’art musical en Égypte (Paris, 1799, and later editions, e.g. 1826).

10

C. TROELSGÅRD

kommt, jedoch heutigen Tages mit türkischen Manieren, Halbtrillern, und Läufen ganz verzieret, und durchaus durch die Nase gesungen wird, sondern mein Absehen ist zugleich zu zeigen, wie die Griechen ihren Choral, der auch in den walachischen Kirchen angenommen ist, dermalen schreiben und aufsetzen; um hierdurch zur Entscheidung der wichtigen Streitfrage über der alten griechischen vor der neuern etwas beyzutragen.

And furthermore (pp. 462-463) that the art of using the Middle Byzantine musical notation has now been more or less forgotten: Man würde aber den heutigen Griechen bey weitem zu viel Ehre erweisen, wenn man sich einbilden sollte, dass sogar die geschicktesten Musikkenner unter ihnen auch nur den zehnten Theil dieser Zeichen verstünden. … Im übrigen räumen die größten Meister in der musikalischen Zeichenkunst ein, dass in dieser Abtheilung der Töne bey den alten Griechen noch mehr Bedeutung verborgen gelegen habe, die aber für die neueren Griechen völlig ins Vergessen gekommen sey.

Sulzer refers explicitly to classicist/early Romantic ideas of the primacy of oriental music promoted by F.W. Marpurg (1718-1795)25 — with China as the ultimate source of the origin of music — and to reflections of this musical authenticity in ancient Greek music and other ‘oriental’ musical cultures. The church music experienced in Wallachia, however, apparently clashed heavily with Sulzer’s expectations. More sensitive, and in many respects much more useful for modern students of the history of Byzantine chant, is the extended text with many musical examples published by Villoteau. In the rendition of the interviews with Greek clergymen and the psaltes Gabraîl, however, considerable space is taken up by the theme of ignorance of the meanings of the signs of Middle Byzantine neumes and rhinophonia. Villoteau was also struck by ‘musical monotony’, in his perception of Byzantine and Coptic chant, to which he also devoted a chapter of his report. In addition, Villoteau described Armenian, Syrian and Ethiopian chant traditions. Both Sulzer and Villoteau evidently place a higher value on chant traditions transmitted in notation and accompanied by theoretical treatises on music than those that are purely orally transmitted, and both authors seem influenced by imperial ideologies, that embrace a fascination with the exotic music among minority cultures combined with a feeling of intellectual supremacy.

25   Marpurg, F.W., Kritische Einleitung in die Geschichte und Lehrsätze der alten und neuen Musik (Berlin, 1759).



11

BYZANTINE AND ORIENTAL CHANT TRADITIONS

7. The 19th-Century Reception Western Europe

of

Byzantine Chant

in

Greece

and

The received (Post-)Byzantine chant tradition underwent an important reform of notation with the introduction of the New Method, implemented from 1815 to about 1830. The dissemination of printed chant books in this new type of notation was an immense success, and after a period of transition, manuscripts in the ‘old notation’, i.e. late specimens of the chant books notated in the Middle Byzantine notation, were no longer produced. Towards the end of the century, however, other types of church music, partially inspired by Russian and/or Western European polyphony and Western classical musical genres gained some ground in the Greek churches, especially in the cities.26 Claims for reform of the music of the Greek Church in accordance with medieval Byzantine chant can be observed from the period around the 1880s, with Ioannis Tzetzes27 and Georgios Papadopoulos (18621938) among the instigators.28 The call for reform was justified through various developments of the ‘degeneration and orientalisation theories’ signaled in the previous paragraph, and coincides chronologically with the scientific and practical chant restoration movement in Western Europe. Especially French musicologists with interests in Eastern chant and having connections with Greek academics contributed in various ways to stimulate such reforms. For example, the composer Louis Albert Bourgault-Ducoudray (1840-1910) put forward suggestions for reforms of the musical practice on the basis of the repertoires transcribed into the New Method.29 One version of the ‘degeneration-theory’, much in accor­ dance with that of G. Papadopoulos, was phrased by Jean-­Baptiste Thibaut (1872-1937) as follows:30 Le voyageur qui, d’aventure et sans entendre le grec, assiste à quelqu’une des longues cérémonies orientales agrémentées de chants papadiques, emportera certainement des impressions défavorables sur le sentiment 26   Lingas, A., ‘Performance Practice and the Politics of Transcribing Byzantine Chant’, Acta Musicae Byzantinae, 6 (2003), pp. 56-75; p. 69. 27   Tzetzes, I.D., Περὶ τῆς κατὰ τὸν μεσαίωνα μουσικῆς τῆς ἑλληνικῆς ἐκκλησίας (On the sacred music of the Greek Church in the Middle Ages) (Athens, 1882). 28   Papadopoulos, G., Συμβολαί εἰς τὴν ἱστορίαν τῆς παρ’ ημῖν εκκλησιαστικῆς μουσικῆς (Contributions to the history of our ecclesiastical music) (Athens, 1890). 29   Bourgault-Ducoudray, L.A., Études sur la Musique Ecclésiastique Grecque (Paris, 1877). 30   Thibaut, J.-B., ‘La musique byzantine et le chant liturgique des Grecs modernes’, Echos d’Orient, 1 (1898), pp. 353-368.

12

C. TROELSGÅRD

­ usical des Hellènes. Ces mélodies, surchargées d’arabesques et de fiori­ m tures qu’on éternise à plaisir, sur un alpha, un iota, avec, pour toute harmonie, l’exécrable teneur de l’ison, font aisément croire à l’étranger qu’il vient d’entendre un spécimen de ces hymnes sacrées que les prêtres grecs de l’antique Égypte exécutaient en l’honneur d’Osiris sur les sept voyelles de l’alphabet! En tout cas, l’oreille d’un auditeur européen ne peut qu’être froissée du mode nasillard de l’exécution, mode étrange, décoré du beau nom de style byzantine (ὕφος τὸ βυζαντινόν), qui n’est après tout que le style, l’hyphos turc.

Thibaut utters a strong criticism of the embellished melodies of papadic styles, but he praises the more syllabic melodies for their musical values. Le véritable chant byzantin, ne consiste pas précisément dans les airs papadiques, appelés encore, par euphemisme, peut-être, καλοφωνικοί, beaux airs, mélodies calophoniques, mais bien, dans le chant des odes et des hirmi, des tropaires et des stichères, de là son nom de chant ­hirmologique et stychirarique. ... Toujours empreinte d’une mélancolie douce et d’une sensibilité discrète, la mélodie de ces hymnes est suave, délicieuse parfois; elle est belle comme la poésie qu’elle exprime et interprète souvent avec une admirable perfection. À la vérité, je ne connais pas de musique plus propre à faire comprendre ce qu’est le pouvoir de la pure mélodie dans ses rapports avec le sentiment intime.

As a pioneer in musical palaeography, Thibaut later presented a reasonably adequate and historically justified classification of the Byzantine chant notations, which he saw as the direct forerunner of the Western neume notations.31 This is important in connection with the marked graphocentrism encountered in other contemporary studies and inherited in a sense by the from the outset philologically oriented project MMB and the central position taken by Byzantine chant within the scientific field. Other chant scholars of the period also nourished interests beyond Western chant, realising that much musical inspiration had come from Byzantium to Rome and to Western Europe during the Middle Ages. One such scholar was Hugo Athanasius Gaisser (1853-1919), a Bavarian Benedictine monk with a strong interest in chant history and oriental liturgies. First (in 1899) he became a lecturer with and later (in 1906) rector of the Greek seminary Pontificio Collegio Greco di San Atanasio in Rome, whilst also attributing to the commission for the 31   Thibaut, J.-B., Monuments de la notation ekphonétique et hagiopolite de l’église grecque (Saint-Pétersbourg, 1913).



BYZANTINE AND ORIENTAL CHANT TRADITIONS

13

Editio Vaticana of Gregorian chant. After a journey to the Italo-Albanian communities on Sicily in 1904, he published the first scholarly article on their specific chant tradition.32 Gaisser held that — embodied in this exclusively orally transmitted tradition — he had found a direct connection to the ancient Greek music. He had, so to speak, dug out of the fertile soil of Sicily the ‘missing link’ that Tzetzes had been looking for. His announcement of this discovery begins in the triumphant register: ‘Ecco un vero ed ignoto Tesoro che possiede l’Italia nelle chiese di rito Greco cattolico della Calabria e della Sicilia.’ Though Gaisser’s main thesis regarding its connection to ancient Greek music may be considered irrelevant today, the publication is still extremely important because it made the scholarly world aware of the Siculo-Albanian tradition and presented the first transcriptions of it in print. The idea of being able to go back to something more authentic and pure both by studying popular, oral traditions and by creating scholarly ‘archetypes’ through philological methods was widespread in musicological research around 1900, even if comparative musicology or ethnomusicology was barely invented at the time and many of the conclusions appear ideologically biased today. In the same period, more Greek scholars and musicians worked on methods for creating bridges between the Greek chant of the day and the medieval manuscripts. Markos Vasileiou (1856-1919) worked independently on editing and interpreting such sources.33 His work, however, was overshadowed by the stenographic theory of Constantine Psachos (1866-1949), according to whom one must approach older Greek ecclesiastical chant and ultimately the medieval Byzantine music through the adaptations into the ‘New Method’, which was introduced around 1815, and the received tradition of Greek chant.34 Accordingly,

32   Gaisser, H.A., ‘I canti ecclesiastici italo-greci’, Rassegna gregoriana, 4 (1905), pp. 107-123. 33  Vasileiou, M., Περὶ τοῦ στενογραφικοῦ ἢ ἱερογλυφικοῦ τῆς παρασημαντικῆς τῆς άρχαίας έκκλησιατικῆς μουσικῆς (On the stenographic or hieroglyphical notation of the old church music) (Athens, 1906-1907). An introduction to his contribution is found in Dragoumis, M., ‘Markos Vasileiou, a Pioneer of Byzantine Musicology’, in Rhythm in Byzantine chant: Acta of a congress held at Hernen Castle in November 1986, ed. Hannick, C. (Hernen, 1991), pp. 45-54. 34   Psachos, C., Ἡ παρασημαντικὴ τῆς βυζαντινῆς μουσικῆς (The notation of Byzantine music) (Athens, 1917). For further information on Psachos, see e.g. Dragoumis, M., ‘Constantinos A. Psachos (1869-1949): A Contribution to the Study of his Life and Work’, Studies in Eastern Chant, 5 (1990), ed. Conomos, D., pp. 77-88.

14

C. TROELSGÅRD

he eventually became a strong critical voice against the philological approach of the MMB. While the medieval Byzantine tradition had been placed alone at the centre of the studies of Eastern chant for a long period, eventually more focus was also laid on the study of the music of the other oriental rites and on oral traditions. The Benedictine monk Jean Parisot (1861-1923) was an exponent of the development of a concept of Eastern chant studies that focused much more on the music of the non-Byzantine rites. In the call for a conference on ‘Musique orientale’ in 1898 he puts forward his views on the authentic character of the oriental musical traditions in the Middle East as a broader concept:35 En général, les chants liturgiques possèdent − dans une moindre proportion peut-être qu’en France − une expression différente des airs profanes. Si les principes musicaux sont identiques pour l’une et l’autre branche de l’art, si le goût produit, à l’église, des manifestations analogues à celles qu’on saisit dans les chants extérieurs au temple, il semble que les airs d’église, fixés en quelque sorte par les textes dont ils ne se séparent point, soient moins sujets au changement, et que dans certains rites des églises chrétiennes, et même dans les mosquées, on retrouve quelque chose des primitives traditions musicales de Syrie ou d’Égypte, et comme des vestiges de ces mélodies «simples et graves», que les anciens, au dire de Clément d’Alexandrie, appliquaient à la louange divine.

8. The Scientific and Ecclesiastical Backgrounds Chant Studies ca 1880-1930

for

Eastern

In Western Europe, Gregorian chant, as worked out by the Benedictine monks at Solesmes from the beginning of the 1880s, had already gained a great reputation. Editions of the oldest traceable medieval Latin chant versions were accompanied by an intensive pedagogical programme and the development of musical ‘methods’. This ‘Gregorian movement’ had had a huge impact on Catholic church music. The Solesmes editions and the derived Editio Vaticana were sanctioned by Pope Pius X in 1903 as the basis of the official chant of the Church. Many scholars of Greek and oriental chant, among them Thibaut and Gaisser, were inspired by the success of the activities conducted in the area of Latin chant and wished 35   Parisot, J., ‘Musique orientale: Conférence prononcée dans la salle de la Société Saint-Jean, le 28 février 1898’, La Tribune de Saint-Gervais (1898), pp. 1-24. I thank Jean-François Goudesenne for making me aware of the work of Parisot.



BYZANTINE AND ORIENTAL CHANT TRADITIONS

15

to contribute to the Byzantine counterpart of this development. In the same period, musicology was redefined as an independent university ­subject, and chairs in musicology were now being created at some European universities, the first proper one in Vienna in 1898 for Guido Adler, the teacher of Egon Wellesz. The widening of the scope of general musicology, beyond the limits of (Western) European music and with greater recognition of non-written musical traditions, also took place in those decennia. Church policy and the general climate of relations between various Christian denominations seem to have had some importance for the development of Eastern chant studies. In 1867, Pius IX (pontificate 18481878) issued the bull ‘Reversurus’ to the effect of imposing Latin canon law on the Armenians in union with Rome. It caused much opposition, and at the first Vatican council (1869-1870) all ‘oriental bishops’, those of the Eastern rite churches who had been summoned, left the sessions in protest. Under the next pope, Leo XIII (1878-1903), the attitude of Rome towards the Eastern churches became somewhat more favourable, as expressed in the bull ‘Orientalium dignitas’ of 1894, for example. At the same time, the Sacra congregatio de propaganda fide, which traditionally had dealt practically with the oriental churches in union with Rome, increased its scholarly activities relating to the Eastern rites, notably by the editing of the so-called Roman editions of the liturgical books of the Byzantine rite that were issued around this period.36 Pius X (19031914) reintroduced the Latinisation politics of Pius IX, but during the next two pontificates, those of Benedict XV (1914-1922) and Pius XI (1922-1939), awareness of the values of the oriental churches was once more acknowledged, notably by the foundation of the ‘Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Church’ and the ‘Pontificio Istituto Orientale’ in 1917, the bull ‘Rerum orientalium’ from 1928 and the institution of a mandatory ‘Dies orientalis’ for all seminarists in the Catholic Church in 1929. This positive interest in the Eastern churches, their history, theology and liturgy, was also shared by many evangelical theologians and historians. One example of this interest in the Eastern churches nourished by

36   Εὐχολόγιον τὸ μέγα (Rome, 1873); Μηναῖα τοῦ ὅλου ἐνιαυτοῦ, 6 vols (Rome, 18881901); Ὡρολόγιον τὸ μέγα (Rome, 1876); Παρακλητικὴ ἤτοι Ὀκτώηχος ἡ μεγάλη (Rome, 1885); Πεντηκοστάριον χαρμόσυνον (Rome, 1883); Τριῴδιον κατανυκτικόν (Rome, 1879).

16

C. TROELSGÅRD

ecumenically-minded Lutherans can be read in the preface of Friedrich Heiler’s book Urkirche und Ostkirche:37 Ungebrochen geblieben ist endlich mein Glaube an die  »evangelische Katholizität«  und an die Einigung der Christenheit ... Die großen ökumenischen Bewegungen von Faith and Order und Life and Work, das Wachs­ tum des Anglokatholizismus, die in allen protestantischen Kirchen, lutherischen — wie reformierten, vordringenden evangelisch-katholischen Strömungen und — last not least — die große Erneuerungsbewegung im Schoße der römischen Kirche, vor allem die liturgische Bewegung, die Bibelbewegung, die Einigungsbewegung haben in einem Ausmaße, wie ich es mir selbst nie erträumt hätte, gezeigt, daß die   »evangelische Katholizität«  keine Utopie ist, sondern ein gottgewolltes Ziel, dem heute alle christlichen Kirchen zustreben … Marburg, am Gedächtnistag des Dionysius Areopagita.

9. Conclusion Many of the views previously associated with ‘Eastern chant studies’, both in the scientific tradition and in chant practice, had probably survived, to various degrees, and had their impact on the founders of the MMB, when they decided to engage in a major coordinated project. As a consequence of the philologically oriented approach to musicology, their obvious starting point was to map the landscape of medieval Byzantine chant through editions and scientific study of the medieval musical manuscripts. Today, the idea of recreating sole authentic versions of the chants of the ancient Church has been abandoned as the single and ultimate goal of such studies. The Eastern chant traditions are still fascinating, however, and invite studies of historical interaction and exchange of cultural elements, and new approaches to the ancient chant documents and musical manuscripts, enlightened by studies of received oral traditions and of the chant traditions as markers of identity.

  Heiler, F., Urkirche und Ostkirche (München, 19372 [1931]), pp. viii-ix.

37

THE CONCEPT OF ‘OLD MELODY’ IN MODERN GREEK CHANT TWO CHARACTERISTIC CASES Eustathios Makris

The designation παλαιόν or ἀρχαῖον (old or ancient) of a piece in manuscripts or printed editions of Byzantine chant refers to earlier and often anonymous layers of tradition, in comparison to more recent compositions. Although in older manuscripts the term is always used in connection with material originating from even earlier Byzantine times, it appears that from the time of the ‘modern’ repertoire onwards, i.e. from the last decades of the 18th century, it has also been used with reference to 17th-century compositions. This, again, has to do with the fact that the 17th century was a flourishing period for Byzantine chant, which had been preceded by many years of a more or less undisturbed continuation of the tradition whilst at the same time important activities were taking place in the periphery (in Crete and Cyprus) after 1453. Nevertheless, the 17th-century repertoire was simply added to the ‘old’ tradition by late 18th-century musicians since the new chant collections had replaced the previous ones almost entirely: the new Heirmologia by Petros Peloponnesios and by Petros Byzantios (ἀργόν, long, and σύντομον, short, respectively), the Anastasimatarion and the Doxastarion by Petros Peloponnesios, and the ‘New’ Papadike containing mostly works by the new generation of composers. Moreover, from that time onwards the entire previous repertoire has been treated as being more melismatic in comparison to its original notated form, as can be seen from the exegesis of this period, a practice followed and intensified through the transcriptions into the New Method notation after 1814. We will now examine two cases of anonymous compositions that appeared for the first time in early 17th-century Anthologies and which then became part of the standard repertoire undergoing a process of melodic expansion until their inclusion in the printed editions, roughly similar to their counterparts from the Byzantine period that had survived within the tradition.

18

E. MAKRIS

Τoν Δεσπoτην The first is the ‘old’ acclamation in honour of hierarchs with the text: «Τὸν Δεσπότην καὶ Ἀρχιερέα ἡμῶν Κύριε φύλαττε» (Lord, preserve our Master and Archpriest), followed by the wish «Εἰς πολλὰ ἔτη Δέσποτα» (Many years to you, Master). These two acclamation formulas, either connected to one another or separate, are to be found on several liturgical occasions in descriptions of the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite, especially at the beginning and at the end of services, although musical transcriptions of them are extremely rare. The issue of interest to us here has to do with the Hierarchical Divine Liturgy and the ritual of the veneration of the holy icons on the soleas. According to late Byzantine Typika and Euchologia,1 the patriarch venerated the icons immediately before the Little Entrance, to the simple accompaniment of «Εἰς πολλὰ ἔτη Δέσποτα» recited repeatedly, thus filling the liturgical time. For some reason this procedure was later transposed to the beginning of the Divine Liturgy, just before the ritual vesting of the hierarch on the soleas.2 It seems that some special music had to be composed or adapted3 for this liturgical moment, comprising «Τὸν Δεσπότην ...» (during the veneration and the respective prayers) and «Εἰς πολλά ...» (when the bishop turns towards the people and gives his blessing).4 The comparatively recent origin of this music is already obvious in its tonality: it demonstrates a new ‘branch’ of the barys mode, the so-called ‘diatonic’ in Chrysanthine theory, based on low B natural. In early versions of the piece (see, for example, table 1) the initial martyria can sometimes consist of a combination of the martyriai for barys (originally from F) and for the second mode (from high b natural), in order to point 1   Dmitrievskij, A., Описание литургических рукописей, i, Τυπικά (Kiev, 1895, repr. Hildesheim, 1965), p. 169; ii, Εὐχολόγια (Kiev, 1901, repr. Hildesheim, 1965), p. 305. 2   In the modern rite of the Greek Orthodox Church (based on the tradition of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople), where 1) the ritual vesting of the hierarch on the soleas is performed only in special circumstances and 2) the Divine Liturgy is usually attached to the orthros, the veneration of the icons is most of the times transposed to the last part of the orthros, between the pasapnoarion and the stichera of the Ainoi. The hierarch then enters the sanctuary where the vesting is performed, and exits from it again during the Great Doxology. 3  An (unfortunately unfinished) acclamation with the same text in a 16th-century Antho­logia (University of Athens, K.A. Psachos Music Library Collection, MS 120/267, f. 21v) demonstrates a melody which, although ascribed to the fourth mode, seems to be somehow related to the setting in question. 4   This remains the standard practice in the modern Greek rite.



THE CONCEPT OF ‘OLD MELODY’ IN MODERN GREEK CHANT

19

Table 1.  Academy of Athens, Sideridis Collection, 7 (early 17th c.), f. 89r.

out the new tonality. Another peculiarity of this chant, also found in all later versions, is that, instead of ending on D or low B, the usual finales of the ‘diatonic’ barys in the 17th century (especially D, because of the initial close connection of this mode to the first mode, then based on D), it ends on F, that is on the original barys-finalis. Some years later (2nd half of the 17th century), Chrysaphes the New, protopsaltes of the Ecumenical Patriarchate presented an expanded version of the chant in its first part («Τὸν Δεσπότην ...»), whilst the second part («Εἰς πολλά …») remained virtually unaltered apart from some minor modifications at the beginning. Table 2 shows the original version followed by that of Chrysaphes; the expanded part is indicated by frames. It seems that there had been demand for a lengthier chanting at this point in order to cover the solemn liturgical movements and the reciting of prayers during the veneration ritual. Eventually the chant found its way into printed Anthologies and into the contemporary tradition — not through Chrysaphes’ version, which was to be in fact forgotten — but through the exegesis of the original melody by Petros Peloponnesios, lampadarios of the Ecumenical Patriarchate

20

E. MAKRIS

Table 2.  Zakynthos, Gritsanis Collection, 11 (middle of the 18th c.), pp. 172-173.

(†1777),5 which was later transcribed into the New Method notation. Following the usual exegetic practice, Petros expanded the whole piece, not only a part of it (table 3). Nevertheless, the veneration part («Τὸν Δεσπότην ...») undergoes a more drastic expansion (the number of interval signs being roughly tripled) than the blessing part («Εἰς πολλά ...»), where their number is roughly doubled, perhaps following the liturgical requirements as to the length of time to be taken by the chant. 5   Or by his pupil Petros Byzantios (†1808), protopsaltes of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. There is some confusion in the sources as to the authorship of this and other ‘exegeseis’ of older chants. See Στάθης, Γρ., «Ἡ σύγχυση τῶν τριῶν Πέτρων», Βυζαντινά, 3 (1971), pp. 217-251, on pp. 246-251.



THE CONCEPT OF ‘OLD MELODY’ IN MODERN GREEK CHANT

21

Table 3.  Sofia, SS. Cyril and Methodius National Library, Gr. 81 (late 18th c.), f. 99r-v.

The transcription into the New Method notation relates closely to ­ etros’ musical text, defining the rhythm (virtually unspecified in the P older notation), adding certain embellishments and ‘analyzing’ specific melodic formulas which were considered as being ‘synoptically’ notated. This is actually the standard practice when transcribing exegetic versions of older melismatic chants by the great lampadarios and is quite different from transcribing directly from Byzantine sources. In the latter case, transcription is exegesis at the same time. Table 4 shows the beginning of the piece from the two major early Anthologia editions, by Chourmouzios Chartophylax (†1840)6 and by Gregorios, protopsaltes of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (†1821),7 as well as from a Chourmouzios’ autograph.8 The most important difference   Tameion Anthologias (Constantinople, 1824), i, pp. 564-565.   Tameion Anthologias (regarded as 2nd edition) (Constantinople, 1834), ii, p. 106. It was printed after Gregorios’ death. 8   Athens, National Library of Greece, Metochion Panagiou Taphou, 704, AD 1819, f. 264r-v.  6 7

22

E. MAKRIS

Table 4.

between them has to do with the positioning of the second mode phthora and its subsequent cancellation (shown in frames). In Chourmouzios’ edition, the phthora is inserted comparatively later and resolved earlier, while in his own manuscript there is absolutely no phthora, as was the case in the older notated versions. This is probably a signal of the ­ongoing



THE CONCEPT OF ‘OLD MELODY’ IN MODERN GREEK CHANT

23

evolution of the tradition even after Petros. The version by Gregorios is currently in use today. Nevertheless, there has been much debate among the Greek psaltai in the last decades regarding the real meaning of this phthora and the ‘correct’ way of performing the piece. It is also important to look into an earlier exegetic version from the middle of the 18th century, written in Kievan staff notation (table 5). Cod. Petropol. gr. 238 is a twin manuscript of the famous Sinaiticus 1477, 9 presenting a melodic version characterized by less intense embellishment and expansion of the melody in some places, as compared with later exegesis. Example 1 is an extract of our piece in the versions of Petropol. gr. 238 and Gregorios’ Anthologia edition (Chourmouzios’ version being slightly more embellished):

Table 5.  St Petersburg, National Library of Russia, Gr. 238 (middle of the 18th c.), f. 124r. 9   See Stathis, Gr., ‘I manoscritti e la tradizione musicale bizantino-sinaitica’, Θεολογία, 43 (1972), pp. 271-308, on pp. 279-295.

24

E. MAKRIS

Example 1.

From the three greater melismata that appear only in Gregorios’ version in this example, those indicated with the letters A and C can be traced back (in some form) in Petros’ exegesis. The other (indicated with B) has either been added in the New Method transcriptions or has been based on some different, somewhat later exegetic version.10 This is also an indication that certain developments in the exegetic tradition may have taken place after Petros. 10   Such a version, still written in the older notation but including the melodic passage in question, can be found in: University of Athens, K.A. Psachos Music Library Collection, Gregorios Protopsaltes Archive, file 3/62, f. 1r-v. It is authored by Antonios, lampadarios of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (†1828?), who insisted on using the old notation even after the establishment of the New Method (1814). It is not clear, however, whether the specific exegesis was written before or after that point.



THE CONCEPT OF ‘OLD MELODY’ IN MODERN GREEK CHANT

25

Φῶς ἱλαρoν Our second case is the ancient vesperal hymn Φῶς ἱλαρόν11 (O gladsome light). In the Byzantine liturgical tradition it is sung by priests in the case of concelebration as part of the Entrance ritual in the Great Vespers, otherwise being either chanted by the psaltes or simply recited. In spite of several mentions in Byzantine Typika12 no music for this appears until the early 17th century. As expected — and unlike the previous case — the chant appears not to be a long, elaborate melody, but rather an almost syllabic form, with repeated simple formulas and cadences being intended mostly for priests and not for trained cantors (table 6).

Table 6.  Zakynthos, Gritsanis Collection, 11, p. 19. 11   For a thorough study of this hymn see Κορακίδης, Ἀ., Ἀρχαῖοι ὕμνοι, i, Ἡ ἐπιλύχνιος εὐχαριστία (Athens, 1979). 12  See Σπυράκου, Εὐ., Οἱ χοροὶ ψαλτῶν κατὰ τὴν βυζαντινὴ παράδοση, Ἵδρυμα Βυζαντινῆς Μουσικολογίας, Μελέται, 14 (Athens, 2008), pp. 252, 283-284.

26

E. MAKRIS

The fact that the chant was later assigned to the second mode instead of the original fourth mode, points to the (later?) development of chromaticism in the melody, exactly as in the apolytikia and kathismata of the fourth mode; their scale turned also into ‘soft’ chromatic although their modal assignment did not change accordingly. The striking similarity between the first lines of our chant on the one hand and the melody of the fourth-mode kathisma «Ταχὺ προκατάλαβε» on the other (from a 17th-century Heirmologion, version by Balasios, the priest, see table 7), underlines the close relationship between Φῶς ἱλαρόν and the apolytikia/ kathismata-genre in the post-Byzantine period. Although the standard version in the 17th/first half of the 18th century is the one shown in table 6, it seems that there were also deviating musical transcriptions of the melody. The version of table 8 originates from a Paris manuscript (a 17th-century Anthologia) and demonstrates a very similar melody, still with different musical punctuation (distribution into musical cola through medial cadences). While the standard melodic version is divided as follows: 1. Φῶς ἱλαρὸν ἁγίας δόξης ἀθανάτου πατρὸς 2. οὐρανίου, ἁγίου, μάκαρος 3. Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ἐλθόντες ἐπὶ τὴν ἡλίου δύσιν 4. ἰδόντες φῶς ἑσπερινὸν 5. ὑμνοῦμεν Πατέρα, Υἱὸν καὶ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα Θεόν. 6. Ἄξιόν σε ἐν πᾶσι καιροῖς ὑμνεῖσθαι φωναῖς αἰσίαις 7. Υἱὲ Θεοῦ, ζωὴν ὁ διδούς· 8. διὸ ὁ κόσμος σὲ δοξάζει,

Table 7. Sinai, St Catherine’s Monastery, 1260 (17th c.), f. 328v.



THE CONCEPT OF ‘OLD MELODY’ IN MODERN GREEK CHANT

27

Table 8.  Paris, National Library of France, Sup. gr. 1171 (17th c.), f. 51v.

the Paris version has a different structure: 1. Φῶς ἱλαρὸν ἁγίας δόξης ἀθανάτου πατρός, οὐρανίου 2. ἁγίου, μάκαρος, Ἰησοῦ Χριστὲ 3. ἐλθόντες 4. ἐπὶ τὴν ἡλίου δύσιν, ἰδόντες φῶς ἑσπερινὸν 5. ὑμνοῦμεν Πατέρα, Υἱὸν καὶ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα Θεόν. Ἄξιόν σε ἐν πᾶσι καιροῖς 6. ὑμνεῖσθαι φωναῖς αἰσίαις, Υἱὲ Θεοῦ 7. ζωὴν ὁ διδούς· διὸ ὁ κόσμος σὲ δοξάζει.13 13   An analogous version, with minor differences in melodic line and musical punctuation, appears in the following Anthologia from the early 17th (or late 16th) century: University of Athens, K.A. Psachos Music Library Collection, MS 70/220, f. 102r-v. The same manuscript contains also a musical transcription of «Tὸν Δεσπότην ...» (f. 20v), which gives virtually the same melody as the standard version mentioned above, but with many small differences, giving the impression of a quite independent recording of the same melodic tradition.

28

E. MAKRIS

The fact that the scribes of Byzantine and post-Byzantine manuscripts sometimes worked not only as copyists but also as recorders of local traditions is really one of the most intriguing phenomena in Byzantine music. The exegesis by Petros Peloponnesios,14 which again forms a bridge to the modern tradition, no longer has the character of our previous case. Instead of being a more or less free expansion of the melody, it reproduces the repeated formulas of the standard version, yet with a (comparatively) moderate elaboration (table 9, left). The transcription into the New Method notation then goes one step further and extends Petros’ version using a standardized rhythmical pattern of 4 beats per syllable (with a few exceptions of 2 beats per syllable). The resulting extra time is filled with embellishments of the main melodic line (table 9, right).15 Example 2 shows the beginning of it in staff notation.16 This kind of regularity is rather unusual for chants belonging to the wider papadic genre but perhaps it has to do with the special liturgical instance in question, where the priests have to sing all together at the same time. Nevertheless, the described rhythmical interpretation of the old melody was disputed by Greek scholars. Simon Karas (1903-1999) considered the 4 beats per syllable to have been unlikely when compared to the original melody and offered his own direct transcription of it, using 2 beats per syllable instead — with some exceptions of 4 beats per syllable (see example 3).17 Markos Vasileiou (1856-1919) on the other hand was more iconoclastic and advocated a purely syllabic transcription with 1 beat per syllable (see example 4).18

14   See note 5. Although this exegetic version was the most successful, there are also a few anonymous, perhaps earlier exegetic attempts dispersed in 18th-century manuscripts. Mr. Ioannis Arvanitis has located at least two such cases in the course of his project of analytical cataloguing of the musical manuscripts found in the National Library of Greece. 15  In this transcription (Tameion Anthologias, 1824), Chourmouzios maintains the original modal ascription and adds a chromatic martyria at the beginning, while Gregorios in his edition (Tameion Anthologias, 1834) changes it to second mode, which then became the standard practice. These two versions have otherwise only minor differences. 16   We give here Gregorios’ version (Tameion Anthologias, 1834, i, pp. 50-51). 17   Καράς, Σ., Ἰωάννης Μαΐστωρ ὁ Κουκουζέλης καὶ ἡ ἐποχή του (Athens, 1992), Table 4 (Πίναξ Δ΄). 18   Βασιλείου, Μ., «Περὶ τοῦ στενογραφικοῦ τῆς παρασημαντικῆς τῆς ἀρχαίας ἐκκλησιαστικῆς μουσικῆς», Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἀλήθεια, 26 (1906), pp. 416-418, 427-428, 446-448, 483-484, 645-647 and 27 (1907), pp. 9-11, on p. 11.



THE CONCEPT OF ‘OLD MELODY’ IN MODERN GREEK CHANT

29

Table 9.  Left: Sofia, SS. Cyril and Methodius National Library, Gr. 81, f. 11r. Right: Tameion Anthologias (Constantinople, 1824), i, pp. 124-125.

Example 2.

30

E. MAKRIS

Example 3.

Example 4.

The question concerning the ‘authentic’ way of performing Φῶς ἱλαρόν was absolutely justified as there is actually no short (σύντομον) version of it in classical printed Anthologies.19 It is hard to believe that there was no alternative for the singing priests than to perform the melismatic version of Chourmouzios and Gregorios, whereas the original melody appears to have been much simpler. And there certainly was an alternative in the oral tradition. The Russian pianist, composer and musicologist Ella Adaïewsky (1846-1926) transcribed a short series of melodies from the Athonite tradition ‘sous la dictée d’un disciple du Rév. Barthélemy Koutloumousyanos’20 and published them along with other transcriptions of Neo-Byzantine chants in 1901. Among these Athonite melodies we find the following in example 5.21 Although the tonality of the chant may appear misleading, it is easy to reconstruct its original modal attributes. If we consider F sharp as the basis tone, the semitone above it corresponds to the interval G-a flat of the second mode (even if normally it is not precisely a semitone). 19   We are not referring here to new compositions from the middle of the 19th c. and later. One of them, by Ioannis Sakellaridis (1853-1938), became the standard version and has replaced the ‘old’ chant almost entirely in the Greek Church. 20  Adaïewsky, Ε., ‘Les Chants de l’Église Grecque-Orientale’, Rivista Musicale Italiana, 8 (1901), pp. 43-74, 579-602, on p. 70. Bartholomaiοs of the Koutloumousiou Monastery (1772-1851) was an important scholar, teacher and editor of liturgical books. 21   Idem, p. 73.



THE CONCEPT OF ‘OLD MELODY’ IN MODERN GREEK CHANT

31

Example 5.

The other cadence tone D corresponds to E of the second mode. The fact that it is not a minor third below the basis tone but a major third is possibly related to the especially low tuning of E used by some traditional psaltai. If we keep all of this in mind and imagine how the second mode sounded to the ‘Western’ ears of Adaïewsky, the beginning of the melody can be reconstructed as shown in example 6. If we now take Adaïewsky’s rhythmical structure (beats per syllable) and adapt it to the original setting of table 6, to help ourselves with the ambiguity of rhythm in the old notation, the beginning of the melody looks as shown in example 7, which is virtually the same melody compared with the Athonite transcription! Nevertheless, there are notable differences in the rest of the piece, especially concerning the musical punctuation and the medial cadences. This gap is unexpectedly filled by

32

E. MAKRIS

Example 6.

Example 7.

a very rare occurrence: a version of the Φῶς ἱλαρόν designated as σύντομον, hidden in a Paris manuscript (an Anthologia) from the early 19th century (table 10). The cadences appear at the same places and on the same tones as in Adaïewsky’s version and the course of the melody is very similar. Example 8 shows the continuation of the chant in these two versions.22 It is therefore clear that a shorter, almost syllabic version existed in the oral tradition as well as the lengthier one. It was actually a re-composition of the ‘old’ melody, keeping the same style and tonality. Since the exegetic version is also a kind of re-composition toward a different direction, we can say that the equating of ‘old’ or ‘ancient’ with ἀργόν, even in terms of the late 18th-early 19th centuries, should be seen with some scepticism.

  The rhythm of the Paris σύντομον version is reconstructed by approximation.

22



THE CONCEPT OF ‘OLD MELODY’ IN MODERN GREEK CHANT

Table 10.  Paris, National Library of France, Sup. gr. 1136 (early 19th c.), f. 13v-14r.

33

34

E. MAKRIS

Example 8.

‘BULGARIAN’ CHANTS IN MUSICAL MANUSCRIPTS Svetlana Kujumdzieva

Chants designated as ‘Bulgarian’ («βουλγαρικόν», «ἡ βουλγάρα», «βουλγαρίτσα», etc.) in musical manuscripts coming from the Balkans were introduced for the first time into the history of music by the late Professor Miloš Velimirović in his paper read at the congress of the International Musicological Society in Copenhagen in August 1972.1 In this paper Prof. Velimirović presented five such chants in various copies from the 14th to the 19th century. In 1978 Krasimir Stanchev and Elena Toncheva presented two more ‘Bulgarian’ chants.2 Since then the number of ‘Bulgarian’ chants has increased considerably in both their copies and their genre affiliation. Some of the ‘Bulgarian’ chants have found an established place in musical manuscripts and this leads to the conclusion that they were among the constant repertoire of liturgical chant. Manuscripts containing ‘Bulgarian’ chants can be seen in some of the largest Bulgarian and world libraries such as the library of ‘St Catherine’s’ Monastery on Mount Sinai, the libraries of various monasteries on Mount Athos, in the Athens, Vienna and Saint Petersburg National libraries, the Vatican Apostolic library in Rome, the Bodleian library in Oxford, etc.3 Although some basic studies on these chants have been published, many 1   E. Toncheva translated the paper into Bulgarian and it is published in: Велимирович, М., ‘„Българските” песнопения във византийските музикални ръкописи’, Известия на Института за музикознание, 18 (1974), pp. 197-208. 2   Станчев, К., Тончева, E., ‘Българските песнопения във византийските аколутии’, Българско музикознание, 2 (1978), pp. 39-70. 3   See for instance the following publications: Jаковљевић, А., ‘Инвентар музичких рукописа манастира Хиландара’, Хиландарски зборник, 4 (Београд, 1978), pp. 193-234; Тончева, Е, ‘За полиелей “българката”: – възможно взаимодействие между църковен и фолклорен певчески професионализъм?’, Музикални хоризонти, 12-13 (1989), pp. 147-165; Тончева, Е., Полиелейни мелодии, означени като български в балканската песенна практика (пс. 135 по извори от ХІІ-ХІІІ и ХІV-ХV в.), докторска дисертация, София, 1993; Кирмицакис, А., ‘Нови сведения за „българските” песнопения във византийските ръкописи’, Старобългаристика, 3 (1998), pp. 21-51; Куюмджиева, С., Българска музика в Хилендар (София, 2008); eadem, ‘Бележки и коментари за някои ранни химнографски ръкописи от Ватикана’, in Богослужебните книги – познати и непознати (София, 2008), pp. 43-155; Στάθης, Τὰ χειρόγραφα βυζαντινῆϛ μουσικῆϛ – Ἅγιον Ὂροϛ: Κατάλογοϛ περιγραφικόϛ, 3 vols (Athens, 1975, 1976, 1993).

36

S. KUJUMDZIEVA

questions concerning them remain open. For instance, not enough ­attention has yet been paid to the origin of musical manuscripts with ‘Bulgarian’ chants, to whom they were composed by, to what was the context in which they appeared, to how were they distributed, to where they were performed, and last but not least, to how the ‘Bulgarian’ chants have been contextualized as a cultural phenomenon in the history of Byzantino-Slavic music. When we focus upon these questions these could bring us nearer to the basic problem, namely the clarification of the meaning of the ethnonym ‘Bulgarian’ about which much speculation exists. In my contribution I am going to present all the chants which we know to be designated as ‘Bulgarian’ until now, and discuss some of the questions posed. The topic is related to the main theme of our conference — ‘Byzantine chant and its interaction with the other medieval chant repertoires’. My contribution is also a tribute to the memory of the late Prof. Miloš Velimirović whose work in the field of Byzantino-Slavic music remains invaluable. Chants designated as ‘Bulgarian’ appear systematically in the new books of chant compiled by the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 14th century – the Akolouthiai-Anthologies, books that are related to the revised Jerusalem Typikon, also known as the new-Sabaitic Typikon. The latter establishes a unified liturgical order presenting a synthesis of monastic and urban practices.4 It demonstrates the universality of Eastern Christian culture and its exclusive richness and diversity. There is only one ritual for the whole family of Eastern Christian churches but many languages unlike Western worship during the Middle Ages in which there are many rituals such as those of Mosarabian, Milan, Roman, etc. but one language – Latin. This wealth of practice allows the practice of selection, one of the most characteristic features of Eastern Christian culture. In the field of music in the Middle Ages a selection can be made from musical liturgical material and it can be included in the liturgical books on condition that what is included should comply with the sacred tradition, preserve it and pass it on as such. The ability to select in turn allows Eastern Christian music to be updated. It shows this music functioning as a ‘living organism’5 – constantly changing and 4   About this see Taft, R., ‘Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of Byzantine Rite’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 42 (1982), pp. 179-194. 5   The term is from Bradshaw, P.V., The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship (New York, 20022), p. 101.



'BULGARIAN’ CHANTS IN MUSICAL MANSCRIPTS

37

demonstrating what was ­considered to be the most necessary and at the same time the best in a given historical period, deserving both of preservation and of being passed on. The parameters of richness, selectivity and actualization of Eastern Orthodox music are clearly outlined in the Anthologies. It is already well known that in these books notated chants for vespers, orthros and the three liturgies, syllabic and melismatic chants, old and new ones and chants that were performed in both cathedrals and monasteries were gathered together for the first time.6 The rubrics in these manuscripts are extremely detailed and accurate. This accuracy actually becomes one of the characteristics of the time when the ‘Bulgarian’ chants appear. It is clear in terms of the notation that the specification of the content of the signs for interval movement, rhythm, dynamic and modulations here reaches its zenith. This fact seemed to be determined by the emergence of musical theories which systematically appeared in music manuscripts from the 14th century on. Accuracy could also be seen in terms of the authorship of chants: the names of the authors placed above the chants demonstrate musical creativity for the first time. Due to this accuracy we are able to learn much about the musical repertoire: how a piece should be sung — by a soloist or by a choir; by which choir, the choir on the right or on the left side; whether sounds from reality such as ‘nightingale’, ‘daisy’, ‘dance’, ‘wheel’, or some instrument such as ‘viola’, ‘trumpet’, ‘bell’ were imitated; where the piece was performed or recorded — in Thessaloniki, Mount Athos, Athens, Serres, Jerusalem; and even what kinds of emotional states were expressed, for instance being ‘motherless’. Chants designated as ‘Bulgarian’ fall within the parameter of ethnic ­attributions such as ‘Serbian’ («σερβικόν»), ‘Wallachian’ («βλαχικόν»), ‘Frankish’ («φραγκικόν»), ‘Persian’ («περσικόν»), ‘Tatar’ («ταταρικόν») or just ‘ethnical’ («ἐθνικόν»). In this sense ‘Bulgarian’ designations are not unique – they are definitely representative of the main trends in the Balkan Orthodox (Byzantino-Slavic) music from the 14th century onwards. All ‘Bulgarian’ chants are in Greek. The Greek language was perceived as being a cultural language of great antiquity and as the religious language of Eastern Christian civilization and representing its highest cultural level. During the Middle Ages and the Early Balkan National Revival, the Greek language had no ethnical connotation in Slavic 6  About the Anthology see Williams, E., John Koukouzeles’ Reform of Byzantine Chanting for Great Vespers in the Fourteenth Century, Ph.D., Yale University, 1968.

38

S. KUJUMDZIEVA

­ rthodox countries. Such connotation is from the 19th century, the epoch O of the late National Revival in these countries. Ten different ‘Bulgarian’ chants are currently known. Copies of some of them are included in many books of chant from the 14th to the 19th century. Most appear in manuscripts written between 1340 and 1360. ‘Bulgarian’ chants that are known until now are of four genres: polyeleoi, kratemata (teretismata), communions and cheroubika. All these genres are designated for the most solemn parts of worship: the polyeleoi are performed during orthros on feast days and on Sundays; the kratemata are performed during every part of festal worship: they were created for the solemnity of the service when high dignitaries and priests took part; the communions and cheroubika songs are performed on high points of the Divine Liturgy during the times of, respectively, communion and of the Great Entrance.7 Most of the ‘Bulgarian’ chants are of the polyeleos genre. There are six different ‘Bulgarian’ polyeleoi. It is well known that ‘polyeleos’ means ‘merciful’. The meaning comes from the refrain of the two psalms, 134 and 135, ‘Because His mercy is eternal’. The ‘Bulgarian’ chants are written to different verses of the two psalms. They are the following. Chant 1 (ill. 1) is written to the text of Psalm 135, verse 21a, ‘And He gave their land for inheritance, alleluia’ («καὶ δόντι τὴν γῆν αὐτῶν κληρονομίαν Ἀλληλούϊα»), mode plagios 2.8 The ‘Bulgarian’ chant is written to the second part of the text — «κληρονομίαν Ἀλληλούϊα». The rubrics link it with two designations: ‘Bulgarian’ («βουλγαρικόν») and ‘Western’ («δυσικόν»). Among the most significant manuscripts from the 14th and 15th centuries in which this polyeleos is included are two manuscripts from the Athens National library, no. 2622, dated between 1341 and 1360, and no. 2406 from 1453. Both manuscripts have been written in the large Monastery of St John Prodromos near the town of Serres. The rubric in Athens 2406 reads (fol. 108v) (ill. 2): ‘Another, called Bulgarian and Western’ («ἕτερον λεγόμενον βουλγαρικὸν καὶ δυσικόν»). Under the rubric ‘Another Western’ the same chant is to be seen in two other manuscripts from the 14th century – Theol. Gr. 185 from the Vienna 7   About the last two genres see Conomos, D., Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (Thessaloniki, 1974); idem, The Late Byzantine and Slavonic Communion Cycle: Liturgy and Music, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection (Washington, D.C., 1985). 8   It is noted by M. Velimirović and Stanchev-Toncheva in their publications on ‘Bulgarian’ chants.



'BULGARIAN’ CHANTS IN MUSICAL MANSCRIPTS

Illustration 1:  MS Athens 2622, mid-14th cent., fol. 185v.

Illustration 2:  MS Athens 2406, 1453, fol. 180v.

39

40

S. KUJUMDZIEVA

National library, a manuscript written probably ­somewhere in the region of Thessaloniki (fol. 150v) and Palat. Gr. 243 from the Vatican Apostolic library in Rome (fols 176v-177r). The same chant can be seen in a manuscript from the Ivan Dujchev Centre for Slavo-Byzantine Studies at Sofia State University St Clement of Ochrid, D. Gr. 34 from 1436. The rubric ascribes it to John Glykys, the supposed teacher of the great medieval composer John Koukouzeles (fol. 261r?). It reads: ‘By Glykys, called Western’ («Τοῦ Γλυκέως λεγόμενον δυσικόν»).9 Chant 2 (ill. 3) is to the text of Psalm 135, verse 19a, ‘Zion, the king of the Amorites’ («τὸν Σηὼν βασιλέα τῶν ᾿Αμορραίων»), mode 1 (the same text is read in Psalm 134, verse 11a).10 This chant — as the first one — is known from various manuscripts from the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries — the aforementioned Athens 2622, Athens 2444 from the 15th century, Lavra I-173 from 1436, Dujchev gr. 9 from the 16th century and others. Some of the manuscripts containing this chant originate from the Monastery of Kosinitsa near the town of Drama, which is not far away from the St John Prodromos Monastery near Serres. Both monasteries are in the region located at the mouth of the two large rivers Struma and Mesta. After 1912 both of them have remained on the Greek side of the border in its Northeastern part. The rubrics in almost all the manuscripts call this chant ‘Bulgarian woman’ («ἡ βουλγάρα») and ascribe it again to Glykys. They read (according to Athens MS 2622, fol. 189r): ‘By Glykys the Western, called Bulgarian woman’ («Γλυκέως τοῦ δυσικοῦ, λεγόμενον ἡ βουλγάρα»). Only in one manuscript from the Chilandar Monastery on Mount Athos — no. 97 from the first half of the 15th century — is written (fol. 139r): ‘Bulgarian’ («βουλγαρικόν»). Among the manuscripts 9   About the cited manuscripts see Velimirović, M., ‘Byzantine Composers in MS. Athens 2406’, in Essays Presented to Egon Wellesz, ed. Westrup, J. (Oxford, 1966), pp. 7-18; Touliatos-Banker, D., ‘Checklist of Byzantine Musical Manuscripts in the Vati­ can Library’, Manuscripta, 31, 1 (1987), pp. 22-28; Kujumdzieva, S., ‘Methodological Notes on the Description of Musical Manuscripts Written in Greek at the “Ivan Dujchev” Center for Slavo-Byzantine Studies’, in Actes de la Table Ronde: Principes et méthodes du cataloguage des manuscrits de la collection du centre Dujchev (Thessalonique, 1992), pp. 283-292; Džurova, A., Stančev, K., Atsalos, V., Katsaros, V., Checklist de la collection de manuscrits grecs conservés au centre de recherches slavo-byzantines ‘Ivan Dujčev’ auprès de l’Université ‘St Clément d’Ohrid’ de Sofia (Thessalonique, 1994); Getov, D., Catalogue of the Greek Liturgical Manuscripts Kept in the Library of the Ivan Dujchev Centre for Slavo-Byzantine Studies, Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 279 (Rome, 2008); Touliatos-Miles, D.H., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Musical Manuscripts of the National Library of Greece (Farnham, 2010). 10   It is pointed out by Velimirović and Stanchev-Toncheva.



'BULGARIAN’ CHANTS IN MUSICAL MANSCRIPTS

41

Illustration 3: MS Dujchev gr. 9, 16th cent., fol. 84v.

c­ ontaining this chant is a manuscript from the end of the 15th century, written in the Monastery of the Dormitian of the Mother of God, known also as Matejče and Zhegligovo Monastery.11 It is situated near the town of Kumanovo in the so-called Black Wood region of Skopje. One of the most prominent Bulgarian men of letters of the 15th century, Vladislav the Grammarian, spent several years in this monastery.12 The manuscript is now in the National library of Athens — no. 92813. The rubric above the ‘Bulgarian’ polyeleos reads: ‘Bulgarian woman. Western. By Glykys the Western’ («βουργάρα. δυσικόν. Γλυκαίου τοῦ δυσικοῦ»). Chant 3 (ill. 4) is written to the text of Psalm 134, verse 13b, ‘And the memory of You is from generation to generation’ («καὶ τὸ   See about this monastery Стефановић, Д., Стара српска музика (Београд, 1975).   About Vladislav see Христова, Б., ‘Владислав Граматик и Рилският книжовен център’, in Рилски манастир (Newsletter 1981), p. 4; Тончева, Е., Коцева, А., ‘Рилски музикални приписки от ХV в.’, Българско музикознание, 2 (1983), pp. 3-45; Куюмджиева, С., ‘За българската музика през ХV в.’, Старобългаристика, 2 (1983), pp. 14-38. 13  About this manuscript see Стефановић, Стара српска музика (see n. 11); Jakovljević, A., Δίγλωσση παλαιογραφία καὶ μελωδοὶ ὑμνογράφοι τοῦ κώδικα τῶν Ἀθηνῶν  928 (Λευκοσία, 1988). 11

12

42

S. KUJUMDZIEVA

Illustration 4: MS Sinai 1559, 16th cent., fols 124v-125r.

μνημόσυνόν σου εἰς γενεὰν καὶ γενεάν»), again in mode 1.14 Тhis is the most popular ‘Bulgarian’ polyeleos. It is seen in numerous copies from the 14th through the 19th century. Its designation is ‘Bulgarian woman’ («ἡ βουλγάρα»). Its melody is very close to this of the previous one written to Psalm 135, verse 19a (respectively Psalm 134, verse 11a). In one manuscript from the first half of the 15th century from the library of the Monastery Iviron on Mount Athos — no. 974,15 the same piece bears the designation «βουλγαρίτσα», which is a diminutive of ‘Bulgarian woman’. It is again ascribed to John Glykys. From the second half of the 17th century the same chant is ascribed to John Koukouzeles and since then the rubrics indicate the two authors, Glykys and Koukouzeles, or only Koukouzeles. Eventually the name of Glykys is dropped. We read: ‘Bulgarian woman, a work by John Glykys although others say that it is by Master Koukouzeles’ or just ‘Bulgarian woman by John Koukouzeles’.16 (ill. 5) One of the earliest ‘double’ attributions of this chant is   It is also pointed out by Velimirović and Stanchev-Toncheva.   See about this manuscript Στάθης, Τὰ χειρόγραφα, iii (see n. 3). 16   See for instance MS Koutloumousiou 446 from 1757, fol. 60r and MS Iviron 951 from the second half of the 17th century, fol. 30r, in Στάθης, Τὰ χειρόγραφα (see n. 3), iii, p. 907 and 1036; also MS Xeropotamou 307 from 1767/1770, fol. 119r, in Στάθης, Τὰ χειρόγραφα, i, p. 109. 14 15



'BULGARIAN’ CHANTS IN MUSICAL MANSCRIPTS

43

Illustration 5: Ms Dujchev gr. 327, 1st half 18th cent., p. 223.

found in a manuscript from the first half of the 17th century from the Vatican Apostolic library in Rome, Barb. gr. 283.17 We read: ‘Bulgarian woman. [It is] a work by John Glykys. Others say that it is by the Master’, that is, John Koukouzeles. It is worth knowing that in the same manuscript the names of two authors from the second half of the 16th century prevail — Gavriil monachos from Anchialos and Konstantin proto­ psaltes from Anchialos. The connection between the two authors from Anchialos is not clear except that they probably come from the same city, which is today the city of Pomorie on the Black Sea in Southeast Bulgaria. Studies on Pomorie show that for a long time the city was included within the borders of the Second Bulgarian State (end of the 12th – end of the 14th century) and that in the 14th century it was an archbishopric.18 17   See about this manuscript Куюмджиева, ‘Бележки и коментари’ (see n. 3), pp. 108-111. 18   Гонис, Д., ‘Търново и крайбрежните митрополии’, in Търновска книжовна школа (Велико Търново, 1994), pp. 455-471.

44

S. KUJUMDZIEVA

The same chant can be found in another manuscript from the mid15th century written at the Monastery of St John Prodromos near Serres, which is now kept in the Athens National library — no. 2401. In the latter manuscript it is ascribed to another writer — Lampadarios (ill. 6). We read (fol. 108v): ‘By Lampadarios, called Bulgarian woman’ («Τοῦ Λαμπαδαρίου τὸ λεγόμενον βουργάρα»). Lampadarios is identified as John Lampadarios Kladas, a distinguished composer from the second half of the 14th century, a follower of John Glykys and John Koukouzeles. The melody has been ascribed to three different composers — Glykys, Koukouzeles and Kladas — and is almost identical in different manuscripts. It is obvious that this melody had become very popular. Such melodies are called ‘traveling’.19 Differences between the melodies of the three authors are seen in the use of the great cheironomic signs — there are signs indicating preference and signs indicating selection. That means that the differences between the melodies of the three authors were most likely in terms of the performance — there was a different method of ornamentation, which in turn presumed a different manner of performance. In terms of the small intervallic neumes, the melodies are the same or very similar to one another.

Illustration 6: MS Athens 2401, mid-15th cent., fol. 108v. 19  The term is from M. Velimirović, see Велимирович, ‘„Българските” песнопения’ (see n. 1), p. 200.



'BULGARIAN’ CHANTS IN MUSICAL MANSCRIPTS

45

Chant 4 (ill. 7) is on the text of Psalm 135, verse 13a, ‘In division’ («εἰς διαιρέσεις»), mode 4.20 It bears the following rubrics: ‘Another, called Western, called also Bulgarian’ in MS Athens 2406 (fols  107v-108r); ‘Another Western Bulgarian’ in the mentioned Vienna MS Theol. Gr. 185 (fols 149v-150r); and ‘Another Bulgarian’ in a manuscript from the Vatican Apostolic library – Palat. Gr. 243 from the 14th century (fol. 175v) designated also as «συνοπτικόν» (short). Chant 5 is to the text of Psalm 134, verse 11c, ‘And all the kingdoms of Canaan’ («καὶ πάσας τὰς βασιλείας Χαναάν»), again in mode 1. At present this chant is known according to only one Manuscript from the Vienna National library — Theol. Gr. 185 from the end of the 14th century, and as said above, it is suggested that this manuscript was written somewhere in the region of Thessaloniki. It is also ascribed to John Glykys. The rubric reads (fol. 142r): ‘Another Western by Glykys’ («ἕτερον δυσικόν τοῦ Γλυκεωτάτου»).

Illustration 7: MS Athens 2406, 1453, fol. 107v.   It is pointed out by Velimirović and Stanchev-Toncheva.

20

46

S. KUJUMDZIEVA

Chant 6, the last ‘Bulgarian’ polyeleos, is written to the text of Psalm 134, verse 1, ‘ the Lord servants>’ («δοῦλοι Κύριον»), mode 1. This chant is also known according to only one manuscript. The manuscript was written at the Monastery Dochiariou on Mount Athos by Kosmas the Macedonian in 1686 — no. 324.21 The polyeleos cycle in this manuscript starts with the ‘Bulgarian’ chant. The rubric above the latter says: ‘The polyeleos of the Bulgarian woman by John Koukouzeles, mode 1’ («Πολυέλεος τῆς βουλγάρας, κυρ Ἰωάννου τοῦ Κουκουζέλη ἦχος α’»). This is the only rubric that literally matches the name of the chant, introduced in the legend, in the late Bulgarian National Revival when Koukouzeles wrote a piece entitled ‘Polyeleos of the Bulgarian woman’.22 According to the 15th-century vita of Koukouzeles it is suggested that the great Master devoted a polyeleos to his mother who wept when he left for Constantinople as a little boy.23 A chant in neumes ascribed to Koukouzeles with this title was published by the distinguished Bulgarian churchman Peter Sarafov in 1912.24 In 1938 the same piece was published in transcription in Western notation by another distinguished churchman Peter Dinev.25 It is not known from which manuscript precisely that Peter Sarafov has taken this title. Kosmas the Macedonian was a monk at the Iviron Monastery on Mount Athos.26 As previously said, there is a manuscript at the library of this monastery from the first half of the 15th century in which the most popular ‘Bulgarian’ polyeleos (chant 3) is included with the attribution «βουλγαρίτσα», a diminutive designation of the ‘Bulgarian woman’. Kosmas was a teacher and conductor, writer of many pieces, writer and compiler of musical manuscripts, almost all of which are dated. The last dated manuscript written by him is from 1692. Musical manuscripts written by Kosmas are not known after this date and it could be considered as one of  See Στάθης, Τὰ χειρόγραφα (see n. 3), i, p. 369.   Сарафов, П., Ръководство за теоретическото и практичееското изучаване на восточната църковна музика (София, 1912), p. 141; Тодорова, Ж., ‘Йоанн Кукузель: Великий реформатор православного песнопения’, in Вклад болгарского народа в мировую сокровищницу культуры (София, 1968), pp. 107-126. 23   The English text of Koukouzeles’ vita is published in WilIiams, John Koukouzeles’ Reform (see n. 6). 24   Сарафов, Ръководство (see n. 22), pp. 143-216. 25   Динев, П., Духовни музикални творби на Иван Кукузел (София, 1938). 26  About Kosmas see Куюмджиева, С., ‘Козма Македонец и Гавриил Македонец в музикалните ръкописи през XVII – началото на XIX в.’, Музикални хоризонти, 1 (2000), pp. 27-33. 21 22



'BULGARIAN’ CHANTS IN MUSICAL MANSCRIPTS

47

the possible years of his death. Among various works by Kosmas there are those for special occasions such as best wishes for long life, intended for high dignitaries. These greetings represent musical liturgical formulas performed by a soloist and repeated by the two church choirs. Such a piece in mode 1 Kosmas addresses as follows: ‘To the reverend metropolitan of Philipon and Drama, Zichna and Nevrokop Mr. Anthonij’.27 All these towns were in Southeast Macedonia; the said Mr. Anthonij was a bishop of this region (after 1912 the first three towns were included in Greece; the fourth one — Nevrokop — remaining in Bulgaria). Kosma’s greeting is among the rare examples of an eulogy devoted to some local district dignitary. It testifies to the esteem and respect that Kosmas expresses to a dignitary who served in the area — judging by his nickname ‘Macedonian’ — in which his birthplace was very possibly located. I do not as yet have access to a copy of Kosma’s ‘Polyeleos of the Bulgarian woman’. At least three important conclusions could be drawn as to its attribution: firstly, this is the only polyeleos based on the text of Psalm 134, starting with verse 1, attributed to Koukouzeles and designated as ‘Bulgarian woman’; secondly, this is one of the earliest dated ‘Bulgarian’ polyeleoi attributed to Koukouzeles; and thirdly, this is the only ‘Bulgarian’ polyeleos whose attribution is in the genetive case — ‘of the Bulgarian woman’. Yet here I shall just say that in another manuscript written by Kosmas in the mid-17th century, Iviron 933, he includes the most popular ‘Bulgarian’ polyeleos by Glykys — to the text of Psalm 134, verse 13b, ‘And the memory of You’, with the following rubric (fol. 43r): ‘Bulgarian woman, by the Western, mode 1’.28 This means that Kosmas distinguishes two melodies on the text of Psalm 134 composed for different verses — 1 and 13b. He designated both of them ‘Bulgarian woman’ giving the designation in different grammatical cases and ascribing them to two different authors — Koukouzeles and Glykys. Commenting on these facts raises more questions that are now difficult to answer. Two ‘Bulgarian’ chants are known of the kratemata or teretismata genre. The kratemata pieces appear in anthologies in the 14th century. They are performed on meaningless syllables such as te-ri-re, te-ru-re, te-ri-ra-ru-re, etc. Their function is to enlarge the festal character of the service with more music when high dignitaries take part. 27   MS Xeropotamou 229 from the first half of the 18th century, fol. 169v, see Στάθης, Τὰ χειρόγραφα (see n. 3), i, p. 187. 28   Στάθης, Τὰ χειρόγραφα (see n. 3), iii.

48

S. KUJUMDZIEVA

The first kratema designated as ‘Bulgarian’ — chant 7 (ill. 8) — is in Athens MS no. 2599.29 It is included in the part written in 1352. The manuscript originates from the Monastery of St John Prodromos near Serres. The chant is in mode 1 and bares a unique rubric, which reads: ‘By Dokeianos, mode 1, imitating a Bulgarian lament tune’ («Τοῦ Δοκειανοῦ, ἦχος α’, μιμούμενος βουλγαρικὸν σκοπὸν θρήνου»). The text consists of meaningless syllables te-ri-re, te-ru-re, to-to-to. The great cheironomic sign parakalesma, meaning ‘I cry’, ‘I adore’, is seen very often in the neume text. One of the interpretations of this chant is that it was composed according to the Bulgarian custom of mourning during the funeral or memorial service.

Illustration 8: MS Athens 2599, 1352, fol. 163v.

  It is pointed out by Velimirović and Stanchev-Toncheva.

29



'BULGARIAN’ CHANTS IN MUSICAL MANSCRIPTS

49

The second kratema — chant 8 (ill. 9) — is to be found in a manuscript from the Koutloumousiou Monastery on Mount Athos — no. 399 from the mid-14th century. It is anonymous in mode plagios 1.30 The rubric reads: ‘Kratema called vulgaritsa’ («Κράτημα λεγόμενον βουλγαρίτσα» .) This designation is close to the one in MS Iviron no. 974, where the most popular polyeleos ‘Bulgarian’ is designated with the same diminutive form — ‘vulgaritsa’. With some small variants in the melody, the same kratema can be seen in the Vienna MS Philos. Gr. 194 from the 15th century. The designation there is ‘boulgarikon’. In manuscripts from the 16th century with the same kratema and the same designation «βουλγαρικόν» is ascribed to John Koukouzeles: for instance, the MS Iviron 964 from 1562 or Xeropotamou 287 from 1724. The former is the earliest dated manuscript in which a ‘Bulgarian’ chant is linked with the name of Koukouzeles.

Illustration 9: MS Koutloumousiou 399, mid-14th cent., fol. 163v.   The chant is pointed out by Stanchev-Toncheva.

30

50

S. KUJUMDZIEVA

One chant of the communion genre designated as ‘Bulgarian’ is known — chant 9 (ill. 10).31 It is included in MS Athens no. 963 from the beginning of the 17th century written on the island of Crete. The chant is for communion designed for Sundays written to the text of Psalm 148, verse 1a ‘Praise the Lord’ («αἰνεῖτε τὸν Κύριον»). It is in mode 1. The rubric calls the chant ‘Bulgarian woman’ and ascribes it to ‘Mr. Venediktos’. It reads: ‘By Mr. Venediktos, Bulgarian woman’ («Τοῦ κυρ Βενεδίκτου ἡ βουργάρα»). The writer is identified as Venediktos, priest of Rethymnon.32

Illustration 10: MS Athens 963, begining of the 17th cent., fol. 273v.

In MS no. 144 of the 18th century from the library of the Chilandar Monastery on Mount Athos a cheroubikon song with the designation ‘Western’ is included (fol. 234r). It is in mode plagios 2 and is ascribed to   Pointed out by Stanchev-Toncheva.   Станчев, Тончева, ‘Българските’ (see n. 2), p. 47.

31 32



'BULGARIAN’ CHANTS IN MUSICAL MANSCRIPTS

51

John Glykys. The rubric reads: ‘By John Glykys. The Western’. As the polyeleoi chants show, this designation is connected with both the ethnonym ‘Bulgarian’ and the name of Glykys as a writer of ‘Bulgarian’/‘Western’ polyeleoi. In manuscripts in which cheroubika songs are found with the designation ‘Western’, they are usually attributed to two authors — Glykys and Agathon Korones, a contemporary of Koukouzeles. These cheroubika have been transmitted in manuscripts from the 14th century onwards, without essential changes in their melodies.33 It is interesting to note that the cheroubika designated as ‘Western’ are included in manuscripts which also include ‘Bulgarian’ polyeleoi. The ‘Western’ cheroubikon in the Chilandar manuscript is of the melismatic type and has tropic syllables — a stylistic form linked to the reformative work of Koukouzeles. Its first part, «Οἱ τὰ χερουβίμ», is constructed on the basis of the strophic principle: there is a melodic model, which is repeated six times in varying form — 1, 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d and 1e. The importance of the connotation ‘Western’ linked to a cheroubikon increased enormously in the history of Bulgarian music after the discovery of a cheroubikon in MS no. 86 from the Athonite Monastery Konstamonitou.34 This cheroubikon is designated as ‘vurgaritsa’, a diminutive form of ‘Bulgarian woman’. This ‘Bulgarian’ chant 10 is in the same mode as the ‘Western’ cheroubikon, plagios 2. Konstamonitou 86 is from the first half of the 15th century with an extensive repertoire of the area of Thessaloniki: many chants are designated as ‘Thessalonian’ («θεσσαλονικαῖον»). It is one of the few manuscripts in which are included two different didactic poems (‘Lehrgesänge’) that appear in manuscripts in the 14th century — by John Glykys and by John Koukouzeles. It is already well known that these poems employed the vocabulary of late Byzantine music — its figures and formulas. The ‘Bulgarian’ cheroubikon is included at the end of the manuscript (fol. 294r). It is anonymous and is introduced with the following rubric: ‘Vurgaritsa, beginning of mode legetos’ («Βουργαρίτσα, ἀρχὴ τοῦ λεγέτου»). The chant is the only cheroubikon in the entire manuscript. This contains extensive kalophonic treatments of heirmoi, stichera, kontakia, commu­ nions, acclamations for long life, etc. by various writers. The same designation ‘vurgaritsa’ which I have cited appears in manuscripts from two other monasteries on Mount Athos: Iviron 974 containing ‘Bulgarian’  Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika (see n. 7).   See about this manuscript Στάθης, Τὰ χειρόγραφα (see n. 3), i, p. 667.

33 34

52

S. KUJUMDZIEVA

polyeleos, and Koutloumousiou 399 containing ‘Bulgarian’ kratema. Therefore, the attribution in the diminutive form of ‘Bulgarian woman’, ‘vulgaritsa’ or ‘vurgaritsa’, is connected with three different chants in the genres of polyeleos, kratema and cheroubikon. There are four attributions linked to ‘Bulgarian’ chants: ‘Bulgarian’, ‘Bulgarian and Western’, ‘Bulgarian woman’ and its diminutive form ‘vulgaritsa’. The first two are linked to three of the polyeleoi (Psalm 134, verse 11c, and Psalm 135, verses 19a and 21a). The other two designations are linked to the other three polyeleoi, the second kratema, the communion and the cheroubikon. Therefore, the attributions ‘Bulgarian woman’ and its diminutive forms prevail: they are linked with six different chants related to all four genres. The attribution of the Dokeian’s kratema ‘imitating Bulgarian lament tune’ remains unique. Regarding the origin of the manuscripts with ‘Bulgarian’ chants — the picture is as follows. Most ‘Bulgarian’ chants are included in manuscripts whose origin is related to the two large monasteries on the lower reaches of the rivers Mesta and Struma, that of St John Prodromos near Serres and that of the Virgin Mary Kosinitsa near Drama, to the Zhegligovo Monastery in the Black Wood region of Skopje and to five monasteries on Mount Athos: Chilandar, Konstamonitou, Dochiariou, Koutloumousiou and Iviron. In the 14th century, the St John Prodromos Monastery near Serres was particularly significant.35 It was built in the last quarter of the 13th century. In the early 14th century it received patriarchal status. The Emperor Andronikos II patronized the monastery. According to John Koukouzeles’ vita the same Andronikos was also his own patron. The St John Prodromos Monastery was among the richest and the best monasteries in terms of its literary school in the East. There was also a large scriptorium in which many musical manuscripts of high quality were written. The origin of two important dated musical manuscripts is connected with this monastery. Both of them are now in the National library of Athens: no. 2458, the earliest dated anthology from 1336, and no. 2406 from 1453, one of the richest anthologies in terms of its repertoire, contains works by numerous composers and poets.36 There was also a large scriptorium in the other monastery, Kosinitsa, near Drama. The Zhegligovo ­Monastery 35   About this monastery see Острогорски, Г., Серска област после Душанова смерти (Београд, 1965); Поляковская, М.А., ‘Монастирские владения в городе Серры и пригородном районе в 14 в.’, Византийский временник, 27 (1967), pp. 310-319; Džurova, Stanchev et al., Checklist (see n. 9). 36   Velimirović, ‘Byzantine Composers’ (see n. 9).



'BULGARIAN’ CHANTS IN MUSICAL MANSCRIPTS

53

or Matejche near Kumanovo was an important cultural and educational centre in the 15th century as well. The areas around the three monasteries were with proven Bulgarian populations, even after their being included within the political boundaries of Serbia in 1345, when the Serbian King Stefan Urush IV Dushan took the region of Macedonia from Bulgaria. There was a strong Slavic presence in the other monasteries where manuscripts with ‘Bulgarian’ chants were probably written — Chilandar, Konstamonitou, Dochiariou, Koutloumousiou and Iviron. Konstamonitou was ruled by primarily Slavic abbots for 25 years in the first half of the 15th century, when the manuscript which includes the ‘Bulgarian’ che­ roubikon song was written down.37 According to preserved documents it was during the period between 1423 and 1449. The opinions of researchers differ as to the interpretation of the ethnonym ‘Bulgarian’, ‘Bulgarian woman’ and its diminutive ‘vulgaritsa’. Miloš Velimirović suggested that this ethnonym ‘says something Bulgarian about the piece — either in its origin or in its mode of performance’.38 Elena Toncheva suggested that the designation was given in relation to its specific compositional structure: its analysis indicates a preference for combining melodic formulas in a manner resembling ornamental melodic stereotypes that are known from Bulgarian epic songs and songs of lamentation.39 There are many attributions in musical manuscripts which indicate a particular place such as a country, city, region, monastery or church. We could read: ‘As sung on Mount Athos’ («ἁγιορειτικόν»), ‘As sung in the majestic Monastery of Vatopedi’ («βατοπεδινόν»), ‘As sung in Constantinople’ («κωνσταντινουπολιτικόν» or «πολιτικόν»), ‘As sung in the Great Church ‘Hagia Sophia’’ («ἁγιοσοφιτικόν»), etc. These designations could refer both to a different mode of performance associated primarily with the preference for great cheironomic signs of performance and to a different compositional structure associated with the preference for different figuras-formulas. As said above, for the chants designated as ‘Bulgarian woman’, in particular, it has been assumed that they were dedicated to Koukouzeles’ mother. It is still being suggested that these chants testify to the increased attention paid to women in the 14th century. Yet, these designations are etymologically connected with words such as ‘bugarshtitsa’, which means ‘I sing sadly’ 37   Pavlikianov, C., ‘The Medieval Slavic Archives of the Athonite Monastery of Kastamonitou’, Cyrillomethodianum, 20 (2015), pp. 153-216, on p. 156. 38   Велимирович, ‘„Българските” песнопения’ (see n. 1), p. 197. 39   Тончева, Е., Полиелейни мелодии (see n. 3).

54

S. KUJUMDZIEVA

and ‘I sing in the Bulgarian way’, or ‘bulgaria’, which is a kind of folk instrument similar to a mandolin. The designation could also come from ‘vulgar’ in the sense of popular singing. An argument which favours this interpretation point to attributions such as ‘motherless’ (‘orphanon’) and ‘priest’s daughter’ (‘papadopula’), which are related semantically to the vita of Koukouzeles. All these aspects are possible whilst, at the same time, there could be many other speculations. It is clear that many questions remain unanswered. Regarding the other designation, ‘Western’, the views of researchers agree.40 It is interpreted as a reference to a geographical location, possibly related to an administrative regional division of the Byzantine Empire: Bulgaria for instance, seen from Constantinople is located west of the Empire. John Glykys himself is referred to as ‘the Westerner’, which implies that he came from the west (a village west of Constantinople or a village located on the western border of the Empire?). There are five composers whose names are linked with ‘Bulgarian’ chants: John Glykys, considered to have been the teacher of John Kou­ kouzeles, John Lampadarios Kladas, a follower of Koukouzeles, Koukou­ zeles himself, albeit in manuscripts from a later time, Dimitrios Dokeianos, the possible pupil of Koukouzeles, and kyr Venediktos of Rethimnon. We could assume with certainty that these writers were not only composers but also singers (the nickname Glykys for instance means ‘Sweet’, and it probably comes from a sweet singing voice). Also, we can assume that chants attributed to them were also sung by them. A common practice in the Middle Ages (and during the early National Revival) is the composition of a chant to be attributed to its performer (the majority of chants are finally shaped during their performance).41 Moreover, we should take into consideration that it was precisely in the 14th century that the role of church singers grew enormously.42 Church singers are painted on the pages of manuscripts and on the walls of churches. They are placed at the foreground and almost always close to high-ranking church dignitaries, implying that they were themselves in the most significant spiritual and social class, and hence the most zealous 40   Велимирович, ‘„Българските” песнопения’ (see n. 1), p. 202; Станчев, Тончева, ‘Българските’ (see n. 2), pp. 43-44. 41   See about this Treitler, L., ‘Homer and Gregory: The Transmission of Epic Poetry and Plainchant’, Musical Quarterly, 9 (1974), pp. 333-373; idem, ‘“Centonate” Chant: Übles Flickwerk or E pluribus unus?’, Early Music, 4 (1984), pp. 135-208. 42   About the singers in the Byzantine Empire see Moran, N., Singers in Late Byzantine and Slavonic Painting (Leiden, 1986).



'BULGARIAN’ CHANTS IN MUSICAL MANSCRIPTS

55

guardians of tradition, or that at least they knew how to reproduce and to transmit it. In notated books numerous chants are included which until that time had been transmitted orally. They were probably performed by renowned church singers. They were recorded in books and were designated as being their own works, which was a sign of something like equality between writer and performer. Surely ‘Bulgarian’ chants had been a living tradition before they were notated by the middle of the 14th century. Polyeleoi and kratemata for instance regularly appear in the anthologies from the 14th century onwards. The four genres, in which ‘Bulgarian’ chants appear — polyeleoi, kratemata, koinonika and che­ roubika, are sung in eight modes. In manuscripts, however, ‘Bulgarian’ chants are given only in some of these modes. Most of them — six — are in mode 1: four polyeleoi, one of the two kratemata and the koinonikon; one polyeleos is in mode 4; the other kratema is in mode plagios 1; and one polyeleos and the cheroubikon are in mode plagios 2. In the unnotated hymnographic books the first and fourth modes are among the most frequently used (I have in mind the early Sinai manuscripts of up to the 14th century).43 This could be an indirect argument that ‘Bulgarian’ chants notated in manuscripts from the 14th and 15th centuries had been recorded from oral practice but written down according to the musical system of the relevant time. Among the singers of the 14th century Koukouzeles is held in the highest esteem. His name, however, was not linked with chant designated as ‘Bulgarian’ until the 16th century. That does not mean that he did not perform ‘Bulgarian’ chants. But it could mean that ‘Bulgarian’ chants are not the immediate records of his performance. Something else, however, should not be forgotten: the name of Koukouzeles has been connected with ‘Bulgarian’ chants relatively late — from the second half of the 16th century onwards. That means that more than two centuries after the initial notation of ‘Bulgarian’ chants, the tradition had retained a vivid ‘memory’ of the connection of this musician with these chants. The connection of his name with them could be neither accidental nor spontaneous since ‘Bulgarian’ chants were attributed to him at different places at different times and by different writers. It can also be no coincidence that the time when they started systematically attributing works to him, was the period of the Balkan National Revival of the 17th and 18th centuries, the period when accuracy became more important than ever. 43   See about this Куюмджиева, С., Ранните осмогласници: Извори, богослужение и певчески репертоар (София, 2013).

56

S. KUJUMDZIEVA

‘Bulgarian’ chants could be thought of as an issue about the links of Koukouzeles with Bulgaria — something, which up to now has not yet been verified. Such links are assumed on the basis of interpretations of passages of his vita. Those links could be sought, on the one hand, in works created in places with concentrated Bulgarian populations and labeled as such (‘Bulgarian’ chants), and on the other, by the dissemination of such works by writers of possibly Bulgarian origin. It is interesting to note that after the death of the Serbian Tsar Stefan Dushan in 1355 the town of Serres and its region in which most of the manuscripts with ‘Bulgarian’ chants were written down were ruled by his widow Elena, a sister of the Bulgarian Tsar Ioan Alexander. As Elena took over the region of Serres at the time when most of the ‘Bulgarian’ chants with the attribution ‘Bulgarian woman’ were recorded, the question arises as to whether these chants have not been inspired by this Bulgarian woman? In the 14th century, as previously stated, the importance of women in the Byzantine Empire grew enormously. Besides, it was Elena along with her son, King Stefan Urush V, who founded the Zhegligovo Monastery in the Black Wood of Skopje. In conclusion: ‘Bulgarian’ chants are found in manuscripts originating from places where a concentration of Bulgarians lived and where the Bulgarian presence was particularly strong. These places were the two monasteries on the lower reaches of the rivers Mesta and Struma, St. John Prodromos and Kossinitsa, in the Black Wood of Skopje, in some monasteries on Mount Athos, such as Chilandar, Iviron and Koutloumousiou, and in the region around Thessaloniki. ‘Bulgarian’ chants are also found in manuscripts in which can be read the names of writers whose nicknames point to Bulgarian origin or to the origin of lands inhabited by Bulgarians, such as Kosmas the Macedonian, Gavriil monachos of Anchialos and Konstantinos protopsaltes of Anchialos. The majority of ‘Bulgarian’ chants are in manuscripts written in a sophisticated and highly professional manner. ‘Bulgarian’ chants are particularly valuable in that that they show a creative presence at a time when Bulgaria was deleted from the map of free nations during the 15th–19th centuries and the foundations of Orthodox culture were shaken. Despite some studies that have been undertaken, Bulgarian chants still remain a challenge for researchers and a particular challenge is how to explain the ethnonyms ‘Bulgarian woman’ and its diminutive ‘vulgaritsa’ — where they come from, what they mean, what they are linked to, and to what or to whom they are addressed. Undeniable facts remain the



'BULGARIAN’ CHANTS IN MUSICAL MANSCRIPTS

57

f­ollowing: ‘Bulgarian’ chants are included in one of the most represen­ tative notated books of the time — the anthologies; they were performed in one of the most solemn parts of worship — the Divine Liturgy; and they were attributed to some of the most authoritative writers, such as Glykys, Kladas, Dokeianos and later on — Koukouzeles. This means that the repertoire designated as ‘Bulgarian’ had its own ‘profile’ and was highly appreciated. Writers could choose from this repertoire what they wanted with a view to presenting the richness and beauty of Eastern Christian music and to keeping its works in notated books, especially at a time when Christianity in the East was threatened by foreign raids. Without doubt ‘Bulgarian’ chants are among the most significant traces that Bulgaria has left in Eastern Christian music, attesting to it being one of the great creative contributions to this music on the highest spiritual and professional level.

POINTS OF INTERACTION BETWEEN THE BYZANTINE AND ARMENIAN SACRED MUSICAL TRADITIONS THREE DOCUMENTARY WITNESSES Haig Utidjian1

Introduction The Holy Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church continues to embody a living tradition of primarily monophonic vocal music of exceptional richness and beauty. The oldest dated extant Armenian hymnal codex was copied in Jerusalem in 1193 (Yerevan, Matenadaran, MS 9838), whilst the oldest Tałaran2 (or Book of Odes3) was completed in Drazark in Cilicia in 1241 (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS 79); both codices are neumatically notated. But it appears that in time church musicians came to lose the ability to read those neumes, and therefore at present this notation cannot be deciphered; consequently, we are unable to reconstruct the original melodies. It is not easy to explain how such a situation came about. Armenia lost her last kingdom in 1375, with the fall of the last Cilician dynasty; populations were dispersed, monasteries devastated, and manuscripts destroyed. Oral traditions may have been curtailed, and no manuals explaining the system have survived; nor do we have any equivalent versions of particular items transcribed in Western musical notation prior to the 18th century. But a further factor is likely to have come into play: whilst copyists punctiliously produced faithful copies of hymnals over the centuries — including their neumations, it is probable that in 1   Haig Utidjian, PhD holds an honorary affiliation with the Philosophical Faculty of Charles University, Prague, and is a Senior Deacon of the Armenian Orthodox Church. For a key to the reference abbreviations employed in the footnotes, see p. 95 below. 2   In this article I use the Hübschmann-Meillet system of transliteration for Armenian names and words, except where otherwise indicated. 3   I follow standard Armenian practice, employing the term ‘ode’ (with some abuse of Greek terminology) as the equivalent of Armenian tał – referring to a genre of free and usually sacred compositions outside the Canonical Hymnal (and often also outside the oktoechos), but which could often be freely chosen for use in various liturgical contexts. For the best survey of the liturgical use of the Armenian tał, I recommend the substantial preface to the volume edited by Archbishop Zareh Aznaworean of blessed memory, Մեղեդիներ, Տաղեր եւ Գանձեր (Mełedis, Odes and Ganj Litanies), աշխ. Զարեհ Եպս. Ազնաւորեան (Antelias, 1990).

60

H. UTIDJIAN

practice church musicians brought to bear their musical creativity and imagination, creating newer, more sophisticated and often more melismatic melodies than those encoded in the neumations, losing interest in the older melodies. There may thus have arisen a growing incongruity between what was sung and the simpler and more syllabic notated versions, thus weakening the link between practice and theory.4 The neumations, however, continued to be copied out, and in due course attempts were made to reproduce them in printed hymnals also — commencing with the editio princeps of the Armenian Hymnal,5 published in Amsterdam in 1664-1665, and continuing to the present day. A new system (re-defining some of the earlier medieaeval neumes in a sort of ‘tonic-sol-fa’ system — comparable to Geōrgios Lesbios’ system6) arose in Constantinople early in the 19th century, referred to as the Limōnčean system. Parallels can, of course, be found to analogous phenomena within the Byzantine tradition, but, sadly, the Armenian neumes remain incomprehensible at present, posing a set of tantalising musicological problems. Now the 1193 hymnal codex is highly abbreviated; its neumations, however, were essentially unaltered in later codices, and thus correspond in large measure to the mainstream of Cilician hymnals of the turn of the 13th and 14th century. This suggests that the Armenian neumatic notational system must have predated the spread of 4   When the French musicologist G.-A. Villoteau (1759-1839) consulted with the church musicians at the Armenian Cathedral of Cairo during his Egyptian sojourn in the years 17971799 with a view to gaining information on the Armenian neumes, it became clear that the information he was given was untrustworthy. See Description de l’Égypte (Paris, 1809-1812; 1821-18302), xiv, third page of the four-page table inserted between pp. 332 and 333, where the author wrote, for example in connection with the neume jakorč: ‘… mais nous doutons de l’exactitude de cet exemple’. Villoteau presented a table of Armenian neumes derived from that published by the German philologist, J.J. Schröder (1680-1756), whose brief chapter devoted to Armenian music contains the first known representation of the Armenian oktoechos in Western musical notation: see Schröder, J.J., Thesaurus Linguae Armenicae (Amsterdam, 1711), p. 244 for his table of neumes (in turn derived from the editio princeps of the Armenian Hymnal – see below), and pp. 246-248 for the incipits for Cantemus hymns – reproduced in Utidjian, Art of the Armenian Book, pp. 132-135. 5   For further information on this remarkable edition and for reproductions from its pages the reader is again referred to Utidjian, Art of the Armenian Book, pp. 122-125. 6   For the system by Geōrgios Lesbios, see his own textbook, Lesbios, G., Εἰσαγωγὴ εἰς τὸ θεωρητικὸν καὶ πρακτικὸν τῆς μουσικῆς τέχνῆς τοῦ λεσβίου συστήματος (Introduction to the theory and practice of the musical art of the Lesbian system), published in Athens in 1840 but promulgated considerably earlier (see, for instance, Erol, M., Greek Orthodox Music in Ottoman Istanbul: Nation and Community in the Era of Reform (Bloomington, 2015), p. 41); it was republished in a facsimile edition in Salonica in 1994. (The system fell into disuse when its use was proscribed by Patriarchal encyclicals in 1846 and 1848.)



BYZANTINE AND ARMENIAN SACRED MUSICAL TRADITIONS

61

the Middle Byzantine system — which thus precludes any direct connection between the two notational systems.7 However, much of the present article seeks to expose the manner in which the Middle Byzantine and Chrysanthine systems were used in the 18th and 19th centuries in Greek-Armenian multicultural milieux.8 More generally, the mutual interactions and connections between the traditions of Armenian and Byzantine sacred music are of considerable significance, and it is to be regretted that they have not been adequately studied. Isolated Indications Instances of verbal congruence There are numerous indications suggestive of interactions and mutual contacts between the Byzantine and Armenian hymnographical traditions. In addition to ancient hymns with verbal texts shared by all the ancient churches (such as Φῶς ἱλαρόν, to which I shall have cause to return below), there are tantalising instances of items from the Armenian Hymnal that appear to have direct analogues in the Greek tradition, where we encounter a high degree of verbal congruence. One is the Armenian Levavi hymn9 (apparently dating from the 12th century) for the   Potential connections between the Palaeobyzantine and Armenian systems cannot, however, be ruled out. 8   At his time, the Armenian neumes could only be used in a very limited manner (see Utidjian, H., ‘Tntesean and the Music of the Armenian Hymnal’, i, Parrésia, 5 (2011), pp. 47-175, and ii, Parrésia, 6 (2012), pp. 79-129, for a full treatment) and evidently the need for recourse to alternatives had become apparent. See also the more recent monograph, Utidjian, Tntesean and the Music of the Armenian Hymnal, pp. 165-196. 9   The hymns, or šarakank‘, found in the Canonical Hymnal of the Armenian Church, are for the most part categorised into the following types, named after the ‘preamble’ or incipit that is performed immediately prior to the first stanza of the hymn: 1. Cantemus, Օրհնութիւն – Moses’ Song of Praise, Exodus 15:1: Cantemus Domino, gloriose enim magnificatus est. 2. Patrum, Հարց – Daniel (Arm.) 3:26: Benedictus es, Domine, Deus patrum nostrorum; et laudabilis et gloriosum nomen tuum in saecula. The second part of those hymns invariably includes the section known as Opera, Գործք – Daniel (Arm.) 3:57: Benedicite, omnia opera Domini, Domino; laudate et superexultate eum in saecula. (Both these citations from the Book of Daniel are from the Deuterocanonical parts of Scripture, which are, however, of central importance in the Armenian tradition.) 3. Magnificat, Մեծացուսցէ – The Song of Mary, Luke 1:45: Magnificat anima mea Dominum, et exsultavit spiritus meus in Deo, salutari meo. 4. Miserere, Ողորմեա – Psalm 51[50]:1: Miserere mei, Deus, secundum magnam ­misericordiam tuam. 7

62

H. UTIDJIAN

seventh day of Pentecost in the ԴՁ (=IVA, or the Armenian fourth authentic) mode, of which the text (starting with the words «Հոգին սուրբ էր միշտ եւ է եւ եղիցի») is very similar to that of the sticheron ideomelon for Pentecost (with the incipit «Τὸ  πνεῦμα  τὸ  ἅγιον,  ἦν μὲν ἀεί, καὶ ἔστιν, καὶ ἔσται») — a fact that appears first to have been noticed by Fr. Gabriēl Awetik‘ean.10 Both are centonisations of the 41st Oration by St Gregory of Nazianzus.11 A further example12 is the Armenian Cantemus hymn for the eighth day of Theophany in the ԴՁ (IVA) mode, Լոյս ի լուսոյ, of which a section («Զհին մարդըն») exists in Latin (Veterem hominem), in Greek (Τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον), as well as in Georgian.13 Traces of recognisably Greek features Some (albeit extremely rare) examples of a-u-a vowel alternation, though not practised at present, do exist in early transcriptions in Limōnčean notation, including the earliest known manuscript of hymns in that notation,14

5. De caelis, Տէր յերկնից – Psalm 148:1: Laudate Dominum de caelis, laudate eum in excelsis. 6. Pueri, Մանկունք – Psalm 113[112]:1: Laudate, pueri, Dominum; laudate nomen Domini. 7. Midday hymn or Prandii, Ճաշու, which does not have any one appellation associated with a psalm, as its incipit is variable: it might, for instance, be a Magnificat, or Dilexi, Սիրեցի զի լուիցէ – Psalm 116[114]:1: Dilexi, quoniam exaudiet Dominum vocem orationis meae; or, particularly frequently, Տէր թագաւորեաց – Psalm 93[92]:1: Dominus regnavit, decorem indutus est; indutus est Dominus fortitudinem et praecinxit se. 8. Levavi, Համբարձի – Psalm 121[120]:1: Levavi oculos meos in montes, unde veniet auxilium mihi. (In referring to Psalms, we give the number associated with the Masoretic text first, followed by the number in the Armenian Bible in square brackets.) 10   Աւետիքեան, Հայր Գաբրիէլ, Բացատրութիւն շարականաց (Explanation of hymns) (Venice, 1814), pp. 407-411. 11   I am indebted to Prof. Bernard Coulie for the (as yet unpublished) Armenian version of the Oration, and to Prof. Christian Troelsgård for making available the text and neumations of the Byzantine hymn. 12   I am grateful to Prof. Bernard Outtier for drawing this example to my attention. 13   For further details the reader is referred to Strunk, O., ʻThe Latin Antiphons for the Octave of the Epiphany’, in idem, Essays on Music in the Byzantine World, ed. Norton, W.W. (New York, 1977), pp. 209-219. 14   Undated, the oldest known extant manuscript hymnal in Limōnčean notation, with a colophon retrospectively attributing part of the manuscript to the hand of Hambarjum Limōnčean himself, is likely to be pre-1840; see Utidjian, H., ‘The Oldest Extant Manuscript Hymnal in Limōnčean Notation’ (forthcoming).



BYZANTINE AND ARMENIAN SACRED MUSICAL TRADITIONS

63

and the Tntesean15 and Č‘ērč‘ean16 hymnals (in the Opera section17 of certain highly melismatic IVA Patrum hymns); and also in T‘agawor yawitean psalm settings from the Armaš seminary tradition and elsewhere.18 One isolated instance of e-i-e alternation has also been documented.19 Kratemata too may be found, at the end of certain Armenian odes; the earliest published examples seem to be in the Vałaršapat Missal,20 where Kristos is interpolated with rey-ri-re, Mariam with re-ri and amenayn with ne-na. These traces (exotic as they may now appear) almost certainly bespeak of an age when the Armenian and Greek practices were more closely allied than at present.21 Finding similar melodies One difficulty in seeking musical analogies mentioned in the literature but not otherwise documented is that the Armenian melodies referred to may now be lost, given the cataclysmic loss in Armenian communities at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, with the attendant loss of much of the oral tradition and some of the written; one also has to grapple with the multiplicity of Greek melodies, including variants that may have been forgotten or superseded by others. Thus, the Constantinopolitan church musician Yarut‘iwn Mkrtič‘ean, writing in 1905,22 mentioned that the melody of the hymn Anjink‘ nuirealk‘ was the same as that of the Greek hymn «Ἡ ζωή ἐν τάφῳ, κατετέθης Χριστέ, καὶ Ἀγγέλων στρατιαὶ ἐξεπλήττοντο, συγκατάβασιν δοξάζουσαι τὴν σήν» (the Akathistos of Ἦχος πλ. α’.); yet our best efforts notwithstanding, we have 15  The Tntesean hymnal, though published posthumously considerably later, was transcribed and edited in the 1870s: Շարական Ձայնագրեալ (Notated Hymnal), աշխ. Եղիա Մ. Տնտեսեան (Istanbul, 1934). Henceforth we shall refer to this volume as ‘the Tntesean hymnal’. 16   Two manuscript versions of Hambarjum Č‘ērč‘ean’s hymnal are known to us: an almost complete version, copied out by Yakobos Ayvazean at the Armaš seminary in 1885; and vol. B only, copied out by Archimandrite Gnēl Galēmk‘earean in Armaš in 1897. 17   See footnote 9 above for an explanation of this term. 18   I am in possession of such a manuscript, described in Utidjian, Art of the Armenian Book, pp. 153-154. 19   For a discussion of these see Utidjian, Music of the Armenian Hymnal, pp. 55-56. 20   Ձայնագրեալ Երգեցողութիւնք Սրբոյ Պատարագի (Notated chants of the Divine Liturgy) (Vałaršapat, 18782). 21   Furthermore, particular sections in mediaeval neumated Manrusmunk‘ codices (composed largely of highly melismatic Breviary chants) provide examples of similar vocal alternations in an explicit manner, with the vowels placed below neumes or groups thereof, in small letters. 22  See Մկրտիչեան, Յարութիւն, «Շարականախօսութիւն (Hymnology)», Լոյս, Եկեղեցագիտական Շաբաթաթերթ (Loys, ecclesiological weekly) (Constantinople, 19051906; reprint Antelias, 1987, as a compilation in 2 vols), i, p. 1003.

64

H. UTIDJIAN

been unable to pair any congruent (or sufficiently similar) Armenian and Greek variants. Fr. Aristakēs Hisarlean, writing in 1914,23 reported (using the present tense) that it was said that a Constantinopolitan deacon by the name of Zennē Połōs (1746-1826) had adapted the ʻpresent-day’ melody of Loys Zuart‘ (the Armenian version of Φῶς ἱλαρόν) on the basis of ‘the Greek’. I was, however, fortunate in recording and transcribing a unique Armenian variant, sung by a Mekhitarist monk in Vienna, Fr. Simon Payean (Bayan), on 13.8.2014; this may be seen to be almost identical to a now rarely heard Greek version still sung in Constantinople today24 (which on later occasions I was able to verify independently with Profs Maria Alexandru and Alexander Lingas). My own transcription, in Limōnčean’s notational system,25 may be found in fig. 1. It is not surprising that traces of such interactions remain. We find testimonies suggesting that, in the decades prior to the invention in the 1810s by Limōnčean and his associates of the new Armenian system of musical notation (parallelled by the invention at about the same time, and in the same Constantinopolitan milieu, of the ‘Chrysanthine’ system26 by the ‘Three Teachers’), Armenian church musicians were taught by Greek masters — the mediaeval Armenian neumatic notation (which remains undeciphered to this day) being deemed no longer to be serviceable; yet unfortunately scarcely anything concrete has reached us of these contacts.27 Devastating fires at the Armenian Patriarchate, as well as the later depopulation of Armenian Constantinople in the 20th century, will have played a role; so did neglect caused by the adoption of a new and homegrown 23   See Fr. Aristakēs Hisarlean’s volume, Հիսարլեան, Հ. Արիստակէս, Պատմութիւն հայ ձայնագրութեան եւ կենսագրութիւն երաժիշտ ազգայնոց 1768-1909 (History of Armenian musical notation and biographies of Armenian musicians 1768-1909) (Constantinople, 1914), henceforth ‘Hisarlean’s History’, p. 21. 24   I am grateful to the Rev. Archpriest Krikor Damadian of the Church of the Holy King in Kadıköy for this information. 25   For a convenient key to enable the transcription to be readily converted into Western notation, the reader is referred to the lucid chart by Fr. Psak Step‘anean in the Tntesean hymnal, reproduced in Utidjian, Art of the Armenian Book, p. 245. 26  For an introductory account of this notational system, the reader is referred to Gianellos, D., La musique byzantine: Le chant ecclésiastique grec, sa notation et sa pratique actuelle (Paris, 1996). A treatment in English by Dr John Michael Boyer is due for publication in the near future. 27   For an interesting summary of documented contacts, see Olley, J., Writing Music in Nineteenth-Century Istanbul: Ottoman Armenians and the Invention of Hampartsum Notation, doctoral dissertation, King’s College London, 2017, pp. 115-117 and footnotes therein. Dr Olley also compares and contrasts the parallel movements amongst the two Constantinopolitan communities, striving for renewal and reform in their respective musical notational systems.



BYZANTINE AND ARMENIAN SACRED MUSICAL TRADITIONS

65

system, in an environment not wholly devoid of xenophobia.28 However, this article will focus on interactions between the Byzantine and Armenian traditions of sacred music as exemplified by three tangible and particularly interesting documentary witnesses. I.  Grigor dpir Gapasak‘alean’s Nuagaran (1794) Grigor dpir Gapasak‘alean (1740-1808) — where dpir denotes the fact that he was an ordained Clerk of the Church — was born in Caesarea in Cappadocia, but lived and worked in Constantinople, where his Nuagaran of 1794, and three further volumes in 1803, were published; these are partly songbook and collections of poetry (much of it his own), and partly monograph.29 The following components of the 1794 volume are of especial 28   Hisarlean mentions that the Greek teacher who had been engaged to teach Armenian pupils, one Onop‘rios of Tatavla (Onouphrios?), was immediately sacked upon the invention of the Armenian system (op. cit., p. 16); and that Hambarjum Limōnčean strove to convince his Armenian colleagues to abandon the ‘unpleasant Greek melodies that dominated our churches’ (p. 14), ‘all’ the ‘older’ Armenian choir-leaders being under the influence of ‘Greek nasal’ singing, despite the ‘disagreeable effect on the listener’. (Incidentally, judging from the oldest preserved Armenian recordings, the style of Armenian chanting was not dissimilar to examples of Constantinopolitan Byzantine style!) More recently, the reaction of At‘ayean, Աթայեան, Ռ., Հայկական խազային նօտագրութիւնը (ուսումնասիրութեան եւ վերծանութեան հարցեր) (The Armenian neumatic notation (issues of study and decipherment)) (Yerevan, 1959) against Spiridon Melik‘ean’s pro-Greek theory, Մելիքեան, Ս., Յունական ազդեցութիւնը Հայ երաժշտութեան տեսականի վերայ (Greek influence on Armenian musical theory) (Tbilisi, 1914) also displays an underlying current of nationalism; though the Melik‘ean monograph is not a rigorous piece of work, it is significant that, having dismissed its thesis (pp. 135-144), At‘ayean felt he ought to clarify that, his errant (indeed ‘nihilist’ and ‘extremely one-sided’) views notwithstanding, Melik‘ean had served the nation well in later years, furthering the ‘objective’ of consolidating the claims of the Armenian nation to an ‘original musical art’ (p. 141). 29   We know of two further sources that make use of Armenian neumes in an unknown but (at least apparently) novel manner. Both are anonymous, but have been attributed to Gapasak‘alean in the past: (i) a manuscript entitled Համառօտութիւն երաժշտական գիտութեան (Compendium of musical knowledge), Matenadaran MS 3080, of unknown date (but probably from the beginning of the 19th century), including, inter alia, early attempts at solmization and the re-definition of the mediaeval neumes in such a way that a single symbol represent a single note (for a discussion and photographs from this manuscript, see Utidjian, Treasures of the Earliest Christian Nation, pp. 274-279); and (ii) a now lost manuscript copied out by Gapasak‘alean, but of uncertain authorship. Manuscript (ii) was discovered at the Monastery of St Daniel in Caesarea, and Bishop Trdat Palean published a short description in the Venetian periodical Bazmavēp in 1895, including a small number of illustrations. Archimandrite Komitas subsequently attempted to gain access to the manuscript, but as the bishop demanded the sum of 300 roubles (according to a letter by Komitas to Catholicos Izmirlean of 1909), Komitas never saw the manuscript. In 1915 the Turks destroyed the monastery and the excerpts reproduced in Bazmavēp alone have survived of the manuscript.

66

H. UTIDJIAN

Fig. 1:  Transcription of Vienna Loys zuart.



BYZANTINE AND ARMENIAN SACRED MUSICAL TRADITIONS

Fig. 1 (continued):  Transcription of Vienna Loys zuart.

67

68

H. UTIDJIAN

interest, testifying as they do to interactions with Greek culture and musical traditions: (i) a rambling and eclectic presentation of the history and theory of music, drawing on a motley variety of sources (the majority Greek or Greek-influenced);30 (ii) an Armenian version of a Greek Papadike;31 (iii) an apparent attempt to exemplify at least two different hybrid GreekArmenian neumatic systems, both still tantalisingly intractable; and (iv) its presentation of an Armenian contrafactum to a Greek hymn — both items constituting the first known instance of Byzantine neumes appearing on the printed page using moving type.32 I now turn to each of (iii) and (iv) above. First hybrid system The first of the two hybrid systems looks ‘predominantly’ Greek — with a preponderance of Middle Byzantine neumes. Our author’s substantial introduction to Byzantine neumes in fact consists of a description of various neumes rather comparable to those we find, for instance, in Christian Troelsgård’s standard treatment,33 although Gapasak‘alean’s description is   Gapasak‘alean’s account quotes from the Bible (especially the Old Testament), the Grammar ‘of the Thracian’ (Dionysius Thrax), David the Invincible and his Commentator Aŕak‘el, Aristotle (or, possibly, David the Invincible’s Armenian Commentary thereon), Porphyry and Proclus (or David’s Commentary thereon), as well as Philo of Alexandria (in its Armenian version) — as well as Armenian but Greek-influenced thinkers such as St Stephen of Siwnik‘ (C8) and St Nersēs of Lambron (1153-1198). My full, annotated English translation awaits publication. 31   Comparison with a roughly contemporaneous Papadike manuscript at the Saxo Institute of Copenhagen University has served to indicate that the Armenian appears to follow some Greek models fairly closely. At times the Armenian text is hopelessly incomprehensible without reference to the Greek, partly due to eccentricities of the translation and typographical errors, but also due to the fact that the Armenian version as well as its Greek models were almost certainly purposely intended not to be self-sufficient but to encourage reliance on a master; they would then serve as reminders of what had already been taught. The bulk of these writings has now been largely elucidated with the assistance of Prof. Christian Troelsgård. One interesting feature of the Papadike section of the book is the fact that from time to time the author seems to draw parallels with the Armenian tradition; for instance, the Greek trochos of p. 200 of the book is followed by a counterpart representing the Armenian oktoechos on a facing page — thus implying a direct analogy between the two systems. For a reproduction of those pages, see Utidjian, Art of the Armenian Book, p. 142. 32   Greek neumes may also be found in some earlier publications, such as: Athanasius Kircher, Musurgia Universalis (1650), Bernard de Montfaucon, Palaeografia Graeca (1703), Martin Gerbert, De cantu et musica sacra (1774), and Franz Josef Sulzer, Geschichte des transalpinischen Daciens (1781); but the neumes in all the above were reproduced as diagrams, and not through the use of special moveable type. 33   Troelsgård, C., Byzantine Neumes: A New Introduction to the Middle Byzantine Musical Notation, MMB Subsidia, 9 (Copenhagen, 2011). 30



BYZANTINE AND ARMENIAN SACRED MUSICAL TRADITIONS

69

not always adequate (for instance, the neume dyo kentemata is not satisfactorily defined). An example of this first hybrid system may be found on p. 220 of the 1794 Nuagaran, where we find the ode Aysōr nor arew hareal.34 The Greek neumes do not appear to be self-sufficient; placed in a higher position, we find several Armenian neumes, and it is not clear what purpose they serve. It does not seem probable that we have two parallel, equivalent notations, Byzantine and Armenian, forming a ‘Rosetta stone’ of sorts.35 One reason for this assertion is that over certain syllables we have an Armenian neume alone (for instance, the syllable a- of the word aregaknē has no Byzantine neumes, but bears the Armenian neume xunč).36 And when we compare the Armenian neumes in this example to the neumations of the same ode in Books of Odes published in Constantinople only a few decades earlier (such as the Girk‘ Dprut‘ean of 1723, p. 9, or the Tałaran of 1740, p. 1237), we find that the neumes in these sources differ from those found in Gapasak‘alean’s example. Indeed, judging from the distribution of neumes over various syllables (implying as they do varying degrees of melismaticity on the respective syllables), it is reasonable to conclude that the melodies represented by Gapasak‘alean and by the sources with purely Armenian neumes are also different. The Armenian neumes employed in Gapasak‘alean’s system are also at variance with the neumatic notation found in mediaeval codices — such as the Ganjaran (Book of Odes and Litanies), MS 1335 of San Lazzaro, dating from 1371, f. 285v38 (albeit with a minor variation in the verbal text — whereby here we find the word cageal instead of hareal). In contrast, the neumations of the 1740 volume and of the 1371 manuscript bear considerable similarity to each other.39 Another consideration is that the manner of deployment of   For a reproduction of this page, the reader is again referred to Utidjian, Art of the Armenian Book, p. 143. 35   Pace the eminent Armenian musicologist, Anna Arewšatean, who considers the Armenian and Greek neumes as being ‘parallel’ (zuk‘aheŕ) to each other – see her recent booklet, Արեւշատեան, Ա., Գրիգոր Գապասաքալեանի երաժշտական ժառանգութիւնը (The musical legacy of Grigor Gapasak’alean) (Yerevan, 2013), p. 29. 36   The structure of the ode involves repetition, allowing useful comparisons as well as serving to expose typographical inaccuracies; we see, for instance, that some of the Armenian neumes are liable to be dropped if they happen to fall at the end of the line. However, this special structure did not prove sufficient to allow us to achieve an understanding of the mechanism of the musical notation. 37   A reproduction may be found on p. 243 of Utidjian, Art of the Armenian Book. 38   For a reproduction of the relevant portion of this folio, the reader is again referred to Utidjian, Art of the Armenian Book, p. 243. 39   Incidentally, the same ode may also be found with rather similar neumations — and with the word hareal, and from a period rather closer to that of the Nuagaran — in the Tałaran (Book of Odes), MS 176 at the Mekhitarist Congregation in Vienna, f. 28r, 34

70

H. UTIDJIAN

Byzantine neumes here is inconsistent with any known Greek system, featuring as it does various inadmissible combinations, and does not make sense on its own. Finally, we note that, although melodies associated with some of the odes in this hybrid system have reached us,40 a rudimentary comparison involving the distribution of melismata deployed on various syllables of verbal text in each case strongly suggests that they cannot correspond to the present transcriptions.41 Second hybrid system The second system is also a hybrid one, but with a preponderance of Armenian neumes — as may be seen, for instance, by inspecting the example on p. 225 of the 1794 Nuagaran.42 One suspects that the Armenian neumes may well have been tacitly re-defined in such a way that they may have served as substitutes for certain Greek neumes. In this connection, it is tempting to have recourse to p. 287 of the Nuagaran, where various Armenian neumes appear to be associated with various intervals. However, the direction of the intervals has not been specified,43 and the definitions have been presented in a considerably later part of the volume than the examples to which they might conceivably pertain.44 In any event, it is not clear what role the Greek neumes serve in this second hybrid system; in the example on p. 255 the neumes oligon, chamele, hypsele and apostrophos are clearly discernible, but their function here is unclear. Some clues could be drawn from the relatively small number of examples where we find an Armenian translation of a known Greek r­ eproduced on p. 292 of Utidjian, Treasures of the Earliest Christian Nation; a description of the codex, which is believed to date from the 17th or 18th centuries, may be found on pp. 256-259 therein. 40   The best published collection is the volume of Mełedis, Odes and Ganj Litanies edited by Archbishop Zareh Aznaworean (see n. 3 above). 41   For this reason, one again feels that one cannot be as sanguine as Prof. Arewšatean here, suggesting as she does juxtaposing the extant melodies with this notation: Arewšatean (see n. 35 above), p. 29. 42   A reproduction of this page may be found on p. 146 of Utidjian, Art of the Armenian Book. 43   Moreover, various combinations of neumes are presented, followed by a numerical value. I have endeavoured to make assumptions as to interval direction and then experiment, computing the resultant interval values, but have been unable to achieve figures consistent with those given. Sadly, even a single misprint would suffice to thwart such efforts. 44   The situation might be somewhat less confusing in the case of Gapasak‘alean’s later volume, the 1803 Girk‘ eražštakan, where on pp. 60 and 72-74 we find particular Armenian neumes defined as equivalents to Greek neumes; but the intervallic values of some of the Armenian neumes so defined are inconsistent with those on p. 287 of the 1794 Nuagaran.



BYZANTINE AND ARMENIAN SACRED MUSICAL TRADITIONS

71

item, followed by the Greek version itself in Armenian transliteration, both bearing essentially the same neumations (though with some adaptations from time to time, to account for the different number of syllables of text in either language — the Armenian items being translations and not contrafacta; these very modifications in neumation could themselves prove a possible source of some limited information on the mechanisms involved). Furthermore, if only the Greek melodies could be reliably identified, this could indeed shed light on the notation used. The contrafactum The contrafactum has now been successfully reconstructed in collaboration with Prof. Christian Troelsgård of the Saxo Institute of Copenhagen University. First, the Greek item was identified (on the basis of the Armenian transliteration of the Greek words) as being an 18th-century melody by Petros the Peloponnesian (ca 1730-1778, and based in Constantinople from 1764) composed for the heirmos Ἰταμῷ θυμῷ τε καὶ πυρί for the Dormition of the Theotokos, and part of the longer Πεποικιλμένη τῃ θείᾳ δόξῃ.45 This finding is remarkable for several reasons. It provides a tantalising connection between the Peloponnesian (referred to in Greek historical sources as having taught ­Armenians and even having composed Armenian items, but not mentioned in any known Armenian source) — or someone from his circle — and Gapasak‘alean. But above all, it was tremendously useful that the Greek item itself could be precisely identified; this enabled comparison with transcriptions of the Greek heirmos in the Middle Byzantine notational system. Gapasak‘alean’s neumations do indeed appear to be based on a version such as that found at the British Library (British Museum Add MS 16971, ff. 5v-6r).46 It is clear that Gapasak‘alean has 45   For this I am indebted to the young Cypriot singer and musicologist, Mr Kyriakos Kalifommatos, who had joined the Charles University Chorus under my direction for one semester. 46   The same version may be found at the Psachos Library in Greece (Heirmologion Petrou Peloponnesiou, MS 57/206, ff. 1r-1v, and Heirmologion Petrou Peloponnesiou, MS 105/253, ff. 2v-3r; in contrast, Gapasak‘alean’s neumations seem less close to the version available in, for instance, the Heirmologion Petrou Palaia Graphe found in 100 Byzantine Music Books (St Anthony‘s Monastery – ff. 3v-4r). For instance, Gapasak‘alean as well as the British Museum and Psachos Library manuscripts all have a petasthe neume over the second occurrence of the omega at the end of the word θυμῷ, whereas the version in 100 Byzantine Music Books here features an oxeia neume — although, being rather close to the horizontal, it could also be taken as an oligon. (Both sets of sources have an oligon on the

72

H. UTIDJIAN

used a specially adapted version of the Middle Byzantine notational system; indeed, it contravenes the grammar of the system in places, and eschews the Byzantine ‘group signs’. Christian Troelsgård and I have been able to transcribe the two items in this notational system, and have reached the conclusions that (1) Gapasak‘alean had an excellent grasp of the Middle Byzantine system, and must have modified it for reasons of economy — that is, to minimise the number of types that needed to be cast by his printer — in such a way as to forfend against the danger of ambiguity; but that (2) he was rather less well served by his printer, who worked uncomprehendingly and made numerous errors (for instance, confusing one sign with another, and breaking up neume combinations from the end of one line to another), but also improved as he went along. The melodies of the Greek heirmos and the Armenian contrafactum are identical (as our transcription of the first few syllables below suffices to illustrate); the printer made errors in both, but they are fewer in the contrafactum (which is placed immediately after the Greek original).47 Figs. 2 and 3 show Gapasak‘alean’s Greek and Armenian items, whilst fig. 4 shows the first page of the British Library manuscript. first omega of the word.) The same conclusion may be reached by considering the next syllable — namely, the word τε. Here, Gapasak‘alean and the British Library as well as the Psachos Library manuscripts employ an oligon, whereas this time it is the version in 100 Byzantine Music Books which employs a petasthe. Since all three neumes (petasthe, oxeia and oligon) represent the same intervallic value of an ascending second, our observations regarding the particular choice of neumes by Gapasak‘alean here are highly pertinent, suggesting as they do that Gapasak‘alean must have been following an exemplar belonging to the first group of manuscripts rather than to the second. For this reason, I shall confine my comparisons to the former. I am indebted to Prof. Christian Troelsgård for drawing my attention to British Museum Add MS 16971 and Psachos MS 105/253, to Mr Kyriakos Kalifommatos for drawing my attention to Psachos MS 57/206, and to Prof. Alexander Lingas for drawing my attention to the 100 Byzantine Music Books collection. 47   The printer’s difficulties are understandable: the 1794 Nuagaran is, as we saw, the very first book anywhere to include Byzantine neumes printed using moveable type; but, curiously enough, the neumes seem not to have made any further appearances in any later publication. Indeed, in his Girk‘ eražštakan of 1803, Gapasak‘alean introduces and then proceeds to dismiss the Byzantine neumes, declaring (p. 75) that, as the Armenian neumes are more numerous and ‘richer’ than the Greek, ‘… we join (the philosopher) David the Invincible in saying that we no longer need to go to Athens to get an education’! However, we note with interest that Greek neumes were again printed using moving type, in a Romanian heirmologion published by the Armenian Mekhitarist Press in Vienna, in 1823 (bearing as it does the information ‘Traducător, editor și tipograf: Macarie Ieromonahul, în tipografia armenilor mechitariști din Viena, 1823’); I am grateful to Nicolae Gheorghita for this observation and for a scan of the volume. (However, the latter publication uses a different — and considerably more refined — type for its neumes.)



BYZANTINE AND ARMENIAN SACRED MUSICAL TRADITIONS

Fig. 2:  Gapasak‘alean’s version of the heirmos.

Fig. 3:  The Armenian contrafactum.

73

74

H. UTIDJIAN

Fig. 4:  British Library manuscript of the heirmos.



BYZANTINE AND ARMENIAN SACRED MUSICAL TRADITIONS

75

The respective transcriptions of their openings, prepared by Prof. Troels­gård and myself, are as follows: a  a  a  b   cd  cbaG  b  c  d c     d e  de  edcb  c   d  dc cb a Itamō thymōō te     kai pyri theios e rōs a - n ti tat to me nos a   a   a   b    cd    cbaG   b      c d     c d   e  de  edcb c  d   dc    db a Erknahoyl isk se - ŕi - c‘n zergs ergoc‘ e rek‘ sǝr bean e - r gajayn zōrhnut‘iwn

The verbal underlay for the heirmos is in a Western Armenian transliteration, whilst the words for the contrafactum are in ancient Armenian (which I have transliterated above in the Hübschmann-Meillet system) and do not constitute a translation of the Greek words, to which they are largely unrelated. It is almost certain that the verbal text was specially composed by Gapasak‘alean for the melody.48 The verbal text is somewhat displaced with respect to the neumes (the printer was in some difficulty in this respect also), an element of ambiguity arising in consequence; and the best solution is unclear in two places.49

48   Gapasak‘alean’s procedure here thus markedly differs from that of (for instance) various Slavonic musicians who adapted Byzantine melodies to translations of Greek words into their own languages. 49   Two further issues remain: (1) Rhythm and metrical duration are largely unspecified in the Middle-Byzantine notational system, and thus Gapasak‘alean’s transcription too lacks such information. In this respect, various versions of the heirmos preserved through the Greek oral tradition may be potentially useful for rough guidance. (2) The manner in which items transcribed using the Middle Byzantine notation in this period were likely to be interpreted in practice within the Byzantine tradition itself, is not a simple matter. The article by Schartau, B., and Troelsgård, C., ‘The Translation of Byzantine Chants into the “New Method”: Joasaph Pantokratorinos – Composer and Scribe of Musical Manuscripts’, Acta Musicologica, 69, 2 (1997), pp. 134-142, demonstrates that the expected interpretation of items captured in the Middle Byzantine notation (as recorded by the Chrysanthine notation shortly thereafter) need not necessarily have greatly differed from the letter of the versions in Middle-Byzantine versions. On the other hand, the heirmos may be found in a rather melismatic version (transcribed less than a quarter of a century later) in the Chrysanthine notation (see Εἱρμολόγιον τῶν καταβασιῶν Πέτρου τοῦ Πελοποννησίου, ed. Chourmouzios Chartophylax (Constantinople, 1825), pp. 5-6) characterised as ‘Katabatikon’. However, it seems probable that Gapasak‘alean included the heirmos and its Armenian contrafactum in his book as a simple demonstration of the manner in which Byzantine neumes could be pressed into service as a potential means of recording Armenian hymns. Indeed, much of the Nuagaran seems intended to promulgate notational systems that could serve reliably and permanently to capture, transcribe and give fixity to old or possibly newly-composed Armenian melodies. The practice of elaborating on Middle Byzantine notation would therefore seem less likely to have been relevant to his intentions in this instance. For a full discussion of the above issues, the reader is referred to the forthcoming article by H. Utidjian and C. Troeslgård devoted to the contrafactum and to its source.

76

H. UTIDJIAN

What took so long? To the best of our knowledge, this item has now been deciphered and transcribed for the first time in two centuries. Indeed, it appears that even early in the 19th century, Armenian church musicians such as Hambarjum Limōnčean (1768-1839) and Petros Č‘ēōlmēk‘čean (1785-1840) were quite unable to comprehend any of the notational systems employed by Gapasak‘alean — despite the fact that the volumes were still rather new.50 Ełia Tntesean, writing in 1874,51 regretfully described Gapasak‘alean’s works as being čapał — an uncommon Armenian word, suggesting at once chaotic organisation, lengthiness, complexity and a lack of clarity52 (according to the Venetian ‘Three Archimandrites’’ dictionary,53 as also that of Malxaseanc‘54). The music historian, Fr. Aristakēs Hisarlean too complained in 1914 that he was unable to orient himself in Gapasak‘alean’s ‘labyrinth’, and that a reader of his books would need to have the prophet Daniel’s abilities no less, since the writings therein were no clearer than the Biblical words ‘Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin’ (Daniel 5.25).55 Three factors may be relevant here: (1) In common with the Papadike models on which substantial portions of the 1794 Nuagaran appear to have been based, the writing often seems to be purposely obscure — albeit sufficient to serve as a reminder for a pupil who has already received oral explanations from a master; and the Armenian translation has sometimes served further to obscure the text. (2) The interest of the Armenian church musicians who had difficulties with the book was to find ‘the lost key’ to the Armenian mediaeval neumatic notation, hoping that Gapasak‘alean would prove useful in this respect, whereas in all likelihood that was not at all the writer’s intention; and (3) with the   See Hisarlean’s History, p. 34.  Ełia M. Tntesean (1834-1881) was the leading Armenian musicologist of the 19th century, and arguably remains the greatest Armenian musicologist of all time. For a full critical evaluation of his legacy, the reader is referred to the monograph, Utidjian, Tntesean and the Music of the Armenian Hymnal. Tntesean’s redactions of the melodies of the Armenian Hymnal were published posthumously in 1934. The majority of his articles was reproduced in a single volume edited by himself, as Նկարագիր երգոց Հայաստանեայց Ս. Եկեղեցւոյ (Characteristics of the chants of the Holy Armenian Church) (Constantinople, 1874). 52   Tntesean, idem, p. 56. 53   Նոր Բառգիրք Հայկազեան Լեզուի (New lexicon of the Armenian language), աշխ. Հ. Գաբրիէլ Աւետիքեան, Հ. Խաչատուր Սիւրմէլեան, Հ. Մկրտիչ Աւգերեան (Venice, 1836). 54   Հայերէն Բացատրական Բառարան (Armenian explanatory dictionary), աշխ. Ստեփան Մալխասեանց (Yerevan, 1944). 55   Hisarlean’s History, p. 25. 50

51



BYZANTINE AND ARMENIAN SACRED MUSICAL TRADITIONS

77

emergence of the Limōnčean notational system around 1813, Armenian musicians were no longer taught Byzantine notation;56 a large proportion of Gapasak‘alean’s writings may have been rendered incomprehensible to this readership for that reason. II. A Princeton University Manuscript Alexander Lingas recently discovered a through-composed, melismatic setting of the Armenian Easter Day Introit, K‘ristos yareaw i meŕeloc‘, in Chrysanthine notation in a two-volume anthology of post-Byzantine chant copied in 1868 and currently held by the Firestone Library (Princeton MS Greek 15).57 The manuscript was copied by Diamantes M. Salgaras at the Monastery of Nea Mone on the island of Chios. The Armenian Introit appears on pp. 331-332 of vol. 1, and is prefaced by the rubric «ἕτερον ἀργὸν ἀρμενεΐτικον. ἦχος πλάγιος πρώτος ἐκ τοῦ πα» ([A] further slow [setting, in] Armenian; plagal first mode from Pa [=D]’). Alexander Lingas and I have completed an annotated edition of this Introit with a full commentary for imminent publication. The manuscript is reproduced herewith, for the very first time, by kind permission of the Princeton University Library (fig. 5).58 A transcription of the manuscript into Western notation was initially prepared by John Michael Boyer from Prof. Lingas’ handwritten copy, and subsequently corrected on the basis of the photographs of manuscript itself by Giuseppe Sanfratello and myself (fig. 6).

56   We have testimonies to the effect that they had indeed been taught by Greek masters for some time prior to that date (see Hisarlean’s History, p. 16). As we saw above, one Onouphrios of Tatavla had been engaged to teach Armenian pupils ‘Greek musical notation’; and my great-great-great-uncle, Abisołom Utidjian (1817-1847), studied with the Greek psaltis of the Constantinopolitan church Havuzlı Kilisesi (idem, p. 42). The practice seems to have been brought to an abrupt stop when the new Limōnčean system gained acceptance. 57   [Music Anthology] ‘Chrysophes the Younger.’ Princeton Greek MS 15, vol. 1; Manuscripts Division, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University Library; for a description, see Kotzabassi, S., Patterson Ševčenko, N., and Skemer, D.C., Greek Manuscripts at Princeton, Sixth to Nineteenth Century: A Descriptive Catalogue (Princeton, 2010), pp. 184-186. 58   I particularly wish to thank Stephen Ferguson (Acting Associate University Librarian for Rare Books and Special Collections), AnnaLee Pauls (Photoduplication Coordinator, Rare Books and Special Collections), and Mrs Tamara Kroupová of Koniasch Latin Press, for their kindness in this matter.

78

H. UTIDJIAN

Fig. 5:  Princeton University Library manuscript (reproduced by kind permission).



BYZANTINE AND ARMENIAN SACRED MUSICAL TRADITIONS

Fig. 5 (continued):  Princeton University Library manuscript (reproduced by kind permission).

79

80

H. UTIDJIAN

Fig. 6:  Transcription into Western notation.



BYZANTINE AND ARMENIAN SACRED MUSICAL TRADITIONS

81

A number of initially surprising features preserved in the Chrysanthine notation would appear to be at variance with, or at least absent from, the more recent and mainstream Armenian tradition, as represented by the various late-19th-century Vałaršapat publications in Limōnčean notation, and (especially) transcriptions into Western notation — particularly the hymnal volumes published in Antelias by the Catholicosate of the Great House Cilicia and the Petrosean59 and Gprslean60 manuscripts, to which the Antelias volumes are closely related.61 Now a performing edition would require the editorial addition of phthorai by analogy (for instance, at the end of line 2 of fig. 6 by analogy with lines 1 and 3, and perhaps at the beginning of lines 1, 4 and 5 by analogy with that at the beginning of line 2). To conform with Armenian conventional practice, the transcription of fig. 6 would need to be transposed up a perfect fifth. However, a ‘sanitised’ version in Western notation, manipulated into a form that might be recognisable by the mainstream of Armenian church musicians of the present day, would also necessitate more substantial changes, such as the modification of the triplet figures into a binary rhythm and the removal of microtonal nuances built into the Chrysanthine notation. Nonetheless, I shall seek to demonstrate that the Introit transcription in fact embodies features that are in no wise ‘unArmenian’, but, on the contrary, attest to aspects of earlier Armenian performance practice now largely defunct. Verbal underlay The verbal underlay is in Greek transliteration and exhibits a number of curious phonological features;62 in addition, a downright error in the underlay would seem to suggest that the scribe was copying from a 59   Մեղեդիք (Mełedi chants) — a selection of items from the Breviary, Hymnal and Missal in Western notation, copied by K. Petrosean (Antelias, 1947). 60   Manuscript hymnal (incomplete, untitled) copied by Deacon G. Gprslean from the manuscripts of Archimandrite Haykazun Abrahamean (vols 1 and 2) and L. M. Č‘ilinkirean (Chilingirian) (vol. 3) (Jerusalem, 1954). 61   See Utidjian, H., ‘On the Emergence of New Volumes of Chants of the Armenian Orthodox Church: Some Issues of Notation, Performance Practice and Musical Genealogy’, Parrésia, 7 (2013), pp. 485-514. 62   There are notable idiosyncrasies in the Greek transliteration of the words (in the Hübsch­ mann-Meillet system) yareaw, yarut‘eambǝn and yawiteans. These would be pronounced, respectively, as (phonetically) har-yav, ha-ru-tyam-pǝn and ha-vi-dyans. But the Greek transliteration seems to have split the ya (expressed by the ea digraph) into i-a, and the -i- syllable so created is sometimes rather long. It is difficult to know how to write this in Armenian. If one broke down (for instance) yar-eaw into yar-e-aw, the vowel so extracted would be an e and not an i. Finally, we note that the Greek eta has been used as an approximation for the Armenian ǝ.

82

H. UTIDJIAN

­ ritten exemplar (at least at some stage in the transmission process) w rather than taking dictation, since instead of o we have the symbol for ou (in the word iwrov) — similar in appearance but very different in sound; likewise, ts has become te. Mutatis mutandis the transliteration corresponds to: «Քրիստոս յարեաւ ի մեռելոց, մահուամբ ըզմահ կոխեաց. եւ յարութեամբըն իւրով մեզ ըզկեանըս պարգեւեաց. նըմա փա՜ռք յաւիտեանս. ամէն»:63 An English translation of this Armenian version is: ‘Christ is risen from the dead! He trampled down death by death, and by his resurrection granted life unto us. Glory unto him for all ages. Amen.’64 Through-composed and not ekphonetic This setting of the Easter Day Introit is quite unique; no other version of any Armenian Introit in this modality or melodic style is known, either within the preserved oral tradition or in any of the standard, late 19th-century collections, published or unpublished. I have notated, herewith, versions sung by Archbishop Zareh Aznaworean (1947-2004) and Fr. Vazgēn Santruni (1922-2005 – figs 7 and 8, respectively). All known versions are ekphonetic (although this is not always immediately apparent in some conventional transcriptions in Western notation).65 Interestingly, it is another Greek source that demonstrates this fact with c­ onsiderable immediacy — namely, the April 1912 issue of the illustrated ­ musical-philological ­magazine, Εἰκονογραφημένον μουσικοφιλολογικὸν περιοδικόν, edited by 63   I have reproduced the version found in the much-loved Breviary edited by Catholicos-Coadjutor Babgēn of the Great House of Cilicia (1868-1936), in one of its recent reprints, Փոքրիկներու Ժամագիրք (Children’s Breviary) (Antelias, 1987), p. 116, which offers the advantage of explicitly including the shwa ǝ vowels, but is otherwise consistent with the standard Jerusalem Breviary, Ժամագիրք Հայաստանեայց Սուրբ Եկեղեցւոյ (Breviary of the Holy Armenian Church) (Jerusalem, 1955, reprinted numerous times – see, for instance, the Antelias 1969 ed.), p. 433. 64   See Nersoyan, Achbishop Tiran (transl. and ed.), Divine Liturgy of the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church, rev. 5th ed. (London, 1984), p. 155. 65   For the oldest of these see Les chants liturgiques de l’Église arménienne, ed. Bianchini, P. (Venice, 1877), p. 54. Another early transcription, that by Amy Apcar (see Melodies of the Holy Apostolic Church of Armenia, ed. Apcar, A., 2nd enl. ed., parts I–III (Leipzig, 1920), p. 158), shows only the beginning, since the ekphonetic melody was-not considered worth notating; we are unable to find the Introit in the Vałaršapat Breviary (1877) or Missal (1878), no doubt because, as explained in the preface to the former, ekphonetically sung items (‘recited i t‘iw’) were not included, on the grounds that ‘they do not require being musically notated’. See Երգք Ձայնագրեալք ի Ժամագրոց Հայաստանեայց Ս. Եկեղեցւոյ (Notated chants from the Breviary of the Holy Armenian Church) (Vałaršapat, 1877), p. 4. Finally, in the printed, neumatically-notated Breviaries known to me all Introits are lacking in neumes.



BYZANTINE AND ARMENIAN SACRED MUSICAL TRADITIONS

83

Geōrgios D. Pachtikos and published in Greek in Constantinople, Μουσική,66 which includes the selfsame Introit (p. 112) — first in Western notation, in a manner that does not make the freedom of rhythm associated with ekphonetic chant apparent, but then followed by a version in Chrysanthine notation that does (fig. 9).

Fig. 7:  Ekphonetic Introit as sung by Abp. Zareh Aznaworean.

Fig. 8:  Ekphonetic Introit (opening) as sung by Fr. Vazgēn Santruni.

Fig. 9:  Ekphonetic Introit as published by Geōrgios Pachtikos. 66   I thank Prof. Alexander Lingas for his kindness in drawing my attention to this publication and in providing me with a scan from the exemplar at the Bodleian Library.

84

H. UTIDJIAN

Though Introits in the Armenian Liturgy are invariably sung in an ekphonetic manner, I have been able to locate a number of denselyneumated Introits in mediaeval manuscripts of the manrusmunk‘ genre (containing some of the melismatic chants of the Breviary) in Venice (MS 734, anno 1313, ff. 93v-94r; MS 572, anno 1340, ff. 94v-95r), Vienna (MS 183, anno 1340, f. 83r), Berlin (MS 279, anno 1337, ff. 59v60r) and Armenia (Matenadaran MS 755, year unknown, f. 102v), which serves to suggest that the present example may have had antecedents in much earlier practice.67 Triplets The first striking feature from the point of view of current Armenian practice is the preponderance of triplet rhythms, quite deliberately specified in the Chrysanthine notation, by means of the digorgon neume, and with a grace-note between repeated triplet quavers being indicated by the homalon neume. In mainstream Armenian practice, however, one invariably finds a quaver followed by two semiquavers, of which the first repeats the same note as the quaver, and with the acciacatura ‘crushed’ on the first semiquaver. Accordingly, a ‘sanitised’ version would replace the triplets with the above figure. However, triplets are far more prominent in old Armenian sources than those of the 20th century. In Villoteau’s incipits,68 and in the little-known Amy Apcar transcriptions (believed to have captured the New Julfa traditions of the 19th century),69 triplets are 67   A single, partial example in print (albeit in abbreviated form, as the opening words alone are included) is the densely neumated Introit ‘for the Church’ to be found in the editio princeps of the Armenian Euchologion (Amsterdam, 1667), p. 32; for a reproduction of the page see Utidjian, Art of the Armenian Book, p. 59. It is noteworthy that Ełia Tntesean, in an article of 1870 (reproduced in his article collection of 1874 (p. 82) – see n. 51), astutely pointed out that, judging from the density of neumations found in ‘old breviaries’, Introits must have been ‘originally’ (i naxnumn) sung to composed melodies as opposed to being chanted ekphonetically as they were ‘nowadays’. 68  Villoteau, Description de l’Égypte (see n. 4), xiv, p. 351. Unfortunately we have a small number of very brief specimens in Villoteau’s book — he recorded merely the Cantemus incipits of the eight main modes; his transcriptions are believed to have been based on the singing of Armenian church musicians in Cairo. These were underestimated, if not dismissed out of hand, by Armenian musicologists: At‘ayean (op. cit. (see n. 28), English translation, p. 109), went so far as to describe them as ‘erroneous interpretations’, and ‘faulty versions … so distorted that they can be of little significance’. 69   The five volumes edited by A. Apcar are a valuable source of hymns from a nonConstantinople tradition, and though transcribed in Calcutta in the late 19th century, are believed to represent a considerably older tradition, associated with the Armenian



BYZANTINE AND ARMENIAN SACRED MUSICAL TRADITIONS

85

preponderant, if not ubiquitous; and they are also fairly common in Bianchin’s transcriptions. A relevant observation — and partial explanation — may be provided by an early feature of the Limōnčean notational system, which, until the reforms by Limōnčean’s pupil Artistakēs Yovhannisean (1812-1878), had only a partial system for the indication of internal rhythm. Early transcriptions therefore exhibit certain ambiguities (at least from our present standpoint), and it is conceivable that at a later time any latitude or uncertainty in their interpretation may have come to be exploited in a manner that favoured binary rhythms.70 Modality To make the Introit’s modality appear more recognisably consistent with Armenian practice, the transcription of fig. 6 needs to be transposed up a perfect fifth, as we saw. From an Armenian point of view, the Introit may generally be deemed to exhibit elements from the modalities of the ԴՁ (=IVA mode), ԴՁ semi-darjuack‘,71 and ԴՁ darjuack‘ (IVA auxiliary mode).72 In common with ԴՁ hymns,73 which (especially in current practice) evince frequent, momentary detours to the subdominant through the sharpening of C natural into C sharp, we do indeed encounter corresponding sharpened F sharps at the end of each of the first and third lines c­ ommunity in New Julfa. Though some of the musical modes attested therein are strikingly different from the mainstream to the point of being unrecognisable, there is also undeniable common ground. They deserve to be studied fully, and it is a great pity that only a fraction of the hymns in the Armenian Hymnal has been captured in them. The volumes are: Melodies of the Holy Apostolic Church of Armenia, parts I-III (see n. 65); Melodies of the Offices for the Eves of Christmas and Easter (Leipzig, 1908); and ­Melodies of the five Offices in Holy Week, according to the Holy Apostolic Church of Armenia (Leipzig, 1902). I am greatly indebted to Archdeacon Dr George A. Leylegian for his generosity in supplying photocopies of the latter two volumes from his private collection. 70   For a discussion of some features of a primitive version of the notational system, see Utidjian, ‘The Oldest Extant Manuscript Hymnal’ (see n. 14). 71   That is, of the Xorhurd xorin and Aŕak‘eloy aławnoy family. 72   That is, as in hymns of the Nor Siōn type; or if we turn to the Armenian Missal — the Vałaršapat version of K‘ristos patarageal, used also in Komitas’ version of the Divine Liturgy; or else, if we have recourse to the Armenian Breviary, Siōni ordik‘ — the last stanza of the chant Norastełceal (attributed to St Nersēs the Gracious, in office 11661173). 73   See, for example, the standard incipit to ԴՁ Cantemus hymns – such as that preceding the ԴՁ Principal Cantemus (Awag Ōrhnut‘iwn) in the Aznaworean ed. (Ձայնագրեալ Շարական Հայաստանեայց Եկեղեցւոյ (Notated Hymnal of the Armenian Church),Գ. Հատոր –Աւագ Օրհնութիւններ (vol. iii – Principal Canticles) (Antelias, 1985)), p. 61.

86

H. UTIDJIAN

of the Introit in fig. 6 (strongly suggesting that a correction ought to be made, by analogy, at the end of the second line). But in this, the Introit appears also to exhibit a similarity with the ԱՁ darjuack‘ (IA auxiliary mode) processional hymn for the Divine Liturgy of Easter day, Aysōr yareaw — a meslimatic version of the Cantemus hymn (attributed to St Nersēs of Lambron) sung at Nocturns earlier in the day). In general, there is considerable similarity between the ԴՁ and ԱՁ darjuack‘ modes,74 and, intriguingly, a particularly melismatic version of the processional hymn for the Divine Liturgy of Easter Day still in use in Istanbul today itself exhibits an additional source of similarity to ԴՁ.75 Finally, as far as the peppering of F naturals amongst F sharps is concerned (­corresponding to B flats amongst B naturals — albeit slightly lowered — in fig. 6), it is instructive to note that whilst the main ԴՁ mode invariably has F natural above the axis of A, that is not always the case with ԴՁ darjuack‘ hymns.76 74   Interestingly, a certain element of kinship may sometimes be discerned at a neumatic level. Thus, the family of hymns within the ԱՁ darjuack‘ group that includes hymns such as Aysōr yareaw (p. 375 – last syllable of the word զաստըւած) and Tǝnōrinec‘aw (p. 75 – last syllable of the word առաքեալ) on the one hand, and the family within the ԴՁ mode of the type Or zōrenǝs sǝrbut‘ean (p. 174 – last syllable of word ըզքաղցրութիւն) and Aysōr i katarumn (p. 338 – last syllable of word կամաւոր) on the other, both exhibit the combination of the neumes paroyk and t‘ur – where page numbers refer to the Շարական Ձեռաց (Portable Hymnal) (Jerusalem, 1936: reprint Antelias, 1987). 75   I encountered this version during my fieldwork at the Constantinopolitan Church of the Vardanian Saints in Feriköy in 2015. The additional common feature here is an octave leap from low G to high G; it is encountered both in some melismatic ԴՁ hymns (for instance, over the third and fourth syllables of the first word, P‘a-ŕa-ba-na-kic‘ of the processional version of the De caelis hymn P‘aŕabanakic‘ hōr (Petrosean (see n. 59), pp. 268-269), and over the first two syllables of zAs-tǝ-wac in the refrain of the Feriköy processional version of Aysōr yareaw. As for the C sharp and apparent modulation to D generally characteristic of ԴՁ, it may be found over the last syllable of zAs-tǝ-wac in the versions of Aysōr yareaw from Feriköy (see n. 85 below) as well as in the Aznaworean edition. For the latter, see Ձայնագրեալ Շարական Հայաստանեայց Եկեղեցւոյ (Notated Hymnal of the Armenian Church), Բ. հատոր – Աւագ Շաբաթ (vol. ii – Holy Week) (Antelias, 1984), p. 232). A version similar to that currently sung in Feriköy was published by Tntesean in Western notation in his short-lived musical journal Նուագք Հայկականք (Armenian Melodies), 10 (Constantinople, 1880), on the reverse side of the front cover of the (four-page) issue (lacking pagination). 76   Tntesean’s version of the ԴՁ darjuack‘ hymn Nor Siōn (p. 580 of the Tntesean hymnal) uses F natural throughout, whilst Gprslean (p. 9) deploys F sharps. T‘aščean, Ձայնագրեալ Շարական Հոգեւոր Երգոց (Notated Hymnal of sacred chants) (Vałaršapat, 1875), p. 41, deploys the vernaxał symbol of the Limōnčean system without a tilde sign (thus suggesting a note very slightly lower than an F sharp), in conjunction with E flat. For a discussion of the intonational nuances associated with the presence and absence of the tilde sign over symbols of the Limōnčean system, see the monograph, Utidjian, Tntesean and the Music of the Armenian Hymnal, pp. 43-74, esp. the conclusions on p. 70.



BYZANTINE AND ARMENIAN SACRED MUSICAL TRADITIONS

87

Microintervals Transposing the implied key signature up a fifth, we find that the positions of the notes Bou and Zō in the Chrysanthine transcription should be reflected by dint of a slight lowering of the B natural and the F sharp, respectively, in the Armenian equivalent. Whilst this may surprise most modern Armenian practitioners, accustomed as they are to the equallytempered scale and organ accompaniments, there is overwhelming evidence that these very nuances were observed by Armenian church musicians in the 19th century within the Constantinopolitan milieu, and only came to fall into disuse with the onslaught of westernisation. I have argued a multi-pronged case in detail elsewhere,77 strongly suggesting that a slight lowering with respect to a ‘neutral’ note was indeed implied by the very symbols nerk‘naxał and vernaxał of the Limōnčean system in the absence of an added tilde sign (and only upon the addition of a tilde would these notes come roughly to correspond to a ‘neutral’ B natural and F sharp, respectively).78 In brief, there is evidence for this embodied in the Limōnčean notation itself, as deployed by Tntesean in his hymnal,79 accruing both from the internal logic of the system and from the musical context, and supported by comparing particular examples with their counterparts in Western notation in Tntesean’s own booklet of transcriptions in Western notation80 on the one hand and by the characteristics of the earliest known hymn transcriptions in the Limōnčean system on the other. Further indications are provided by various 19thcentury charts comparing Western and ‘Eastern’ (a term at that time still understood to embrace the Armenian tradition) scales as well as exemplifying the kinship between the Armenian oktoechos of the time with Ottoman makâmlar, where intonational nuances appear to have been better preserved than in Armenian practice.81 Finally, my fieldwork ­involving 77   See the monograph, Utidjian, Tntesean and the Music of the Armenian Hymnal, pp. 61-74. 78   See Utidjian, Music of the Armenian Hymnal, pp. 47-70. 79   This is primarily associatied with Tntesean’s selective deployment of Limōnčean’s tilde sign over the vernaxał and nerk‘naxał symbols in hymns of particular families in the Tntesean hymnal, largely mirrored by other redactors also. 80   Տնտեսեան, Ե. Մ., Բովանդակութիւն նուագաց Հայաստանեայցս Ս. Եկեղեցւոյ (The music of the Holy Armenian Church) (Constantinople, 1864), henceforth to be referred to as Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘. 81   Our Introit, viewed as a piece varying along the spectrum between ԴՁ darjuack‘ and ԴՁ, would seem to incorporate elements of segâh as well as ısfahân (not least due to the presence of D, C sharp, D – always subsequent to the upward transposition of a fifth with respect to the transcription of Fig. 6). As far as ԱՁ darjuack‘ is concerned, Armenian

88

H. UTIDJIAN

remnants of the Constantinopolitan and Venetian oral traditions of Armenian sacred music has served to provide recorded evidence. Thus, the Chrysanthine transcription is once again seen to furnish corroborating evidence for aspects of earlier Armenian practice. Tonal instability Irrespective of the precise modes with which we may choose to associate the Introit, it is undeniable that there is a sense of tonal instability. The G, F sharp, G endings of the first three lines of fig. 6 do not really create any stable impression of modulation to the key G, abruptly followed as they are by the notes E, F natural, G in the beginning of the ensuing line.82 This impression is at variance with that arising from the Armenian hymnals currently in wide use, where ԴՁ melodies invariably evince a strong sense of harmonic direction, and consequently readily lend themselves to convincing harmonisation. Yet the sense of tonal meandering of the Introit is largely shared by the ԴՁ examples notated sources usually consider the closest makâm to be either bayati or nişaburek (see Utidjian, Music of the Armenian Hymnal, pp. 62-63). Jacob Olley advises that if the starting point were a B natural (without any slight flattening), the makâm could indeed be deemed to be nişâbûrek, whereas if the opening were indeed to be taken to be a slightly lowered B, a further possible makâm would be uşşâk (taking the C sharp as a passing embellishment rather than an integral part of the mode). However, from an Armenian point of view, the makâm uşşâk is generally associated with ԴԿ, which would take us somewhat further away from the modality of the Introit. A fuller discussion may be found in Utidjian, H., Olley, J., ‘The Armenian Octoechos and the Ottoman Makams’ (forthcoming). It is interesting also to explore perceived equivalences between the Greek oktoechos and Ottoman makâmlar. Chrysanthos does not mention uşşak, neva or ısfahân; and whilst he does mention nişaburek (as nissampour) he does not explicitly associate it with a named echos (see Chrysanthos of Madytos, Θεωρητικὸν Μέγα τῆς Μουσικῆς (Trieste, 1832), pp. 120-121, footnote). Zannos does mention uşşak and neva, but does not assign either to the First Plagal Mode: see Zannos, I., Ichos und Makam: Vergleichende Untersuchungen zum Tonsystem der griechisch-orthodoxen Kirchenmusik und der türkischen Kunstmusik (Bonn, 1994). Perhaps surprisingly, the most helpful source — though somewhat more remote chronologically from the Introit manuscript — is Marmarinos, who does assign both bayati and uşşâk to the Greek First Plagal Mode (see Sources of 18th Century Music: Panayiotis Chalathzoglou and Kyrillos Marmarinos – Comparative Treatises on Secular Music, ed. Popescu-Judetz, E., and Bababi Sirli, A. (Istanbul, 2000), p. 113, and the table on p. 147). I am most grateful to Jacob Olley of the University of Münster and to Dn. Nışan Çalgıcıyan of the Church of the Holy Trinity in Beyoğlu for sharing their expertise on the Ottoman makâmlar, and to Dr Olley for his generous advice on the above sources. 82   Indeed, the effect may owe more to something analogous to Greek elxis than to modulation in any Western sense.



BYZANTINE AND ARMENIAN SACRED MUSICAL TRADITIONS

89

by Villoteau and found in the earliest known collection of hymns in Limōnčean notation, as also in Bianchini’s compilation, Tntesean’s Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ and Amy Apcar’s transcriptions.83 All exhibit a sense of tonal instability and the absence of a sense of ‘linear harmony’. The music works essentially horizontally, without any coherent implied harmonic basis; harmonisation, where attempted (as in the Bianchini and Apcar examples), is apt to be highly problematic. In contrast, versions in current use are more eminently harmonisable. One may speculate that such a change in aesthetic may be attributed to the fact that, from the mid-19th century onwards, Armenian redactors of hymn melodies — including musicians who may themselves have been opposed to harmonisation — were increasingly exposed to Western music, and may, consciously or otherwise, have exercised a process of selection and filtration that served to favour melodies more amenable to harmonisation.84 Liturgical place We have seen that the Introit is compatible with the ԱՁ darjuack‘ Easter Cantemus hymn, Aysōr yareaw i meŕeloc‘ — particularly in its more melismatic versions that are sung as a processional hymn.85 The Introit could thus form part of a musically seamless suite intended to accompany the procession during the Paschal Divine Liturgy. The Introit setting is sufficiently melismatic to allow the possibility of itself being employed during a procession that may be extended once one or more stanzas of the Cantemus of the day have been sung. The present custom of interjecting the jubilant words Kristos yareaw i meŕeloc‘ (Christ is risen from the dead! — the first phrase of the Introit) between successive stanzas of the hymn may in itself bespeak of a tendency to integrate the 83   Although the choice of hymns here is woefully limited, fortunately Apcar does include a version of the hymn for the first day of Pentecost, Aŕak‘eloy aławnoy, in her volume devoted to the Offices of Christmas and Easter Eves (see n. 69), starting on p. 78. 84   See also Utidjian, Treasures of the Earliest Christian Nation, p. 321, and p. 330 (n. 50 therein). 85   A convincing practical demonstration of the fact was provided by the distinguished vocal ensemble, Cappella Romana, in a series of four public concerts directed by myself and by Alexander Lingas, in Eugene, Seattle and Portland, on 17-20 January 2019. In these concerts, the processional hymn (in a Constantinopolitan version I was able to learn in Istanbul on Good Friday (3 April) 2015, at the Church of the Vardanian Saints in Feriköy in Istanbul (see n. 75 above), as it was being taught by Deacon Adruşan Halacyan to his pupils) was immediately followed by the Introit.

90

H. UTIDJIAN

Introit with the processional hymn. Moreover, as the Introit exhibits a strong element of the ԴՁ darjuack‘ mode, it may be even more firmly rooted in such a musical environment should the first stanza of the hymn Hrašap‘aŕ 86 be sung (as is usually the case if the celebrant is a bishop), at the very opening of the Divine Liturgy, during the procession in which the celebrant proceeds to the chancel (only minutes earlier); it is not inconceivable that the Introit could be deployed in conjunction with that hymn also (although this would mean that it would be placed earlier than is usual). In sum, the Chrysanthine transcription of the Introit presented is of value not only for having preserved a unique, through-composed version of the Introit, but also for its exposure of a rich gamut of aspects of performance practice within the Armenian tradition of yesteryear that have long since fallen into abeyance — at least partly through the growing westernisation of musical tastes. Surprising as these may now seem from a perspective of modern mainstream practice, traces of virtually every single one of them can be discerned upon embracing a handful of largely undervalued and obscure older Armenian sources. Our final witness is a remarkable Greek testimony documenting a picturesque manifestation of that westernisation at a more advanced stage, involving Pachtikos’ journal Μουσική already encountered. III. Review in Greek Constantinopolitan Journal by G.D. Pachtikos The ‘Asmatologika’ section of the May 1912 issue of Geōrgios D. Pachtikos’ Μουσική included a review by the editor himself of a very recent concert conducted by Archimandrite Komitas (1869-1935), under the section ‘Music amongst the fellow peoples of [our] country’, and entitled ‘The great concert of the Armenians, given in support of the foundation of an Armenian Conservatoire («δοθεῖσα ὑπὲρ ἱδρύσεως ἀρμενικοῦ Ὠδείου»)’87 — one of Komitas’ many hopes to have remained unrealised. 86   The melody of this hymn (as it may be found in all the standard sources) lies somewhere between the modalities of ԴՁ darjuack‘ and ԴՁ semi-darjuack‘, and, commencing as it does with the figure B, C, D, E, D, C, is uncannily reminiscent of the opening of the Introit. 87   I am once again indebted to Prof. Alexander Lingas for his kindness in drawing this issue of Mousike to my attention, and for providing me with a scan. The article is also



BYZANTINE AND ARMENIAN SACRED MUSICAL TRADITIONS

91

A summary of the contents of the review The Greek reviewer referred to the ‘beautiful and fragrant bouquet of music, flowering from the common [to Greek and Armenian citizens] Ottoman fatherland’. The 200-strong mixed chorus of pupils and their teachers featured sacred as well as secular Armenian music, arranged and harmonised by the «Πανιερώτατος Γκομίδας» [sic]’, who also sang a solo item (and was forced by the audience to contribute a second and a third). The reviewer sought moral justification for such a concert in Basil the Great’s theology, and found the result to be truly moving, worthy of admiration («ὄντως συγκινητικὸν καὶ αξιοθαύμαστον»), grand and dignified («μεγαλοπρεπής»). He further noted that the concert was directed by a clergyman, and attended by many clergy, who visibly shared the sentiments of their spiritual flock; here lay the ‘true picture of national life’ («τὴν ρηθείσαν συναυλίαν οὑ μόνον κληρικὸς διεύθυνεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἱκανοὶ κληρικοὶ ὑπῆρχον μεταξὺ τῶν θεατῶν αὐτῶν, οἱ ὁποίοι συνεμερίζοντο τὰ συναισθήματα τοῦ πνευματικοῦ αὑτῶν ποιμνίου. Ἰδοῦ ἀληθῆς εἰκὸν ἐθνικοῦ βίου»). He rightly found much in common between Armenian and Byzantine church modalities («τὰ ψάλεντα ἄσματα ῆσαν πολυποίκιλα εἰς ρυθμοὺς καὶ ἤχους ὑπενθυμίζοντα ζωηρῶς τοὺς ἐκκλησιαστικοὺς ἡμῶν ἤχους»), and invited ‘those hostile to polyphony’, who claim the impossibility of rendering justice to folk and church music through harmonisation («οἱ … τῆς πολυφωνίας πολέμιοι, οἱ διϊσχυριζόμενοι τὸ ἀδύνατον τῆς ἁρμονικῆς περιβολῆς τῶν δημοτικῶν καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικῶν ἡμῶν ἀσμάτων») to take heed; and praised the ‘progressive tendencies of brother Armenians’ («τὰς προοδεύτικας τάσεις τῶν ἀδελφῶν Ἀρμενίων»). The reviewer finally noted that the distinguished audience included the ‘amiable and dear Master of Ceremonies of the Palace’ («ὁ συμπαθὴς καὶ ἀγαπητὸς Τελετάρχης τῶν Ἀνακτόρων»), Ismaïl Djénany [sic] Bey, a ‘supporter of all musical effort’ («ὑποστηρίκτης πάσης μουσικῆς παρ’ ἡμῖν κινήσεως καὶ προσπαθείας»); and ended his review with praise and admiration for the Archimandrite’s ‘noble’ («εὐγενείς») arrangements and for their execution.88 mentioned, albeit very briefly, in Erol, Greek Orthodox Music in Ottoman Istanbul (see n. 6), p. 144. 88   For my full translation of the Greek article into English with a commentary, the reader is referred to Utidjian, H., ‘G. D. Pachtikos on Archimandrite Komitas’‚ Clavibus unitis, 6 (2017), pp. 1-8; a facsimile of the original article together with an Armenian translation, may be found in Utidjian, H., «‘Ահա՛ ազգային կենաց ճշմարիտ պատկերը’.

92

H. UTIDJIAN

The disposition of the reviewer is interesting for several reasons. It acknowledges similarities between Armenian and Greek modality, but also serves to expose the by now rather divergent attitudes of the respective Churches towards harmonisation (against which prohibitions had been made by encyclicals issued by the Ecumenical Patriarchate89), and is thus suggestive of the ultimately different ways in which the Armenian and Greek Orthodox Churches had reacted to the rapid encroachment of Western musical tastes and practices by this time, perhaps also adumbrating the attendant evolutions in the aesthetics of their respective practitioners in decades to come. Archimandrite Komitas attracted considerable controversy amongst the Armenian church hierarchy by incorporating his arrangements of selected items from the Divine Liturgy on the concert stage in Constantinople at this time. However, the melodies themselves (which he selected and substantially redacted), his arrangements thereof, and the beauty of the performances all served to inspire the greatest enthusiasm amongst Armenians (and others), stimulating and strengthening a sense of national identity, as well as earning accolades within the press and amongst international listeners — in Constantinople, Paris, Alexandria and Tiflis. His harmonisation of sacred music was itself accepted with little resistance;90 Յոյն Օսմանեան երաժշտագէտի մը տպաւորութիւնները Կոմիտաս Վարդապետի Պոլսոյ համերգի մասին» (‘Here lies the true picture of national life’: The impressions of a Greek Ottoman musicologist from Archimandrite Komitas’ concert in Constantinople), Komitas Museum-Institute Yearbook, 3 (2018), pp. 59-80. 89   We note that encyclicals from the Greek Patriarchate dating back to the middle of the 19th century had strictly forbidden the practice of harmonising hymns, and condemned the performances in Greek Orthodox churches in Vienna of harmonised versions. The Encyclical of November 1846 by the Holy Synod stated: ‘This sinful innovation … is a grave mistake and dangerous and will cause greater transgressions and novelties to be introduced. It grieves our heart, as it leads to other unforeseen dangers, especially since it approaches the customs of the foreigners and heterodox…’ To the best of my knowledge, the prohibition remains in force today. 90   Yet about the same time, there were arguments in the Armenian Constantinopolitan press between those favouring traditional (‘Eastern’) and Western (‘modernising’) directions. Furthermore, the first generation of young intellectuals educated in European universities upon returning to Constantinople preferred to hear church music performed in a ‘Western’ manner, considering it more authentically ‘Armenian’. Komitas himself sought to ‘purify’ Armenian sacred music by expunging perceived ‘oriental’ influences. The political climate was one where the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire craved for the aid of their Western co-religionists, and were perhaps disposed to consider themselves artistically and spiritually akin to them. In those circumstances the jettisoning of microtonal intervals and the adoption of the equally-tempered scale seems to have crept in and become the norm. The process became more rapid after the destruction of virtually the entire Anatolian Armenian population, with survivors dispersed in many Western countries (as well as the Middle East). A fuller discussion may be found in Utidjian, Music of the



BYZANTINE AND ARMENIAN SACRED MUSICAL TRADITIONS

93

that battle had already been fought by others before him. Indeed, although there is evidence91 to suggest that the version by the ‘Maestro della Congregazione dei Mechitaristi’, Pietro Bianchini (published, as we saw, in 1877), was used by the Venetian Mekhitarist Congregation for a number of years, outside the insular confines of San Lazzaro the situation was different. When K‘ristap‘or Kara-Murza (1853-1902) performed his own harmonised versions in 1892, opposition within the Holy See of Ēǰmiacin92 led to his expulsion from the seminary staff;93 but he had already inspired Komitas (then a novice at the seminary), and also paved the way for the acceptance of the version by Makar Ekmalian94 (Leipzig, 1896), which was sanctioned by Catholicos Mkrtic‘ Xrimean — who also gave his blessing to the harmonised volumes published by Amy Apcar (transcribed by herself, as we saw, but apparently harmonised by one

Armenian Hymnal, pp. 64-65, esp. n. 125 therein, the ‘epilogue’ section in Utidjian, H., ‘A Brief Survey of Systems of Musical Notation in Armenian Sacred Music’, in Reflections on Armenia and the Christian Orient: Studies in honour of Vrej Nersessian, ed. Esche-Ramshorn, C. (Yerevan, 2017), pp. 261-284, and Utidjian, Treasures of the Earliest Christian Nation, pp. 317-322. 91   I recently discovered in San Lazzaro a manuscript dated 1889 of the choral sections with the verbal underlay in Latin transliteration and with the accompaniment arranged for string orchestra. For further information on the contributions of Pietro Bianchini within the San Lazzaro tradition, see Utidjian, H., ‘Les Pères mékhitaristes vénitiens et la musique sacrée arménienne: Les grandes figures et leur héritage’, ch. 10 in Jubilé de l’Ordre des Pères mékhitaristes – Tricentenaire de la maison mère, l’Abbaye de Saint-Lazare 17172017, ed. Outtier, B., and Yevadian, M.K. (Lyon, 2017), pp. 145-155, and especially Utidjian, Treasures of the Earliest Christian Nation, pp. 263-267 and 318-325. 92   Inter alia, the words of the Hymn of the Kiss of Peace (attributed to St Nersēs the Gracious) from the Divine Liturgy were cited and construed as a prohibition against any departure from singing in unison: Տո՛ւք զօրհնութիւն ի մի բերան – Give praise with a single mouth (= unanimously, with one accord). 93   Kara-Murza’s harmonisation was considered lost until it was discovered, revived and published by Krikor Pidedjian in 2013; see, Քրիստափոր Կարա-Մուրզա (K‘ristap‘or Kara-Murza), ed. Pidedjian, K. (Yerevan, 2013). 94   Ekmalian’s preface refers to the desire for progress and approaching ‘perfection in musical art’ — harmonisation — on condition that the themes be preserved ‘faithfully’, and that the work be undertaken ‘becomingly’, and ‘without chromaticism’. Ekmalian was known as a member of the team that recorded Armenian sacred melodies in the Limōnčean system in the 1870s, so his Armenian credentials were strong; and the volume also displays the seal of approval of a special committee from the St. Petersburg Conservatoire, confirming the quality of the harmonisations. Ekmalian’s version preceded those by his pupil Komitas, who incidentally severely criticised his erstwhile teacher’s version in the press (Արարատ, 3-4 (1898), pp. 111-117; for an excellent English translation see Komitas: Armenian Sacred and Folk Music, transl. Gulbekian, E., ed. Nersessian, the Rev. V.N. (Richmond, 1998), pp. 123-141), for paying insufficient attention to the flexible metre and Armenian modalities in his harmonisations.

94

H. UTIDJIAN

‘Dr Slater’). The acceptance of harmonised versions may also have paved the ground for the use of the organ during the Divine Liturgy.95 Concluding Remarks Given the paucity of information that may be abstracted from extant Armenian documentary sources thereanent, and the tragic historical vicissitudes and well-nigh disappearance of the oral tradition, the investigation of Armenian notation, performance practice and aesthetics from the point of view of the sister Byzantine tradition is seen to serve as a window of sorts, enabling us to peer further into the past. This article is a first attempt to study points of interaction between the Armenian and Byzantine sacred musical traditions on the basis of concrete documentary witnesses. It also behoves us to acknowledge that our analysis of these sources, however illuminating, has served as a salutary reminder that notated chants need to be regarded (in Prof. Troelsgård’s words) more as ‘witnesses to an organic musical culture’, rather than fixed monuments.96 Accordingly, I have endeavoured to adopt a suitably critical approach in their interpretation, striving cautiously to place them in the context of an evolving tradition with a significant and, alas, particularly elusive element of oral transmission — itself informed by a synthesis between East and West.* 95   Lewon Č‘ilinkirean (1862-1932), who himself produced a somewhat errant harmonisation of the chants of the Divine Liturgy (see Utidjian, Art of the Armenian Book, pp. 153-154), was probably the first to attempt the use of the organ during the Divine Liturgy in Constantinople — which provoked an act of sabotage by some monks overnight, who severed the cables to the organ bellows (the episode was personally narrated to me by Č‘ilinkirean’s grandson, the violinist Levon Chilingirian). Yet, though himself a westerniser, Č‘ilinkirean was involved in a public conflict with Komitas in the press — objecting to the latter’s dimissive remarks against Constantinopolitan Armenian church musicians (as being excessively subjected to Turkish influences and insufficiently knowledgeable in the rules of harmony). Č‘ilinkirean particularly angrily reacted in the Constantinopolitan daily Biwzandion, 5397 (9 July 1914) to a eulogy of Komitas penned by the literary critic and writer Aršak Č‘ōpanean (Biwzandion, 5384-5), who had claimed that the Archimandrite had liberated ‘our racial song’ from the ‘Eastern yoke’. 96  Troelsgård, Byzantine neumes (see n. 33 above), p. 7. *   I am indebted to Prof. Christian Troelsgård, Prof. Alexander Lingas, Prof. Abraham Terian, Dr Martina Pičmanová, the Rev. Dr George A. Leylegian, Dr Jacob Olley, Dr Giuseppe Sanfratello, Dr John Michael Boyer, Mr Aris Y. H. Utidjian, Archbishop Prof. Levon Boghos Zekiyan, the Abbots and Mekhitarist Congregations of San Lazzaro and Vienna, the Princeton University Library, and the National Library of Armenia and Director Tigran Zargaryan, for their most generous assistance with the research described above



BYZANTINE AND ARMENIAN SACRED MUSICAL TRADITIONS

95

Abbreviations Used in the Footnotes Hisarlean’s History – Հիսարլեան, Հ. Արիստակէս, Պատմութիւն հայ ձայնագրութեան եւ կենսագրութիւն երաժիշտ ազգայնոց 1768-1909 (History of Armenian musical notation and biographies of Armenian musicians 1768-1909) (Constantinople, 1914). The Tntesean hymnal – Շարական Ձայնագրեալ (Notated Hymnal), աշխ. Եղիա Մ. Տնտեսեան (Istanbul, 1934). Utidjian, Music of the Armenian Hymnal – Utidjian, H., The Music of the Armenian Hymnal: the Tntesean Corpus, doctoral dissertation, Charles University in Prague, 2016. Utidjian, Art of the Armenian Book – Utidjian, H., The Art of the Armenian Book through the Ages: ‘They who Imbibed from the Effusions of the Spirit’ (Červený Kostelec, 2016). Utidjian, Treasures of the Earliest Christian Nation – Utidjian, H., Treasures of the Earliest Christian Nation: Spirituality, Art and Music in Mediaeval Armenian Manuscripts (Prague, 2018). Utidjian, Tntesean and the Music of the Armenian Hymnal – Utidjian, H., Tntesean and the Music of the Armenian Hymnal (Červený Kostelec, 2018).

and for their kindness in facilitating the provision of primary sources. My research was partly supported by Internal Grant VG 180 of the Philosophical Faculty of Charles University (VG 180), and Grant GAUK 1746214 of the Grant Agency of Charles University; I acknowledge my gratitude to either body for this support.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE AND COPTIC MUSIC Magdalena Kuhn

Coptic culture is the Orthodox Christian culture of Egypt and is still practised by Copts in their homeland and by emigrant Copts around the world. Egyptian Christianity has its roots in Antiquity; legend has it that the Apostle Mark introduced Christianity to Alexandria as early as the 1st century AD. It was only much later, however, that the name ‘Copts’ began to be used by the Arabs to designate Egyptian Christians. When the Arabs entered Egypt in 641, they found a native Christian population — the Aigyptioi — along the length of the Nile. To the Arab conquerors, this name sounded like al gubti. The initial meaning of al gubti, there­ fore, was ‘inhabitants of Egypt’, but this later changed to mean ‘Christian inhabitants of Egypt’. The Christian doctrine, brought to Alexandria by the Apostle Mark, was quickly accepted by the Egyptians. Egyptians were used to praying to a main god, the sun god Ra, and did not see the idea of a trinity as strange. Indeed there were several trinities of Egyptian gods. Isis, Osiris and their son Horus, for example, were greatly venerated in the Helle­ nistic period, and Mary and her son could be seen as Isis and Horus. Alexandria was an important Hellenistic city. It was a meeting point between the Orient and the Occident for trade, philosophy, science and religion. Hellenistic and Jewish scholars, as well as Christian philoso­ phers from different traditions, including Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Man­ ichaeism and Gnosticism, met to discuss or even to battle. Clement of Alexandria (ca 125/155-215) was a 2nd-century scholar and one of the first to compile rules for music in Christian rituals. He was highly educated, and his writings can be seen as combining Jewish-Alex­ andrine philosophy and the Platonic tradition.1 Clement himself was very attached to Plato’s ideas on music; the latter had adopted the music the­ ories of Pythagoras, who saw musical intervals as containing the ratio of the universe. Music was one of the seven Hellenistic liberal arts and an indispens­ able part of young people’s education. For Plato, making music was a   Lilla, S.R.C., Clement of Alexandria (Oxford, 1971), p. 226.

1

98

M. KUHN

duty, while the scholar Moutsopoulos described it as ‘la formation du caractère par la musique’ (i.e. the forming of character by music).2 Music was never an exclusively emotional art. Clement did not use music in the same way as Plato and allowed chants only for glorifying God, and not for educating the youth. Like Plato, however, he criticised the vanity of instrumental soloists3 and saw the human voice as the only suitable instrument. Most church leaders in Early Christianity agreed with Clem­ ent. To church fathers in the first five centuries AD, instruments did not belong to faithful Christian rituals because, as Cosgrove noted, they con­ tained ‘animalistic, sexual licentiousness and violence’ and music had to be a ‘harmonic order of the cosmos’.4 Clement was not against every kind of music; instead, his concern was to oppose pagan excesses. Several of the Psalms encouraged believers to praise God by singing and dancing.5 However, the church fathers saw silence as the highest form of venerating God.6 Adding Psalms to rituals was seen as a concession and as a tool for attracting believers to the Christian Church and uniting Christians of all different ages, both male and female.7 This harmony and balance had to be achieved with simple (probably syllabic)8 melodies, performed by ‘human voices only’ (homophone)9 and with the main emphasis on the texts.10 The two state­ ments ‘to sing with one voice’ and ‘human voices only’, as found in the writings of Origen, Athanasius, Basil and many other early Christian authors,11 are probably the early church fathers’ most important pro­ nouncements on music. Clement, on the other hand, was more tolerant than later church fathers in 3rd- and 4th-century Egypt and did not demand a too ascetic life.12 This contrasted with Athanasius (295-373), a 4th-century patriarch, who was much more authoritarian. An ascetic life was important for Athanasius, who was greatly annoyed by people dancing and clapping hands during   Moutsopoulos, E., La musique dans l’œuvre de Platon (Paris, 1959), p. 388.   Lilla, S.R.C., Clement of Alexandria (see n. 1), p. 30. 4   Cosgrove, Ch.H., ‘Clement of Alexandria and Early Christian Music’, Journal of Early Christian Studies, 14 (2006), p. 282. 5   See Psalms 98, 108, 149, 150. 6   Gérold, Th., Les pères de l’église et la musique (Strasbourg, 1931), p. 70. 7   Quasten, J., Musik und Gesang in den Kulturen der heidnischen Antike und christlichen Frühzeit (Münster, Westfalen, 1973), pp. 86-87. 8   Syllabic style: each syllable of text is matched to a single musical note. 9   Homophone: a single melody performed by two or more voices. 10  Quasten, Musik und Gesang (see n. 7), pp. 114-116. 11   Idem, pp. 97-99. 12   Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, iii, 4. 2 3



BYZANTINE EMPIRE AND COPTIC MUSIC

99

church songs.13 The patriarch of Alexandria was the most powerful figure in Egypt between the fourth and sixth centuries. Early Christians in Egypt suffered great persecution during the Roman Empire, particularly under Diocletian (284-305). However, the Edict of Milan of 312/313 and Constantine’s control of the East, including Egypt, totally changed the situation. Constantinople was proclaimed the capital of the Empire in 330, which meant that Alexandria lost its role as the primary city in the Greek-speaking East. Egypt was under the control of the Byzantine Empire from the splitting of the Roman Empire into East and West in 395 until the conquest of Egypt by the Arabs in 641. The Council of Nicea (325) was the last council at which an Alexandrian patriarch, Patriarch Athanasius who tried to create an ascetic Orthodox Church, played an important role in the East-Roman Empire.14 The Alexan­ drian Patriarch Dioscorus completely lost power over the Church of the Byz­ antine Empire at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The Byzantine emperor and leaders of the Byzantine Church were not willing to accept the extreme ‘One-Nature’ Christology of Alexandria,15 while the Egyptian Christians saw the dogma ‘God and Christ in one physis’ as so important that they decided to adopt the miaphysite belief, also referred to as ‘pre-Chalcedonian dogma’, and to leave the Byzantine Church. Since 451, therefore, Coptic Christian rites have had their own language, poetry, icons, saints and music. However, Egypt remained a bilingual country: Egyptians spoke Coptic, while educated people spoke both Greek and Coptic, and Greek was used alongside Coptic in Coptic liturgies and chants. Today the Coptic liturgy is performed in three languages: Coptic, Arabic and a few parts in Greek. The priest decides which language will be used in the main part of the liturgy. Arabic chants are a slightly shorter than Coptic chants, while the Coptic language is more solemn and therefore generally used on feast days. The Coptic language derives from Demotic, the last Old-Egyptian lan­ guage, and has several dialects, the most important of which are SahidicCoptic (used in southern Egypt), Fayyumic- and Bohairic-Coptic (used in northern Egypt). Besides Greek and Arabic, Bohairic-Coptic is still used in Coptic liturgies and chants today. The Coptic language is written using the Greek alphabet, with the addition of seven supplementary let­ ters from the Demotic alphabet.  Gérold, Pères de l’église (see n. 6), p. 52.   Griggs, Ch.W., Early Egyptian Christianity: From its Origins to 451 CE (LeidenNew York-Cologne, 1993), ch. 5. 15   Idem, p. 205. 13

14

100

M. KUHN

Coptic Music The Chalcedon decision had a great impact on Egyptian Christianity’s liturgy and liturgical music. Christian Egypt had never known any secu­ lar court music, secular acclamations or music for processions of emper­ ors. After the conquest of Egypt by the Arabs, every kind of worldly Egyptian music disappeared and assimilated with Arabic secular music. Coptic liturgical music, however, survived. The pre-Chalcedonian dogma resulted in the banning of instruments, as well as in no bourdons, no heterophony (not even incidentally) and, of course, no polyphony in Cop­ tic chants. Members of a choir have to practise intensively to get a perfect homophonic balance in their chants. The only concession made is to allow some rhythmical instruments, such as cymbals and triangles, which were already permitted by certain early church fathers.16 This was because percussion instruments did not play melodies, and using percussion instruments also made it easier to sing ‘with one voice’. Nowadays, these two instruments are no longer used to provide rhythmical support in Coptic music; instead, they are played softly, with many syncopes, and simply add colour to chants, with the size of the cymbals being adapted to the size of the church. The instruments serve as a signal to the congregation to start singing after a long solo chant of the cantor and also give the singers a sense of enthu­ siasm and joy. Rather than being banged together, cymbals are played with a sliding circular movement on the edges. Coptic music is an oral tradition. The oldest Christian documents con­ taining possible music notations are a late-3rd-century Greek hymn found in Oxyrhynchos,17 a manuscript in the John Rylands Library (late 7th9th centuries) presented in a paper in Hernen in 200118 and a hymn pre­ served in Leiden (7th-9th centuries).19 Some scholars also see a possible music notation in the colored points and circles of the highly contro­ versial Gulezyan manuscripts, which have been lost since around 1960

 Gérold, Pères de l’église (see n. 6), p. 188.   Wagner, R., ‘Oxyrhynchos-Notenpapyrus’, Philologus, 79 (1924), p. 201; The Oxyrhyncus Papyri 15, no. 1786, ed. Grenfell, P. and Hunt, A.S. (London, 1922). 18   Papathanasiou, I. and Boukas, N., ‘Early Diastematic Notation in Greek Christian Hymnographic Texts of Coptic Origin: A Reconsideration of the Source Material’, in Palaeobyzantine Notations, iii, ed. Wolfram, G. (Leuven, 2004), pp. 1-25. 19   Pleyte, W. and Boeser, P.A.A., Manuscrit copte du Musée d’Antiquités des Pays-Bas à Leide (Leiden, 1897), pp. 229-232: MS Insinger 41. 16 17



BYZANTINE EMPIRE AND COPTIC MUSIC

101

(5th-7th centuries).20 None of these hymns has yet been able to be tran­ scribed unambiguously, however.21 Nowadays students sometimes use personal notations, which simply serve as an aid to memory and as a kind of modern neumes with points, flashes, numbers, stars and even computer symbols as candles. A great deal of Coptic art and music was also lost during the Arab conquest. It was Pope Cyril IV (1854-1861), the ‘Father of Reform’, who oversaw the renewal of Coptic art, language and music. He instructed a gifted blind musician, Cantor Takla, to travel across Egypt to collect old church songs.22 Takla used these old songs to compile Coptic hymns. In a lecture in 1917, Professor Habib Tawfiq23 explained that these chants were still in use in his time, and this was confirmed by Ragheb Moftah, a musicologist who collected Coptic hymns from 1927 until 2001.24 Although Coptic chants are traditionally performed by men, women are now allowed to participate in church rituals by singing hymns and providing short answers in responsorial chants, but never as professional singers in the two choirs near the altar. The Coptic Church uses three anaphorae: – the liturgy according to St Basil, bishop of Caesarea; – the liturgy according to St Gregory of Nazianzus, bishop of Constan­ tinople (on special feasts); – the liturgy according to St Cyril I, the 24th patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church. Many of the texts of these anaphorae are in Greek because, despite the national character of the Pre-Chalcedonian Church, there was no break with the past with regard to Coptic rituals.25 The psalmodic chants, 20  Robertson, M., ‘Gulezyan Manuscripts: Possible Remnants of Ancient Musical Notation’, in Acts of the 5th International Congress of Coptic Studies, Washington, 12-15 August 1993 (Rome, 1993), pp. 355-367. 21   Kuhn, M., Koptische liturgische Melodien: Die Relation zwischen Text und Musik in der koptischen Psalmodia, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 197 (Leuven, 2011), pp. 23-26. 22   The concept ‘song’ is used as we do not precisely know if cantor Takla collected only chants or also folksongs. 23   Habib Tawfiq, ‘Coptic Church Melodies’, lecture given in Cairo on 30 March 1917 (in Arabic). Document found in the library of the Franciscan Centre of Christian Oriental Studies, Musky, Cairo. 24   Moftah, R. and Roy, M., ‘Cantors, Their Role and Musical Training’, in The Coptic Encyclopedia, ed. Atiya, A.S. (New York, 1991), pp. 1736-1737. 25   Burmester, O.H.E., ‘The Greek Kirugmata, Versicles & Responses and Hymns in the Coptic Liturgy’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 2 (1936), pp. 363-364.

102

M. KUHN

however, are a chanted service of mostly Bohairic-Coptic hymns. These chants are not psalms, but instead long hymns, mainly comprising fourline verses without rhyme. It is a kind of vigil, with the hymns being performed between sunset and sunrise.26 There are two books of psalmodia (with ‘psalmodia’ being both the singular and plural), one for ­everyday rituals and one, the Choiak-psalmodia, for the period leading up to Christmas. The psalmodia-ritual comprises four parts: – four odes or hoos (rather than nine as in Byzantine rituals); – psali: hymns praising Christ and the Mother of God (no psalms); – theotokia: hymns praising the Mother of God (the theotokia hymns comprise the largest section of the psalmodia and are quite different from a Byzantine theotokion); – doxologia: hymns praising the Virgin Mary, the angels and the saints (a doxologia can be acrostic and uses either the Coptic or the Greek alphabet).27 As the Coptic alphabet contains 32 letters, the acrostic hymns in Coptic are longer than those in Greek. In Coptic chants an ‘oktoechos system’ does not exist (the eight-mode system of religious chants) and they are not constructed by scales. Indeed, Abū al-Barakāt mentioned eight aid-to-memory melodies28 in his 1320 encyclopaedia The Light of Darkness, while other scholars, such as Möller, found up to 45 ‘remember melodies’.29 There are special melo­ dies for feast days and two different melodies for weekdays. Melodies performed from Sunday to Tuesday are called laḥn-Adam (melody Adam), while laḥn-Batos (melody Batos) is used from Wednesday to Saturday. These are from the psalmodia and act as an aid to memory. The word ‘laḥn’ has various different meanings, including tone, mode, melody and chant. Today the psalmodia melodies are called: – al-sanawi – al-faraihi – Choiak – al-siyami

daily melody (Adam and Batos); for feasts (weddings, baptisms etc.); period before Christmas; at times of fasting;

 Kuhn, Koptische liturgische Melodien (see n. 21), p. 64-66.   As the concept ‘psalmodia’, the concept ‘doxologia’ is both the singular and the plural in Coptic: idem, p. 73. 28   Abū ‘l Barakāt, see Villecourt, L., ‘Les observances liturgiques et la discipline du jeûne dans l’église copte’, Le Muséon, 36 (1923), pp. 262-264. 29  Möller, G., ‘Eine neue koptische Liederhandschrift’, Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, 39 (1901), pp. 104-113. Möller noted: ‘Erinnerungsmelo­ dien’. 26

27

– al-sha’anini – l-hazajini

BYZANTINE EMPIRE AND COPTIC MUSIC

103

on Palm Sunday and feasts of the Cross; in the week before Easter.

Different Melody Styles Coptic music is homophone, while also acting as a symbol of the unity of human beings in praise of God. Hymns can be performed: – as a ‘responsorial chant’ — a soloist, with short responses by the con­ gregation; – as an ‘antiphonal chant’ — two choirs, two soloists, or a soloist and a choir, alternate singing of the hymns, either verse by verse or two verses by two verses. Liturgical texts can be interpreted in various ways. Although a clear oral tradition dictates which part of a hymn should be sung in syllabic style and which in melismatic style, we do not know who introduced this tradition, or when it was introduced. Hymns can be performed as: 1) Recitative melodies, where liturgical texts are read out by the priest in a ‘recitative’ or ‘spoken’ melody. The recitative style in Coptic music has many ¾ intervals, as in Arabic music, and is rhythmically free. It follows the irregular meters of the words. There can be two or even more syllables between two accents. This contrasts with the regular rhythms of Greek poetry. 2) Syllabic melodies, where each syllable is given on one or sometimes two notes. This kind of melody can be found in simple hymns sung by the congregation. 3) Melismatic melodies, where two or more notes are sung as an orna­ ment on one vowel. The melodies themselves are not very orna­ mented, with generally a short ornament in the middle and at the end of each verse. The rhythm of the melismatic style is free and without accents. Melismas are sung more softly than the principal melody. 4) Vocalises (in Arabic al-hazzāt-vibration): another melismatic mel­ ody, with extremely long vocalises, is very characteristic of Coptic music. A vocalise can last between one and twenty minutes. How long it lasts depends on the day, the occasion and the feast, and espe­ cially on the cantor’s knowledge. The purpose of vocalises is to induce a very deep meditation. In Coptic hymns they have a special form and are not free, unbounded ornaments without structure.

104

M. KUHN

Instead, they are sung with a special musical structure and a metric, pregnant rhythm. The grammatical constructions of the texts are not important. A vocalise has to be placed on a vowel of a certain word, while other words can be bound together. The vowel ‘i’ and ‘e’ in a word usually become ‘ei’, while the vowels ‘a’, ‘o’ or ‘u’ become ‘aw’ or ‘ow’. Unlike in late-Byzantine hymns, there are no Coptic vocalises with teretismata (‘meaningless syllables’).30 Vocalises are composed by musi­ cal formulae and are a kind of repeated patterns. Hymn melodies are mostly heptatonic (i.e. series of seven tones in one-tone or ½-tone inter­ vals). In contrast to Arabic melodies, Coptic hymns generally contain only a few ¾ intervals. The rhythm of Coptic chants is never tripod, but binary (i.e. two of the melody notes — a strong and a weak note — belong together), while the cause of some irregularities in rhythm can be found in the text. There are no major differences in dynamics in Coptic music, with no crescendos or decrescendos, and no echoes or pianissimos. The texts are the most important element of this music. A soloist should not sing louder than the choir, while percussion instruments should never be louder than the singing voice. Two Examples of Coptic Hymns The Coptic Service of the Furnace (Tenen)31 In the Coptic psalmodia, the third ode or hoos is dedicated to the glory of the Three Saintly Children. I would like to present this hoos as an example of the difference between Coptic and Byzantine music. Prof. Alexander Lingas explained this Byzantine service, as docu­ mented in musical manuscripts at Mount Sinai, in an excellent article on the ‘Service of the Furnace’.32 The performances of two canticles (odes 7 and 8) of the Septuagint Book of Daniel 3.26-56 and 57-88 could be 30   Dubowchik, R., ‘Singing with the Angels’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 56 (2002), p. 284. 31   As in Adam- en Batos-hymns, Tenen, the first word of the hymn, is also the title of the hymn. 32   Lingas, A., ‘Late Byzantine Cathedral Liturgy and the Service of the Furnace’, in Approaching the Holy Mountain, Art and Liturgy at St Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai, ed. Gerstel, S.E.J. and Nelson, R.S.  (Turnhout, 2010), pp. 179-230.



BYZANTINE EMPIRE AND COPTIC MUSIC

105

presented in different ways and at different times in the liturgical year, with one possibility being a pseudo-dramatic service with two choirs and three soloists.33 The character of the hymns of the ‘Three Saintly Children’ in Coptic rituals is never pseudo-dramatic. The hymns are performed in a happy, relatively quick tempo and are seen as a delivery out of hopeless situa­ tions. The Coptic third ode or hoos is chanted daily, in three hymns. The first of these canticles contains 40 verses in Bohairic-Coptic and is fol­ lowed by a second hymn, called psali (‘Greek psali for the Three Saintly Children’), with 33 verses in Bohairic-Coptic. Another, short, psali in Bohairic-Coptic follows. On feast days, such as Choiak (Advent) or the Holy Week, a supplementary chant in Greek Tenen (or The song of the Three Saintly Children) is added.34 This is one of the few texts of the psalmodia in Greek. Scholars’ views on this hymn differ. Burmester called the text ‘hopelessly corrupt’,35 while Quecke believed that the chant was probably written primarily in Sahidic-Coptic and later trans­ lated into Bohairic-Coptic and, therefore, in a ‘völlig verballhornten Grie­ chisch’ (a kind of ‘turbo-Greek’).36 MacCoull was much milder and claimed that the text may have been written in a form of Late Greek as pronounced by Copts in ancient times.37 Not only do the texts in the service of the furnace differ between Coptic and Byzantine hymns, but so, too, do the melodies. The Tenen-melody is a vocalise. O Monogenes There are many other hymns in Coptic services in Greek, but they are generally written using the Coptic alphabet. The hymn O Monogenes is a second example of such a chant. The Hungarian musicologist Ilona Borsai conducted extended research into the Byzantine and Coptic hymn O Monogenes38 and stated that O Monogenes was not mentioned in Ibn Saba’s 13th-century Coptic encyclopaedia The Precious Jewel. It is not   Idem, p. 182.  Kuhn, Koptische liturgische Melodien (see n. 21), pp. 358-359. 35   Burmester, ‘The Greek Kirugmata’ (see n. 25), pp. 390-391. 36  Quecke, H., ‘Eine griechische Strophe in koptische Überlieferung’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 32 (1966), p. 265. 37   MacCoull, L.S.B., ‘Lesefrüchte 5, Late Greek Forms in Egyptian Liturgical Texts’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 123 (1998), p. 205. 38   Borsai, I., ‘Le tropaire byzantine ‘O Monogenes’ dans la pratique du chant copte’, Studia Musicologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 14 (1972), pp. 329-354. 33 34

106

M. KUHN

Fig. 1:  Text of the hymn Tenen, page from The Holy Psalmody, Saint Mary and Saint Antonios Coptic Orthodox Church (Ridgewood, NY).



BYZANTINE EMPIRE AND COPTIC MUSIC

107

Fig. 2:  Musical transcription of the hymn Tenen in three different performances, Magdalena Kuhn, Koptische liturgische Melodien (Leuven, 2011), pp. 64-66, table 102.

until a later edition, in 1634, that we find comments about O Monogenes.39 Although the text of this Coptic hymn is the same as in Byzan­ tine rituals, the melody is different. The Coptic hymn is performed during the Good Friday service. Borsai supposed the text probably to have been transposed at a later date onto a much older Coptic melody of an earlier Crucifixion ritual. This hymn seems to have been composed in the 6th century to fill the time during entrances and processions in Byzantine services.40 A melismatic melody is therefore to be expected, while Borsai also found three manuscripts of Byzantine chants with a syllabic melody. The Coptic melody, on the other hand, is a rather long vocalise. The hymn is written in Greek, but using the Coptic alphabet.   Idem, p. 344.   Wellesz, E., A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography (Oxford, 1949), p. 151.

39 40

108

M. KUHN

Fig. 3: Text O Monogenes (I. Borsai, see p. 105, n. 38).

Fig. 4:  Part of the musical transcription of the Coptic hymn O Monogenes, performed by the Father of Coptic hymns, Cantor Mikhail al-Batanouni, Cairo (transcription: M. Kuhn).



BYZANTINE EMPIRE AND COPTIC MUSIC

109

Conclusion Contrary to what some Coptic cantors continue to believe, Coptic music is not an isolated culture as Byzantine rituals have found their way into several aspects of this music culture: – saints’ names such as St Basil, St Cyril, the Saintly Children and many others are venerated by both Churches; – human voices are more important than instruments in both rituals; – texts are more important than melodies; – Byzantine and Coptic chants both use ‘remember melodies’ and for­ mulae (melody types); – Byzantine and Coptic hymns both contain chants in responsorial and antiphonal styles, as well as melodies in recitative, syllabic and melis­ matic styles, while examples of Greek language and hymns can also be found in Coptic rituals. There are also, however, several features specific to Coptic church music: – the Coptic Church has never been a state religion and there is neither secular music nor worldly acclamations in this tradition; – Coptic chants are still primarily an oral tradition — notations are an aid to memory and only useful for people who know the melody; – melodies are strictly monophonic, without any traces of heterophony; – Coptic rituals do not include the system of an oktoechos. Their chants use different melodies for the different feast days and days of the week (Adam-Batos); – Greek texts can be performed with Coptic melodies; – long vocalises are chanted on vowels of the text, with no teretismata; – Copts use their own texts and melodies, even if these are written in Greek; – there are no major differences in dynamics in Coptic music; – Coptic cantors are professional musicians, but do not need a ‘beautiful voice’. Instead, chants have to be performed with a ‘faithful voice’. Today’s revival of Coptic culture is focusing very much on these spe­ cific features of Coptic music. This is a good sign, because Copts are proud of their music and it is their sincere wish for their hymns to attract the attention of the world and to gain a well-deserved place among other Orthodox Christian music cultures such as the Byzantine, Syrian, Geor­ gian, Armenian and Ethiopian traditions.

ON ESTABLISHING THE LIMITS OF THE PROCESS OF ASSIMILATION OF BYZANTINE CHANT IN RUSSIA A QUESTION OF NATIONAL STYLES1 Svetlana Poliakova

Any researcher working on Russian sacred music, whatever the period or subject to be investigated, inevitably considered the Byzantine roots of the object or process in question. Aspects concerning the origins, for example the liturgical context of genre used, or the textological context, come to the fore in the majority of studies; the other aspect, namely that linked to the Byzantine provenance of the style of sacred chant, is discussed only in relation to a limited number of the objects and processes under investigation, that is, less distant from their roots from a chronological point of view. The stability of the connection between Byzantine roots and the object under investigation, which may be found at any point in space or time (even when the connection is not amongst the objects under consideration), may be explained by the continuity of the process of assimilation. The irregularity of the integration of aspects of assimilation in the analysis of objects that are distant in time bears witness to qualitative transformations in this process. In turn, the qualitative transformations suggest divisions in this process into phases. The phases of the assimilation of the Byzantine chant in Russia fit into the millennial path which connects the monophonic tradition of the initial Greek-Slavic-Russian synthesis (the period, the exact kind of Greek tradition, the degree and quality of the mediation of the Southern Slavs, the proportion between oral and written forms of the initial phase of the circulation of the repertoire and a number of other points remain controversial) with the monophonic and polyphonic styles, both anonymous and with attribution, that were considered as national Russian styles.

1   This research was supported by CESEM at the Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, under project UID/EAT/00693/2013, funded by the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal. For the abbreviations often used in the footnotes see p. 147.

112

S. POLIAKOVA

The formation of the phases came about under the effect of the superimposition of the stylistic and functional patterns established and developed within the context of the initial synthesis, and later patterns, including those originating in new layers of foreign influence. Increasing in quantity, the circle of influences reflected a chronological order of change of types of musical thought, gradually moving away from the initial mediaeval type. Moving down from the upper chronological limit, one may see that now time continues to produce new phenomena in the field of Russian ecclesiastical and spiritual singing; their musical language incorporates various stylistic layers coming from different periods of time, but none of them fits entirely into the framework of mediaeval thinking. The departure from mediaeval norms was a long process; its completion in Russian sacred music can be affirmed from the second half of the 17th century onwards and is reflected mainly in the reform of the traditional Russian style of chant — znamenny — which from that moment on was notated in dia­ stematic neumes. The period between the second half of the 17th century and the present time reveals internal divisions which are organized according to principles for which the original context of the assimilation of the Byzantine tradition played only a very small role. The opposite may be affirmed with regard to the period in which the reform delineates the outer limit. This period also shows a number of layers: upon the different phases of the main znamenny chant tradition is superimposed a series of contrasting phenomena, within the monodic repertoires or responsible for the development of the earliest polyphonic styles. In musicological literature this period is usually called the ‘historical period of Old Russian sacred chant’. Within this, various researchers discerned, following different criteria, phases which in many cases differ chronologically. Nevertheless, however much the approaches and results of periodization differ, all of them concern the same question, indepen­ dent of the way it is posed, explicitly or implicitly. It is a question of the appearance during a certain time of styles understood as being national, dissociated from the earlier and current traditions of Greek sacred chant. The rise of the concept of ‘national style’ indicates a change in the type of language of the musical composition. The identification of the starting point and the stylistic nature of phenomena in chant marked by the seal of national self-determination, is the key to understanding the laws relating to both the entire process, and the phases of the process of assimilation of the initial Greek-Slavic-Russian synthesis, and, consequently, to setting any of the phenomena under research in a coherent context.



ON ESTABLISHING THE LIMITS OF THE PROCESS OF ASSIMILATION

113

The role of the elevation of the national styles in the process of assimilation is not yet sufficiently clarified. In addition, the process of the assimilation itself, as a separate context of study of the history of church singing of the Byzantine tradition, which includes elements of Greek, Slavic and Russian chant cultures, requires further development. Systematic study of the subject began in Russia between the second half of the 19th century and the 1920s; by this point the milestones of the process of assimilation had been traced, but still as hypotheses based on a limited number of sources. During the following decades, on account of the political changes in Russia, the study of the liturgical element of Russian sacred art, including its emergence from the Byzantine liturgical tradition, was discouraged; access to sources preserved outside Russia, manuscripts and research into them, became extremely difficult, and the study of assimilation, at its most complex level, became submerged in shadow, giving way in Russian studies to questions of continuity between the oldest Russian stratum and the later layers of Russian tradition. The priority of continuing to study the paths of the development of the initial Greek-Slavic-Russian synthesis passed to research published outside the Russian borders. However, there was no possibility of shedding light on the complete picture of the process of assimilation because of the unavailability to Western scholars of sources and research carried out within Russia. The impossibility of including in research study of the Russian manuscripts which reflect later phases of assimilation slowed the tracing of the complete process until the last decades of the 20th century. From the last quarter of the century onwards the history of Russian sacred music has included a series of investigations whose results have been based on the newly-introduced comparative analysis of old Byzantine sources and numerous Russian sources from all historical periods, which included a vast spectrum of contexts, amongst them those which had not been covered by research undertaken in the Soviet period. As a consequence, significant light was shed on the overall path of the development of Russian sacred music, providing a basis for taking up once more, on a new level, the study of the process of the assimilation of Byzantine chant in Russia, which would shed light on the whole of this process and its phases and reveal its specific rules.2 2   For example, the interest in a multifaceted study of the initial phase of the process of assimilation was reflected in the monograph Алексеева, Г.В., Крыловская, И.И., Чернова, А.В., et al., Комплексное исследование механизмов адаптации византийского искусства в Древней Руси (Vladivostok, 2013).

114

S. POLIAKOVA

The present article traces one aspect of this path, concentrating on the positing and development in musicology of the question of the division into phases of the adiastematic period of Russian sacred music, and the clarification of the role of the emergence of national chant styles in the process of assimilation of the initial Greek-Slavic-Russian synthesis. It was Protopriest Dmitry V. Razumovsky (1818-1889) who founded the systematic study of the tradition of sacred music in Old Russia. His monograph Sacred Chant in Russia3 covered a vast range of topics relating to Russian sacred chant from its beginnings to the time of the ‘New Direction’ (or ‘Moscow School’), his own lifetime. The book contains three sections; the second, in which sacred music up to the introduction of Western-style polyphony is discussed, is preceded by a section which surveys a number of historical and systematic questions concerning the chant of the early Church. The chapter on early Russia is organized in three periods corresponding to the three phases of the relationship between written and spoken forms of the Slavonic language: the period of old true speech, 11th-14th centuries, in which the written version of the neumatic text was in agreement with the spoken version; the period of divergent speech or the period of khomoniya, 15th century – first half of 17th century, in which, following the development of the spoken language, the reduced semivowels were replaced in writing by vowels in accordance with the neumatic sequence, which led to a disagreement between the written and spoken forms of the texts; and the period of new true speech,4 from the second half of the 17th century onwards, in which, arising from a reform, the written and spoken forms were brought into conformity, at the cost of the revision of the melody and its notation.5 Within the chronological limits established by these linguistic criteria, Razumovsky indicates three kinds of chant according to their origins. The first one was called by him ‘Greek chant’, found in two chronological layers. According to the author, the first layer is reflected in the Russian Kondakaria from the end of the 11th century to the beginning of the 14th century. This date marks the disappearance of this kind of book and chant for various reasons, amongst which Razumovsky mentions the   Разумовский, Д.В., Церковное пение в России, 3 vols (Moscow, 1867-1869).  The English terminology was introduced by J. von Gardner: Gardner, Russian Church Singing, i, p. 140. 5   Разумовский, Церковное пение (see n. 3), pp. 58, 64, 78-79. 3 4



ON ESTABLISHING THE LIMITS OF THE PROCESS OF ASSIMILATION

115

s­ tylistic and neumatic complexity of kondakarian chant, the attenuation of the Constantinopolitan Church, the diminution of the number of Greek clergy in Russia, the decline of Russian culture under the Tartar invasion of Russian territory which caused internal military conflicts towards the end of the third decade of the 13th century between the Russian princes and, at the same time, the gradual distancing of the texts for the chanting of the old true speech.6 After two-and-a-half centuries of silence, a new phase of Greek chant began, with influences from the South-West, and which had nothing to do with kondakarian chant.7 This type of Greek chant is contrasted with two others by Razumovsky which he relates to Slavic influence. The term ‘Slavic chant of the Russian Church’ covers two categories in his book. On the one hand there are the repertoires which belong to the system of the Oktoechos, represented by Serbian and Bulgarian chant. Serbian chant, according to Razumovsky, has been mentioned in historical sources from the 15th century onwards and began to be a stable part of the repertoire of Russian chant in the middle of the 17th century.8 As for Bulgarian chant, its place in the Russian repertoire also began to be established in the middle of the 17th century, while Razumovsky traced its roots back to the beginning of Christianity in Russia.9 On the other hand, Razumovsky connects the Slavic type with demest­ venny chant which, he says, is not in accord with the eight-mode system. In affirming this, he mentions the living tradition of the Old Believers in whose chant books — Demestvenniki —, even though the indication of mode may frequently be found in them, mode ‘is not related in any way — overtly or covertly — to the actual melody’. According to Razumovsky, demestvenny chant, which originated from Greek chant, was transmitted to the Slavs, and through them, probably already during the time of Prince Vladimir and the Baptism of Russia in 988, entered into Russian lands, spreading greatly during the time of the Grand Prince Yaroslav the Wise, who governed Kiev in the first half of the 11th century. Razumovsky relates the term ‘demestvenny chant’ to the activity of the ‘domestikos’ or ‘demestvenniki’ (leaders of the church choirs) mentioned in the Russian chronicles between the 12th and 14th centuries, and this kind of chant is defined by him as a paraliturgical chant based on  Idem,  Idem, 8  Idem, 9  Idem, 6 7

pp. 111-113. pp. 113-120. pp. 174-176. pp. 176-179.

116

S. POLIAKOVA

free improvisation on the part of the chanter, highly elaborate and graceful. The practice of demestvenny chant, which hypothetically continued with no interruption after the spread of Christianity in Russia — as happened with Bulgarian chant —, moved to a written phase, according to Razumovsky, in the mid-16th century, maintaining its exclusively monodic character and becoming established initially by means of Znamenny notation and then subsequently Demestvenny notation, whose Russian origins are not accepted by Razumovsky as an established fact.10 To the ‘Slavic’ kinds of chant — Serbian, Bulgarian and demestvenny — Razumovsky counterposes the third type — Greek-Slavic or znamenny chant, whose Greek roots are as clear to him as they were in the case of the ‘Slavic’ chants. Thus, the division into types may seem somewhat insufficiently clear from the terminological point of view. However, this division was valuable as a starting point for the raising of fundamental questions concerning the process of assimilation of the early GreekSlavic synthesis in Russia: for Razumovsky, Slavic and Greek chant, legitimately incorporating the Russian repertoire throughout its history, continued to be perceived as foreign, while at the same time the processes that characterized znamenny chant led to the transformations responsible for the emergence of the fourth type of monodic chant, the last in his chronology, ‘Russian chant’. Razumovsky leads the reader from the beginning through a systematic historical survey of znamenny chant, which remains based on periodization according to the linguistic criterion of khomoniya/true speech. With regard to the period of khomoniya, Razumovsky proposes a division of the corpus of chant manuscripts into five chronological sections, half a century for each, from the first half of the 15th century onwards. At the beginning of khomoniya, the differences from the earlier period are not yet considered as being essential, and apply only to notational details; each subsequent section is marked by an increase in the variability of melody and notation, the lengthening of chants on account of the intrasyllabic filling in of neumes, a gradual transition to the complete form of fragmentary formulas and the increase in their variants, development of theory, including the system of popevki (melodic formulas) and the clarification of pitches in the neumatic notation. To the second half of the 16th century — the time of the establishment of the Russian Patriarchate, with the subsequent increase in the solemnity of the services —, and especially to the 17th century, Razumovsky dates  Idem, pp. 179-186.

10



ON ESTABLISHING THE LIMITS OF THE PROCESS OF ASSIMILATION

117

the emergence of typological variants within znamenny chant, such as znamenny bolshoy (great znamenny), maly (little), putevoy, and the appearance of a great number of ‘new melodies’, originating in various local church traditions, as well as variants which came from the masters of chanting, whose signatures may be found with increasing frequency. In evaluating these innovations, Razumovsky notes that the new melodies do not differ in character, but only in length, ‘modifying in multiple ways the external aspect of the old znamenny chant’, and says that ‘they can tell us nothing about the skill of the masters’ because they retain as their basis the old melody. However, this new legacy built on continuity, from the point at which it was integrated into the reformed practice after the second half of the 12th century, in staff notation (though partial and incomplete), something that was to become an object of socio-cultural interest and study in Razumovsky’s time, is defined by him as ‘truly Russian chant’.11 Twenty years after the publication of Razumovsky’s book, the study by Protopriest Ivan I. Voznesensky (1838-1910) appeared,12 which discussed great and small znamenny chant — two varieties of znamenny that characterized the late phase. Voznesensky’s interests were limited to the Russian monophonic repertoire of 17th- and 18th-century origin, whose study therefore begins, like Razumovsky’s monograph, with a survey of the bases of Eastern Christian chant. In Voznesensky’s analysis, the question of the initial assimilation of Byzantine chant is given further development, even though still hypothetical.13 Consideration of the Greek roots of kondakarian chant and the Greek-Slavic roots of znamenny and demestvenny chant, also considered as paraliturgical, correspond to Razumovsky’s ideas. However, in considering the evolution of Russian sacred chant, Voznesensky is guided principally by musical criteria, discussing periodization in accordance with linguistic principles only when speaking of the differences between published books and manuscripts.14 The border between the first period and the one after is placed in the 14th century, no details being specified concerning this date.15 Amongst the changes he notes is the disappearance of the Kondakaria, a fact of the greatest importance in  Idem, pp. 164-166, 187-189.   Вознесенский, О церковном пении, i. 13   Idem, pp. 204-214. 14   Idem, pp. 215-216. 15   Idem, p. 203. 11 12

118

S. POLIAKOVA

research at the end of the 20th century, as is also the qualitative change in znamenny chant. In his opinion, in the 14th century, the two Byzantine styles — from Bulgaria (for the ‘early stolpovoy chant’) and from Greece (for the ‘early kondakarian chant’) —, which had given Russian sacred chant its initial impulse and continued to influence it throughout the long period of their history, became conjoined into one single znamenny chant.16 Thus, the boundary of the 14th  century is shared by Razumovsky, who ended the period of old true speech here, and Voznesensky, who traced a qualitatively new period of notation and typology of chant books. However, neither author considered this qualitative jump as a break with tradition, recognizing the character of the changes observable between early and late chant as being of little significance.17 In discussing the subsequent process of development of znamenny chant, Voznesensky noted the continuity of notation from the earliest period to the 17th century, and opined that ‘there is no period in which the initial synthesis could have changed’. Also recognizing the end of the 16th century – beginning of the 17th century as a time of flourishing and greater independence in the development of znamenny, reflected in the expansion of innumerable variants of chants established in the books of the younger generations, Voznesensky states that these new experiments are not completely independent because they develop characteristics of the roots of znamenny chant.18 The turn of the 19th century and the first decade of the 20th were marked by a series of studies which continued the ideas of Razumovsky; this was followed by a period of silence in monographs of substance. Protopriest Vasili M. Metallov (1862-1926), in his study ‘Sacred Chant of the Russian Church: The Pre-Mongol Period’,19 published approximately forty years after Razumovsky’s monograph, also places research into sacred chant in Russia in the context of Byzantine chant, to which he dedicates the first of the book’s two parts. Metallov’s discusssion of Byzantine roots is more specific. Agreeing with Razumovsky on the question of the Greek origins of both znamenny and kondakarian chant, he underlines Slavic mediation in both cases and, significantly, considers   Idem, p. 203.   Idem, p. 208. 18   Idem, pp. 211-212, 214, 216. 19   Металлов, Период домонгольский. 16 17



ON ESTABLISHING THE LIMITS OF THE PROCESS OF ASSIMILATION

119

that they originate in two different regional traditions — Greek-Syriac for znamenny and Byzantine-Athonite for kondakarian.20 Demestvenny chant he understands as refined and paraliturgical, but Greek rather than Slavic.21 Establishing the dates for division into periods, Metallov brings to the fore an historical criterion later accepted as the basis for Soviet and postSoviet Russian writings: his study covers the period between the roots and the Tartar invasion.22 At the same time, he considered the division as introduced into Russian musicology by Razumovsky as being a linguistic criterion, linked to the musical criterion. Three periods, outlined by ­Metallov in one of the chapters dedicated to znamenny chant,23 cover the entire course of Russian sacred music: the 12th-13th centuries — the old or pre-Mongol period (old true speech); the 14th-15th centuries — the post-Mongol or khomoniya period of great znamenny chant or the sacred chant of Great Russia, the period of its formation and complete development;24 and the 17th-18th centuries — the chant of Great Russia, the period of the new true speech, of the final phase of great znamenny chant, of the expansion of chant from the Southwest of Little Russia (‘Kievan’, ‘Greek’ and ‘Bulgarian’ chants)25 and the beginning of partes singing. Metallov’s division according to linguistic criteria differs from that of Razumovsky: while Razumovsky traces the period from its beginnings until the end of the 14th century, Metallov begins with that century, and in this respect is closer to Voznesensky’s periodization. As to the question of Russian identity, Metallov affirms the continuity of the tradition but at the same time speaks more categorically of the existence of a properly Russian phase, and includes in it not only the chant of Great Russia of the 17th-18th centuries, like Razumovsky, but all chant after the Mongol invasion;26 the last semiographical aspect  Idem, p. 237.  Idem, pp. 155-156. 22   Invasion of Russian lands in the year 1237; the process of liberation took several centuries. 23   Металлов, Период домонгольский, p. 249. 24   Unfortunately, the plan for a detailed survey of the post-Mongol period between the 15th and 17th centuries mentioned by Metallov on p. 323 of his book was never carried out. 25   Металлов, Период домонгольский, p. 324. 26  ‘... In the post-Mongol period, Russian sacred chant must be recognized as completely Russian (from Great Russia, one of the three Russias), national sacred-traditional, but whose bases nevertheless stem from the roots of the chant of the earlier period.’ See Металлов, Период домонгольский, p. XI. 20 21

120

S. POLIAKOVA

— ‘Russian’ — being considered a consequence of the changes in the 15th century.27 It is interesting to note that the increasing awareness by the researches of emergence of a national style is related to the process of the deepening of analysis of the formulaic nature of znamenny chant. While Razumovsky accentuated the scale in explaining the Russian modes,28 Voznesensky, agreeing with him about the importance of the scales,29 made at the same time a significant contribution to the development of understanding formula as a structural element in various forms of znamenny chants studied by him.30 Metallov, who did not consider the characteristics of the scales, worked out a definition of formula as a key element of the Russian Oktoechos.31 A connection between these two concepts — of scale and formula — appeared in the work of Stepan V. Smolensky (1848-1909), including the theory of the Obikhod scale — the modal system of the forms developed within znamenny chant — which he worked out.32 In the same way, a series of other scientific advances made by him were very highly thought of by his contemporaries and followers. However, one of his positions — his evaluation of the moment when the  Idem, p. 332.   Razumovsky, in his analysis of znamenny melodies, concentrates on the range, finalis and structuring tone: Разумовский, Церковное пение, pp. 121-145. 29  Вознесенский, О церковном пении, i, pp. 107, 112. 30   For example, on formulaic character as a principle of znamenny chant: idem, p. 118. A review of the history of the development of the theory of the Russian modal system was made by Lozovaia: Лозовая, И.Е., ‘О содержании понятий «глас» и «лад» в контексте теории древнерусской монодии’, Актуальные проблемы изучения церковно-певческого искусства: Наука и практика, вып. 6, Гимнология, — Материалы международной научной конференции, 12-16 мая 2009 года (Moscow, 2011), pp. 344-359. 31   The main contribution was made by two monographs by Metallov: Металлов, В.М., Азбука крюкового пения: Опыт систематического руководства к чтению крюковой семиографии песнопений знаменного распева, периода киноварных помет (Moscow, 1899); Осмогласие знаменного роспева: Опыт руководства к изучению осмогласия знаменного роспева по гласовым попевкам (Moscow, 1899). 32   For example, in his comments on the publication of an Azbuka written in the mid17th century by Aleksandr Mezenets, Smolensky, after discussing the principle of the structuring tones, observes: ‘In early times, a chanter’s ear differentiated between the relationships between chants with some certainty. This melodic-structural meaning of the tones is confirmed by the great number of formulas that at times are typical of one tone, at others are more like related times, and yet others indicating a temporary distancing of the chant towards another tone.’ See Смоленский, В.С. Азбука знаменного пения: Извещение о согласнейших пометах старца Александра Мезенца (Kazan, 1888), p. 50. 27

28



ON ESTABLISHING THE LIMITS OF THE PROCESS OF ASSIMILATION

121

Russian art of sacred chant achieved autonomy, made clear in the book On Old Russian chant notations33 — а book reviewing notation of different styles of chant, including kontakarian and znamenny — was the object of severe criticism in publications up to the end of the 20th century. For example, Yury V. Keldysh (1907-1995), sharing Razumovsky’s opinion concerning the Greek roots of Russian chant, countered this opinion with what he considered to be that of Smolensky, in the following terms: ‘the neumatic system of Russian musical notation extant in Old Russia, as well as the actual chants fixed by them are a product of an entirely national folk art, and appeared on Russian soil independently, without the intervention of any external force.’34 However, if we consider the sequence, even if hypothetical, of the historical phases that from Smolensky’s point of view characterized the introduction of the notation of Russian chant, it becomes clear that Keldysh’s interpretation does not correspond to Smolensky’s vision. While not denying the Greek roots of any of the kinds of Russian chant, he supposes that Christianity began to spread through Russian lands much before the government of the rulers Askold, Dir and Olga, before the mid-9th century. At this time, according to him, Greek masters made multiple redactions of Slavic translations together with the most diverse melodic variants of many chants. Later these were ‘put in order’ and completed by Sts Cyrill and Methodius, and, at the moment of the Baptism of Russia, fixed by the version of Russian notation in use at that point. In casting light on a period of more than a century before the period of the introduction of musical notation, Smolensky arrived at a hypothesis which influenced contemporary musicological trends — the hypothesis of the melodic transformation in oral tradition under the influence of traditional folk song.35 After analysing Smolensky’s theory, it would seem consistent to assume that the passage rejected by Keldysh does not affirm a denial of Greek roots, but merely suggests the possibility of a precocious independence of Russian sacred chant: At the end of the 11th century, that is, immediately after the Baptism of Russia, we already possessed the art of sacred chant, with perfectly designed neumes, and well systematized, which had a quite considerable number of

  Смоленский, О древнерусских певческих нотациях.   Келдыш, Древняя Русь, pp. 80-81. 35   Смоленский, О древнерусских певческих нотациях, pp. 26-27. 33 34

122

S. POLIAKOVA

books, and melodies so firm and national in character that they survived until the present day.36

As far as Kondakarian notation is concerned, Smolensky supposed that the principal reason for its disappearance was the insufficiency, in comparison with znamenny chant, of national characteristics.37 With regards to demestvenny chant, Smolensky, who knew well both the way it had been transmitted orally by the Old Believers and the manuscript tradition, was clearly closer to the conclusions reached by researchers from the previous generation. He mentioned only liturgical function of this kind of chant, and considered it to be close to late znamenny on account of the fact that both had a formulaic structure;38 however, he did not claim any correspondence between the two in terms of melodic structure. He also did not directly connect demestvenny and kondakarian chant,39 though he presumed that the kondakarian melodies could have been preserved in the manner of notating znamenny chant in later manusripts.40 Putevoy chant was similarly considered by Smolensky to be related to znamenny, as Razumovsky had done, but, unlike him, Smolensky pointed out the connection of putevoy to polyphony,41 something similarly confirmed by very recent research. In the periodization of znamenny chant, Smolensky also made considerable progress away from the divisions established in the latest research. The beginnings of the division were linguistic, affirmed in the musicological tradition of his time, and the division in accordance with the melodic and graphical stages. He acknowledges the three periods established by Razumovsky, but divides the period of khomoniya in two. In discussing the change to khomoniya, Smolensky formulates an hypothesis on the reform of sacred chant that reached a high point in its main style — znamenny. In his opinion, the reform took place between the end  Idem, p. 20; Келдыш, Древняя Русь, p. 81.   Смоленский, О древнерусских певческих нотациях, p. 27. 38  Idem, pp. 85-86. 39  Idem, p. 85. Recent studies reveal disagreements with regard to this question; a direct connection is affirmed by Pozhidaeva, Пожидаева, Певческие традиции, pp. 48-51 40  Gardner, I., Das Problem des altrussischen demestischen Kirchengesanges und seiner linienlosen Notation, Slavistische Beiträge, 25 (Munich, 1967), p. 122. Smolensky’s supposition was confirmed by Shvetz’s work: Швец, Т.В., Благовещенский Кондакарь – музыкальный памятник Древней Руси, Candidate’s thesis (Saint Petersburg, 2018), pp. 195-196. 41   Смоленский, О древнерусских певческих нотациях, р. 89. 36

37



ON ESTABLISHING THE LIMITS OF THE PROCESS OF ASSIMILATION

123

of the 13th century and the beginning of the 14th century, or a little later;42 the difficulties in establishing exact dates are explained by the fact that documentation on the historical context has not survived. The impact of this reform was assessed by him as being ‘no less important than the reorganization of Russian chant in the 17th century’.43 However, the reform, according to Smolensky, did not destroy the old bases, and was completely integrated into the traditions of Old Russia.44 The first subdivision initiated with the supposed reform (counting from the beginning of the 14th century coincides with the periodization of Voznesensky and Metallov) was continued by Smolensky until the end of the 15th century — the boundary established in a good deal of contemporary research. It is from this moment that the period of the flourishing of znamenny chant begins; he affirms the comprehensibility of musical thought for a modern researcher;45 the reasons indicated by him for the elevation of this art correspond to those given by Razumovsky. While emphasizing the continuity of tradition, Smolensky made comments that led to doubts concerning his recognition of the Byzantine bases of Russian chant; and the same affirmation of continuity served for the accusations made towards his pupil and friend Antonin V. Preobra­ zhensky (1870-1929) of an absolute negation of the national identity of Russian chant. The controversial passage from the latest of the two fundamental publications in this case is given by Nikolai D. Uspensky (1900-1987):46 Our (Russian) art, which came about under the powerful foreign influence of a more elevated culture, over the course of a long history did not develop within itself independent artistic movements which might have led it to its own artistic creation capable of going beyond what was borrowed.47

This point of view, which is indeed negative, in an earlier publication by Preobrazhensky48 is expressed in a way more or less identical to the opinions of Razumovsky and Smolensky. In this, znamenny chant is considered by Preobrazhensky to be an independent chant repertoire ‘already in the first period of its existence’, not limited ‘at all by the norms of   Idem, pp. 31, 43.  Idem, p. 43. 44  Idem, p. 44. 45  Idem, p. 42. 46   Успенский, Древнерусское певческое искусство, p. 19. 47   Преображенский, Культовая музыка, p. 25. 48   Преображенский, Краткий очерк. 42 43

124

S. POLIAKOVA

Byzantine chant, or those of South Slavic chant. Not only do new “Russian” chants appear, but a new semiography, a new system for the art of chanting’.49 It should be said that in later work which contains the conclusion that so irritated Uspensky, the narrative is quite close to that of Smolensky:50 The Russians, together with learning and the rite, completely assimilated the Greek system of chant. Within the context of its later existence in Russia, it was subject to the necessary modifications and, removed from its territory, here took on its own specific form, both in terms of its organization and its melodies.

As for the ‘absence of independent artistic movements’, Preobrazhensky probably intended to put forward the idea of the continuity of the phases of Russian chant and of the dependence of the Russian masters on the canonicity of the art of chant.51 The stages of the evolution of Russian chant are placed by Preobra­ zhensky within divisions organized according to linguistic criteria. The temporal boundaries are delineated in a general rather than an exact way: 10th-14th centuries, 14th -17th centuries, etc.;52 the period of khomoniya is divided by him in two in the same way as Smolensky, though Preobra­ zhensky was guided exclusively by linguistic criteria: the initial form of khomoniya continues until the end of the 15th century and the final phase begins at the beginning of the 16th century; as for the textual changes, Preobrazhensky points to the appearance in the 15th-16th centuries of new types of chant book — the Oktoechos, Trezvony, Prazdniki and Obikhod — which had previously been noted by Voznesensky. In his evaluation of demestvenny chant, Preobrahzensky does not contradict the tradition already established in his time that supposed its ­antiquity and paraliturgical character, and in this he is not in agreement  Idem, p. 3.   Преображенский, Культовая музыка, pp. 6-7. 51   The following quotation from Preobrazhensky coincides with that of Razumovsky, who affirmed that the variants ‘in multiple forms modify the external appearance of znamenny chant’, and yet ‘in no way bear witness to the talent of masters’: ‘... here too, in front of us — this is not the work of a composer-creator, but only that of a cantor-creator who ... takes as his starting-point the given material, combines its elements, develops and varies the melody. Even if from time to time he dares to place by its side something of his own, it is involved in a way that makes it disappear into the background of this model, or, in other words, he creates by imitation.’ See Преображенский, Культовая музыка, p. 18. 52   The periodic limits are presented in a clearer form in the manual written by Preob­ razhensky for the conducting courses at the Royal Chapel and the Conducting School in Saint Petersburg; this is quite close to the ‘Brief Essay’: Преображенский, А.В., Очерк истории церковного пения в России (Saint Petersburg, 1910). 49 50



ON ESTABLISHING THE LIMITS OF THE PROCESS OF ASSIMILATION

125

with Smolensky; he points out the use of Znamenny notation in the oldest examples of demestvenny chant, and affirms the introduction, in the next stage, of the Kazan’ notation introduced by Russian masters.53 The 1920s represent a watershed in Russian mediaeval studies, separating the pre-revolutionary tradition of research from the later Soviet and post-Soviet periods. The next generation of multi-contextual researchers, both in Russia and abroad, began to emerge in the second half of the 20th century, accompanied by research into specific details, which, in one form or another has continued. As for questions of periodization in multi-contextual monographs, the linguistic criterion, though it continues to be recognized as a parameter of the greatest importance for the evolution of znamenny chant, no longer has the most important role. Instead, in books by Uspensky, Keldysh and Tatiana F. Vladyshevskaya,54 the historical aspect is emphasized. In these, questions of sacred and secular chant, including traditional music, are discussed. These surveys cover the period from the introduction of Christianity into Russia to the 17th century, in the cases of Uspensky and Keldysh, and to the 18th-19th centuries in the case of Vladyshevskaya. Between the first period and the period of the reform of Patriarch Nikon two boundaries are traced by them, as was the case with the stu­ dies of the first generation.55 Keldysh’s periodization in general terms corresponds to that of Voznesensky, Metallov and Preobrazhensky (11th13th centuries — period of the formation of musical culture in Old Rus’; 14th-16th century — the time of the emergence of the centralized Russian state; 17th century — the century of rupture). Uspensky and Vladyshevskaya distinguish, respectively, the middle of the 12th century56 and the beginning of the 12th57 as the dividing line between Kievan Rus’ and the feudal period, whose processes have much to do with the Tartar invasion which was the starting point for Metallov’s periodization. Vladishevskaya, after Metallov, begins the following period in the middle of the 14th century, as well as the process of the   Преображенский, Краткий очерк, pp. 9-10; Культовая музыка, pp. 22-24.   From a number of monographs, for the present study I selected the earliest, which presents the author’s ideas in a complete fashion: Владышевская, Музыкальная культура. 55   Владышевская, Музыкальная культура, pp. 3-4; Успенский, Древнерусское певческое искусство, p. 216, Келдыш, Древняя Русь, p. 383. 56   Успенский, Древнерусское певческое искусство, p. 55. 57   Владышевская, Музыкальная культура, p. 39. 53 54

126

S. POLIAKOVA

formation of the centralized state;58 this period begins according to Uspensky in the first half of the 16th century when Muscovite Rus is already an established state.59 In considering the reasons for the change in musical styles, Ivan A. Gardner (1898-1984)60 disagreed with Uspensky’s historical criteria, arguing that questions of a political character would not have been decisive in the development of the sacred arts, since the Church was still undivided.61 In his periodization, based on the manuscript tradition, the first period characterized by the presence of manuscripts is called the ‘period of kondakarian chant’ (between the end of the 11th century and the end of the 13th century), which is followed by the period of znamenny (between the beginning of the 14th century and the beginning of the 16th century) which continues to the early polyphonic period. When we come to the periodizations of the first and second generations, we find an internal division of the periods: while the musicologists of the first generation divided the period of khomoniya (Razumovsky into five sections, Voznesensky, Smolensky and Preobrazhensky in two), those of the second, Uspensky and Vladyshevskaya, divide the first period into two halves. The 12th century, considered in the latter cases as a dividing line within the first period, coincides with the periodizations of the first generation, for example, Razumovsky, who constructed his periodization from the end of the 11th century, the time of the oldest manuscripts. In later studies, the status of research into the processes which determined the period before the appearance of the latest surviving manuscripts was changed. While the authors of the first generation reconstructed earlier processes hypothetically, later scholars moved from an hypothetical explanation of the earliest processes to one based on research, including a vast range of studies in the fields of history, literature and the arts, and including those dealing with the question of mutual influences between the areas of professional and folk music. Their conception of the earliest period continues Smolensky’s idea concerning the impact of traditional music at the beginning of the Greek-Slavic-Russian synthesis, as well as the progress made by Smolensky and Metallov in the definition of orality as the background against which the complex of  Idem, p. 73.   Успенский, Древнерусское певческое искусство, p. 123. 60  Gardner, Russian Church Singing, i; vol. ii, History from the Origins to the MidSeventeenth century, appeared in 2000. 61  Gardner, Russian Church Singing, i, p. 141. 58 59



ON ESTABLISHING THE LIMITS OF THE PROCESS OF ASSIMILATION

127

formulas of the Russian eight-mode system developed. Consequently, as the gradual confirmation of the introduction of the folk element in the oral process of melodic transformation occurred, discussion of the Russian eight-mode system once again began to include parameters of scale. From the mid-20th century, the study of Russian modal theory would proceed through parallel methods from the fields of folk and sacred music;62 the priority of the study of modes from the point of view of formula in the last decades of the 20th century gave way to the study of modes understood as the ‘structure of the scale’, ‘the functional system of the supporting tones’, ...‘the standardized means of developing modal melos and the characteristic types of coupling of melodic formulas’.63 As regards detailed monographs of the second generation, Uspensky, though with greater care in comparison with Smolensky, shared his formulation of the early nation formation of Russian sacred chant. According to him, coming into Russia together with Christianity, far before the official Baptism, liturgical chant had already moved in three directions in Kievan Rus’, depending on social level: the pro-Byzantine, represented by the higher clergy and the aristocracy of Kiev, that of the people who refused to follow the Byzantine models, and the mid-level, ‘literate people’ of various social strata, who accepted texts and the principles of composition, notation and the Oktoechos system. It was in these circumstances that there took place the transformation of the material provided from abroad by means of a synthesis with the language of modal intonation of traditional folk song. In this way, in the 12th-15th centuries (the feudal period), the art of chanting in a national language was developed, based on the Oktoechos system with transformed intonation, which freed itself from Byzantine influences at the end of the 16th century.64 It should 62   For example, in the work of V.M. Belyaev; a survey of his career was carried out by Yu.N. Kholopov: Холопов, Ю.Н., ‘В.М. Беляев–ученый’, in Виктор Михайлович Беляев, 1888-1968: Статьи, интервью, письма советских и зарубежных музыкантов (Moscow, 1990), pp. 386-394; Kholopov also discusses questions of mode in the related areas of sacred chant and folk music: Холопов, Ю.Н., ‘К проблеме лада в русском теоретическом музыкознании (1998)’, in Гармония: Проблемы науки и методики, ii (Rostov-on-Don, 2005). 63   Лозовая, И.Е., ‘Глас в византийском и древнерусском пении’, in Православная Энциклопедия, xi (Moscow, 2011), pp. 551-559; in the article by Lozovaya cited above, ‘On the Contents of the Definitions of “Echos and Mode” ’, the principal problems and stages of research of various aspects of the modality of sacred monody in Old Russia are discussed: Лозовая, ‘«глас и лад»’ (see n. 30). 64   Успенский, Древнерусское певческое искусство, pp. 7-8, 60; in Uspensky’s opinion, the freedom of the renewal of intonation was more clearly evident in contrafact chanting: idem, p. 54.

128

S. POLIAKOVA

be noted that his considerations of modal characteristics include both the parameters of scale and formula. In analysing the processes of development of the Russian modal system in examples of znamenny chant — the opening intonation and the sticheron theotokion (dogmatik) of the vesperal Lord, I have cried and in examples of folk songs,65 Uspensky arrives at the conclusion that they were created orally on the basis of the vocabulary of Russian melodic intonation.66 Vladyshevskaya bases her view of the development of Russian sacred chant on the synthesizing of two concepts: on the one hand, the examination of the early processes of assimilation as the transplantation of Byzantine chant,67 and on the other, the affirmation of the importance of the collision between folksong and the assimilated roots in the process of transformation.68 Continuing Uspensky’s idea of social differentiation in the initial adoption of Byzantine chant, she singles out, firstly, refined chant, under direct Byzantine influence, practiced in the great centres, and, secondly, chant whose roots are also, without doubt, Greek, but which, in being apparent in the basic forms of chant, adjusted the Byzantine element to the character of Russian chant in local conditions. The connection between sacred and folk chant is found by Vladishevskaya in a number of compositional principles, including the principle of formula, developed under conditions of orality; however, she indicates some incompatibilities in the melos of the formulas of sacred and folk chant.69 Like Uspensky, Vladyshevskaya affirms ‘the disappearance of purely Byzantine forms of chant and the emergence of new chants from the middle of the 15th century, which led to the flourishing of Russian chant in the 16th century’.70 Like Uspensky and Vladyshevskaya, Keldysh recognizes the influence of folksong on sacred chant from the beginning of the process of assimilating Byzantine chant,71 but as a hypothesis, considering, as did   Idem, pp. 60-96.   Idem, pp. 54, 57-60. 67   Владышевская, Музыкальная культура, p. 22; Келдыш, Древняя Русь, p. 82. The term ‘transplantation’ understood as a synonym for assimilation and transformation of Byzantine culture on Russian soil was introduced by D.S. Likhachev: Лихачев, Д.С., Развитие русской литературы X-XVII веков (Leningrad, 1973), p. 22. 68   Владышевская, Музыкальная культура, pp. 27-28. 69  Idem, pp. 28-29: ‘All old Russian chants have their origins in intoned forms of solemn reading of various kinds. This layer, which was subject to Byzantine influence in only a minor way, is exclusively related to folk tradition ... A word proclaimed by intonation determines the musical classification of all the genres of the art of singing in early Russia’ ... ‘Intoned reading represents a proto-genre.’ 70  Idem, p. 28. 71   Келдыш, Древняя Русь, p. 39. 65 66



ON ESTABLISHING THE LIMITS OF THE PROCESS OF ASSIMILATION

129

Razumovsky,72 that the study of the processes of the formation of sacred Russian chant should be carried out from the period when the oldest manuscripts appeared — that is, from the end of the 11th century.73 Commenting on this, Keldysh quotes the supposition of Hoeg of the inevitable transformation of Russian melodies from the very earliest period74 and considers the possibility of the fixing of the chant by Russian masters in 11th-century manuscripts of the melodic variants, and their intonation, worked out within the practical context of orality of the preceding period.75 The finalization of the translation takes place according to him in the 15th-16th centuries at the time of the flourishing of znamenny chant, freed from the ‘direct proximity of Byzantine models’ and visible in ‘independent forms, profoundly original, stamped with brilliant national singularity’.76 Thus, all three authors affirm the fact of the transition of Russian sacred chant during the course of the process of the assimilation of the initial Greek-Slavic-Russian synthesis to a new quality — that of a national art, related to this new stage of znamenny chant. Znamenny chant as the main stylistic field of transformation had already been discussed by Razumovsky. His study established a differentiating approach to the styles of znamenny chant, whose melodies were divided into three groups — great, abbreviated and lesser — in accor­ dance with the extension of the melody and the level of the relevant liturgical celebration.77 His classification was taken as a basis by Voznesensky, who developed this theory by giving particular attention to the generic nature of chants and by relating the three main chant types to the types of books in which they were found: ‘extended’ in the Prazdniki book (he notes the complexity of the melodic procedure of this type, with a preference for even-numbered tones and the inclusion of melodic sections inexistent in the second type); ‘medium’ or ‘common’ bolshoy, in the Sunday Oktoechos book, and ‘lesser’ znamenny in the idiomela and prosomoia for the ferial occasions of the Oktoechos (in this group,  Idem, p. 80.  Idem, p. 42. 74  Idem, pp. 95-96; Høeg, C., ‘Ein Buch altrussischer Kirchengesänge’, Zeitschrift fur slavische Philologie, 25 (1956), pp. 261-284, on p. 250. 75   Келдыш, Древняя Русь, p. 101. 76  Idem, p. 130. 77   Разумовский, Церковное пение, pp. 99-100; similar terminology was used by Gardner, who distinguished between great chant (bolshoy), middle chant and lesser chant (maly): Gardner, Russian Church Singing, p. 103. 72 73

130

S. POLIAKOVA

dated by him to the end of the 16th century, he distinguishes, on the one hand, brief melodies resulting from the reduction of the second type, and on the other, independent melodies which represent modifications of the root of versions of bolshoy chant; the second chant type was considered by Voznesenky being older than the third type).78 The continuation of the development of the stylistic differentiation of znamenny chant may be seen in Vladyshevskaya’s monograph. She distinguishes four types; the processes of transformation occur within them at different times. Her terminology differs in part from that of Voznesensky. According to Vladyshevskaya, the first two — stolpovoy and great znamenny — are characterized by their definition and transmission in written form, and are based on the principle of the combination and variation of melodic formulas. Stolpovoy — a neumatic chant with melismatic incrustations — is old; it appeared in all chant books and underwent a great transformation in the 15th century. Bolshoy znamenny — the most extended and solemn type — was created by Russian masters in the 16th century – beginning of the 17th century.79 It was created under the influence of the lyrical folk song which emerged in the 15th-16th centuries.80 The basis of the other two kinds of syllabic chants (themselves related), which are less numerous and more conservative, and which are part of both daily and festal services — maly and old znamenny — is built on the principle of strophic composition, common to the repertoire of the folk song.81 Contrafact chanting of old znamenny has been retained almost intact from the 11th century onwards82 — this supposition is made on the basis of a comparative analysis of the chant books, examples of folk song and those of oral transmission of the liturgical tradition of the Old Believers, including examples of varied intonation of liturgical recitative. According to Vladyshevskaya, ‘the basis of the art of chanting in Old Russia’ is found in the ‘word pronounced in   Вознесенский, О церковном пении, i, pp. 89-90.   Владышевская, Музыкальная культура, p. 136. 80  Idem, p. 76. 81   Questions concerning the correspondence between traditional and professional chant were examined on the basis of poglasitsy (formulas) in sermons, and of byliny (traditional epic songs) by Vladyshevskaya: Владышевская, Т.Ф., ‘К вопросу о роли византийских и национальных русских элементов в процессе возникновения русского церковного пения’, in IX Международный съезд славистов (Киев, 1983): Proceedings (Moscow, 1983), pр. 35-37. 82   Владышевская, Музыкальная культура, p. 50, 136. 78 79



ON ESTABLISHING THE LIMITS OF THE PROCESS OF ASSIMILATION

131

a sung way’... ‘the classification of genres comes out of melodized reading’.83 Strophic structures may include formulas. The delimitation of the styles of znamenny chant led to the differentiated study of genres of chants and their evolution which may be seen in the research into the particular parameters of Russian chant published from the beginning of the 1990s onwards, firstly from the Sticherarion and the Heirmologion. It was established that the predominance of the Russian Heirmologion of the syllabic kind of melos, the restricted use of melisma, a certain limitation in its formulaic content and number of models, as well as a greater dependency on oral practice of contrafact — the characteristics of the Greek Heirmologion inherited at the time of the implantation of the initial synthesis — were retained in this generic type in a more conservative manner in comparison with the Sticherarion, during the entire course of its evolution.84 As regards the Sticherarion, the evolutionary processes of some of its generic groups are related to the path of the development of the Heirmologion. For example, the idiomela of the Triodion between the 12th century and the end of the 17th century retain the neumatic style, with episodic inclusion of melismatic elements, not showing any great inclination towards the tendencies associated with the emergence of national styles, such as great znamenny, including local versions and by named authors.85 Another example of a generic group of Sticheraria showing standard characteristics of normative znamenny stolpovoy language is found in the stichera of the resurrectional Oktoechos. As for the generic groups which developed melismatic forms in the 16th and 17th centuries — including the stichera of the twelve great feasts,

83   Владышевская, ‘К вопросу о роли’ (see n. 81), p. 4. A similar idea was expressed by Pozhidayeva: Пожидаева, Г.А., Певческие традиции, р. 9, and Zakhar’ina: Захарьина, Abstract, р. 16. 84   For example, Hannick writes: ‘While the Sticherarion, as melismatic chant, in Russia soon acquired its own characteristics, the Heirmologion is distinguished by a greater dependence on the Byzantine original’: Ханник, Кр., ‘Развитие знаменной нотации в Русском Ирмологии до XVII века’, in Музыкальная культура средневековья, i (Moscow, 1990), pp. 141-149. M. Shkolnik, in a comparative study of Byzantine and early Russian monody on the basis of the Heirmologion, also observed continuity in the 16th-17th centuries of the Byzantine and Slavic prototypes (12th century – 1st half of the 15th century) in spite of the transformation affirmed by her from the middle of the 15th century: Школьник, Проблемы реконструкции. Lozovaya also speaks of the continuity and the uncritical character of the evolution of the Heirmologion: Лозовая, ‘Знаменный распев’, pp. 285-297. 85   Грузинцева, Стихиры-самогласны, pр. 16-17.

132

S. POLIAKOVA

some of the stichera for Russian saints and the stichera eothina86 — great znamenny was already recognized as a new qualitative stage by Razumovsky. Recent decades show important advances with regard to the establishing of chronological boundaries, specification of the nature, the subdivisions and the kind of transformation of great znamenny chant, especially in the dissertation by Tyurina.87 In repertoire of this kind, what does and does not correspond to the Oktoechos was shown by her to have two layers — old and late. The stichera eothina and exapostilaria represent the older layer; between the 12th and 17th centuries they underwent a series of graphical redactions which show a tendency to greater exactitude; the melodic version of the 12th century was recognized as a direct ancestor of the chants that between the 16th and 17th centuries came to be defined in the manuscripts as ‘great znamenny’;88 no change in terms of quality during the course of the process of assimilation is seen to have taken place. Shvetz came to similar conclusions regarding the common nature of the textual and melodic structures of the melismatic chants in the Russian Kontakarion of the beginning of the 13th century and in some examples of one Russian znamenny manuscript of the 16th century.89 However, a new kind of melody is apparent in the late layer of the znamenny chant; Tyurina has detected them in megalynaria, stichera theotokia, theotokia aposticha and festal stichera, reflecting the general tendency towards the multiplicity of chants within the context of the flourishing of Russian sacred chant. The new versions were created by Russian masters in the 17th century on the basis of their stolpovoy znamenny antecedents; the compositional principle of centonization, as well as the formulaic content of the new versions follow the ‘stylistic model’ 86   This group of chants was studied, for example, by Brazhnikov: Бражников, М.В., Феодор Крестьянин: Стихиры — Публикация, расшифровка и исследование, Памятники русского музыкального искусства, 3 (Moscow, 1974); by Kravchenko: Кравченко, С.П., Фиты знаменного роспева (на материале певческой книги «Праздники»), Candidate’s thesis (Leningrad, 1981); by Seregina, N.S., Песнопения русским святым: По материалам рукописной певческой книги «Стихирарь месячный» (Saint Petersburg, 1994). 87   Тюрина, Большой роспев, pр. 9-10. 88   Idem, pp. 26. 89   Швец, Благовещенский Кондакарь (see n. 40), pp. 174-175; material for this analysis was provided by the versions of Psalm 135 in eight tones, which were found in Blagoveshсhensky Kontakarion RNB Q.п.I.32 (here Kondakarian notation alternates with Znamenny notation) and the Anthology of the 2nd half of the 16th century RNB Q. I.184 (the Znamenny notation of the common and the experimental types).



ON ESTABLISHING THE LIMITS OF THE PROCESS OF ASSIMILATION

133

of stichera eothina and the whole general corpus of formulas of znamenny chant. Nevertheless, the freedom in the treatment of the material and, though rarely, rhythmic deviations, traditional formulas and melodic construction allow Tyurina to assert the independent creativity of the masters of the 17th century.90 The development of a new melodic version which did not have pre­ cedents in an older archetype, but whose musical language corresponded to the tradition of stolpovoy znamenny, was established by Tyurina also in relation to the syllabic-neumatic versions of the stichera eothina; the confirmation that these maly versions were made after the great versions confirms the opinion of Voznesensky.91 From the point of view of peri­ odization, the new bolshoy and maly melodic versions of znamenny appeared, according to Tyurina, during the last period of bolshoy znamenny chant, begun in the 1780s, and were based on a process established in the last quarter of the 15th century. The new melismatic style of znamenny reached its peak in parallel with two other melismatic styles — putevoy and demestvenny chant,92 intended to be used during the most solemn liturgical moments. These styles have as many characteristics in common as differences. In terms of the complexity of the texts they set and the number of them used in a given service, the three melismatic styles form an hierarchical order: great znamenny, putevoy, demestvenny.93 Opinion concerning the two latter has changed significantly during the course of a century-and-a-half of research, moving from a group of contrasting and even foreign styles to the group of Russian styles of the period of flowering, close in terms of intonation and composition. Putevoy and demestvenny chant were the objects of constant attention throughout the 19th century, and were included already in Razumovsky’s systematic study. According to him, putevoy was one of the new chant   Idem, p. 31.   Idem, pр. 9-10. 92   Amongst the studies dedicated to these styles: Богомолова, М.В., Путевой роспев и его место в древнерусском певческом искусстве, Candidate’s thesis (Moscow, 1983); Богомолова, М.В., Знаменная монодия и безлинейное многоголосие (на примере великой панихиды), 2 vols (Moscow, 2005); Шиндин Б.А., Ефимова И.Е., Демественный роспев: Монодия и многоголосие (Novosibirsk, 1991); Пожидаева, Г.А., Пространные распевы Древней Руси XI-XVII вв. (Moscow, 1999); Кондрашкова, Строчное многоголосие. 93   Богомолова, ‘Демественное пение’, pp. 367-370; Кондрашкова, Cтрочное многоголосие, p. 17. 90 91

134

S. POLIAKOVA

styles that appeared in the second half of the 16th century, originating in znamenny.94 Demestvenny was not considered to be a Russian chant since, in his opinion, it came from the Greeks and arrived in Russia via the Southern Slavs in the early period; in the second half of the 16th century this refined and initially paraliturgical chant, which did not fit within the Oktoechos, entered a new phase, being introduced as a liturgical chant95 in manuscripts by means of Znamenny notation, and then actual Demestvenny notation; he does not mention the Russian origins of this latter notation. Voznesensky shared this view. Metallov, Smolensky and Preobrazhensky, while they share this vision of putevoy chant, do not agree on demestvenny chant. Metallov claims Byzantine roots both for kondakarian chant and the later demestvenny, contrasting them with the Greek-Syrian chant which contributed to bolshoy and maly znamenny chant.96 Preobrazhensky consciously avoids explaining the origins of demestvo given the lack of primary sources, and considers both demestvo and put’ to be related to znamenny. As regards notation, he speaks of three independent types — Demestvenny notation, of unknown origin, Putevoy notation, different, and Kazan’ notation, invented by the singers of the court of Ivan the Terrible.97 Smolensky was the first to suggest that these three notational names correspond to a single notation used for the writing of polyphonic compositions based on putevoy and demestvenny chants. He also pointed out the proximity of these polyphonic styles to traditional heterophonic singing.98 Gardner agrees with Preobrazhensky on the question of notation; he suggests the existence of demestvenny chant since at least the 14th century; and he affirms the monodic character of the initial written forms of demestvo and put’. Uspensky’s contribution consists, in the first place, of the development of the theory of the influence of folk song on demestvenny, making a connection with its relative, znamenny. In the second place, in substantiating the affinity between znamenny and demestvenny, he arrived at an important conclusion concerning the biphasic character of the initial Greek-Slavic-Russian synthesis: the attempt to renew the complex of   Разумовский, Церковное пение, pp. 164-165.  Idem, p. 183. 96   Металлов, Период домонгольский, pp. 155-156. 97   Преображенский, Краткий очерк, pр. 7-10. 98   According to Kondrashkova: Кондрашкова, Троестрочие, р. 5. 94 95



ON ESTABLISHING THE LIMITS OF THE PROCESS OF ASSIMILATION

135

intonations of znamenny chant as already standardized in the 15th century, which led the Russian masters to create demestvenny chant, considered by Uspensky to be a replica, on a new qualitative level, of the process of the consolidation of znamenny chant in the 12th century.99 The vision of demestvo and put’ as initially monodic traditions, held by the majority of scholars of the first generation and shared by Uspensky and, later, Gardner, as well as the typology of the earliest forms of Russian polyphony, worked out by Uspensky, have been superseded by specific research into the monodic and polyphonic forms of demestvo and put’ in the last three decades. Concerning the question of roots and foreign influence, Metallov’s idea regarding the possible connection between kondakarian and demest­ venny chant continues to be expressed by several authors.100 Amongst the arguments for this are: the reference to St Romanos, the cantor of kontakia, in the title of one of the early books (beginning of the 17th century) gathering together demestvenny chant — the ‘Demestvennik’;101 the existence of parts of kontakia both in the Kondakarion and the Demestvennik; a high degree of melisma with the inclusion of interrupted words and repeated syllables, which is not typical of znamenny chant — features which gave rise to the suspicion of another kind of Byzantine influence, kalophonic chant.102 However, these hypotheses do not negate the fact, recently confirmed, of the development of putevoy and demestvenny chant by Russian masters in the сourse of the same processes that led to the transformation of stolpovoy znamenny chant103. It is thought that both types, putevoy and   Успенский, Древнерусское певческое искусство, р. 146.   Gardner does not reject this idea: ‘Could it be that the kind of chant that the author of the chronicle, in describing the supposed death of Dimitry Krasny, called “Demestvo” was the same kind of chant that Razumovksy defined as “Kondakarian”?’: Гарднер, Богослужебное пение, р. 381; the influence of kondakarian chant on putevoy, demestvenny and great znamenny is affirmed in the work of Pozhidaeva, for example: Пожидаева, Певческие традиции, p. 13. 101   Богомолова, М.В., ‘Демественник’, in Православная Энциклопедия, xiv (Moscow, 2012), pp. 364-367. 102   Богомолова, ‘Демественное пение’, pp. 367-370; Лозовая, И.Е., ‘Византийские прототипы древнерусской певческой терминологии’, in Келдышевский сборник: Музыкально-исторические чтения памяти Ю.В. Келдыша, 1997 (Moscow, 1999), pp. 69-70; Пожидаева, ‘О значении’, pр. 23-24. 103   For exemple, Кондрашкова, Cтрочное многоголосие, pp. 8, 101; Lozovaya notes the coincidence of the stages of development of put’ and demestvo: Лозовая, И.Е., Шевчук, Е.Ю., ‘История русского церковного пения’, Православная энциклопедия (Moscow, 2009), accessed in: http://krotov.info/lib_sec/12_l/loz/ovaya.htm 99

100

136

S. POLIAKOVA

demestvenny, originated in the period between the 15th and 16th centuries.104 A radical revision of the definitions established in the 19th and early 20th centuries concerns the nature of putevoy and demestvenny chant which in research from the end of the 20th century, began to be considered as originally included in polyphonic repertoire (troestrochie, three lines, including putevoy and demestvo, in four parts, demestvnenny); in relation to the way in which putevoy was written, which seemed to researchers of the first generation to be monodic, it was suggested that, in the initial phase, the scores included only the part called, in troestrochie, ‘put’’, the polyphonic texture being left to the memory of the other chanters.105 Another clarification was made concerning Kazan’ notation, invented in the 1770s, on the basis of Stolpovoy Znamenny notation, thus called in memory of the conquest by the Tartars of the city of Kazan’ by the troops of Ivan the Terrible. It was established that the various names in circulation both in the manuscript tradition and in musicological literature referred to exactly the same notation, displaying only certain original details for melodic particularities. In the recently developed typology of old Russian polyphony, the term ‘Kazanskaya’ refers to polyphonic versions of putevoy and demestvenny chant, while the notation of monodic versions is called, respectively, ‘Putevaya’ and ‘Demestvennaya’.106 Demestvenny and troestrochie polyphonic chants107 share a number of characteristics:108 their linear nature, their dissonant polyphonic style,109 their notation, the principles of the evolution of the notation of their   The beginnings of demestvo date from the 1470s: Богомолова, ‘Демественное пение’; Пожидаева, ‘О значении’, р. 22; putevoi chant was found in manuscript tradition from the last quarter of the 15th century (Кондрашкова, Троестрочие, р. 13) and probably circulated initially in oral form (Кондрашкова, Cтрочное многоголосие, pр. 17, 12). 105   Пожидаева, Г.А., Певческие традиции, р. 333; Кондрашкова, Cтрочное многоголосие, pр. 13, 7-8. 106   Богомолова, Знаменная монодия (see n. 92), ii, p. 157; Кондрашкова, Cтрочное многоголосие, p. 12; Gardner indicates that this assertion was made by Bel­ yaev and he disagrees: Гарднер, Богослужебное пение, p. 454, Беляев, В., Древнерусская музыкальная письменность (Moscow, 1962), р. 55. 107   The final confirmation of the differentiation between troestrochie and demestvenny polyphonic styles occurred at the beginning of the 1990s, through the work of Bogomilova, see Кондрашкова, Троестрочие, p. 6. 108   Кондрашкова, Cтрочное многоголосие, pp. 9-16. 109   The acceptance of the dissonant nature of both polyphonic styles, as acknowledged by musicologists today occurred gradually; concerning this, see Кондрашкова, Троестрочие, pp. 5-6. 104



ON ESTABLISHING THE LIMITS OF THE PROCESS OF ASSIMILATION

137

polyphonic versions,110 the possible inclusions of both polyphonic types in a single manuscript, or even in the same chant, but they nevertheless also show several differences, the main one being the relation to the Oktoechos. As Razumovsky pointed out, demestvenny does not correspond to the Oktoechos, even when it bears an indication of tone.111 The way in which demestvenny formulas were set down — uncodified, which is not typical for znamenny chant until the 15th century — may also be found in the latter from the creation during the first half of the 16th century of the repertoire of the Obikhod.112 Monodic putevoy chant, as well as troestrochie which includes it, though some examples in the Obikhod do not belong to the Oktoechal system, is in general an octomodal chant system: its formulas have analogues in znamenny chant, and these are noted in a codified fashion. Putevoy may be considered as a ‘reading’ of stolpovoy znamenny in the same way as the latter is related to great znamenny. The Oktoechos system also extends to polyphonic troestrochie chant, based on monophonic putevoy; these kinds of polyphonic formula, may circulate in both codified and uncodified ways.113 Over the course of its development, troe­ strochie shows characteristics similar to those of the late phase of great znamenny, such as the repetition of structural units.114 A further difference between troestrochie and demestvenny polyphony may be found in the existence in the former of ‘mutations’ which move all three voices a tone higher or lower.115 Thus, research into the monophonic and polyphonic forms of putevoy and demestvenny chant confirms their emergence on Russian territory on the basis of the compositional and modal principles of stolpovoy znamenny chant, developed during the process of the transformation of the initial Greek-Slavic-Russian synthesis. The relationship of putevoy and demestvenny with stolpovoy znamenny chant corresponds to the relationship of the latter with great znamenny. The starting point for the three melismatic styles was moved to the end of the 15th century, confirming the change in dating of the periods of the process of assimilation. 110  Regarding troestrochie, four stages of its notation in manuscripts have been discovered. See idem, pp. 12-66. 111   Шиндин, Ефимова, Демественный роспев (see n. 92), p. 123; Богомолова, ‘Демественное пение’; Кондрашкова, Cтрочное многоголосие, p. 16. 112   Богомолова, ‘Демественное пение’. 113   Кондрашкова, Cтрочное многоголосие, pp. 16, 101-102. 114  Idem, p. 426. 115   Кондрашкова, Троестрочие, р. 10.

138

S. POLIAKOVA

As mentioned above, this date was arrived at by the first generation of researchers: Razumovsky placed the 15th century as the date of a new period in sacred chant — that of khomoniya, noting the insignificant changes in the first half of the century, progressively increasing during each half-century from the second half onwards; Metallov affirmed the national Russian character of chant at the beginning of the 15th century; Smolensky began with the end of the 15th century as the second subdivision of the period of khomoniya. Wide-ranging research by the next generation led to the following conclusions: for Uspensky the 15th century represented the chronological upper limit of the period of the establishment of the Oktoechos transformed, the Russian Oktoechos; Keldysh has the 15th century as the period of the freeing of znamenny chant from obvious proximity to Byzantine examples; Vladyshevskaya specifies the middle of the 15th century; Gardner indicates the last quarter if the 15th century as the beginning of the significant changes in Stolpovoy Znamenny notation.116 More narrowly-focused research since the end of the 1980s places the new period as beginning in the second half of the 15th century;117 this date may be adjusted to the last third,118 the last quarter,119 or the turn of the 15th to the 16th century.120 The first half of the century is considered a transitional period, confirming Razumovsky’s periodization. It is at this time that the tradition of theoretical manuals of znamenny chant — the Azbuki — begins. A codex from this period, written, in Gusseynova’s opinion, at the beginning of the 15th century or even at the end of the 14th century, is categorized by her as a ‘preliminary redaction’,121 which testifies to the partial substitution of the neumatic content of the notation. The emergence in the transitional period of melodic versions with the new script, which would be used in later codices only in a partial form, is accompanied by the instability of the   Гарднер, Богослужебное пение, p. 360.   Грузинцева, Стихиры-самогласны, р. 16; Шабалин, Д., Певческие азбуки Древней Руси: Публикация, перевод, предисловие и комментарии (Kemerovo, 1991), р. 213; Школьник, Проблемы реконструкции, р. 3; Тутолмина, С.Н., Русские певческие Триоди древнейшей традиции, Candidate’s thesis, abstract (Saint Petersburg, 2004). 118   Лозовая, ‘Знаменный распев’. 119   Тюрина, Большой роспев, р. 8. 120   Кондрашкова, Cтрочное многоголосие, р. 7. 121   Gusseynova dates MS РНБ. Кир.-Бел. № 9/1086 to the end of the 14th century or beginning of the 15th: Гуссейнова, З.М., Русские музыкальные азбуки 15-16 веков (Saint Petersburg, 2003), pр. 47-48. 116 117



ON ESTABLISHING THE LIMITS OF THE PROCESS OF ASSIMILATION

139

content of chant books, including the Oktoechos, which, in the opinion of some scholars, began to be formed in this period.122 After the instability of the period of transition, studies in the area of all generic groups indicate, in the new period, the settling of the renewed neumatic system, the stabilization of the melodies, standardization of the formulas,123 the introduction into chanting practice of new kinds of books, which begin from this point to follow the liturgical order; throughout the period there occur new qualitative transformations and new subdivisions appear, whose chronological limits differ from one generic group to another, and between research carried out in different decades. The reasons for and the level of awareness of the process of renovation and stabilization of the musical language of znamenny chant at the end of the 15th century do not find an homogeneous explanation amongst those researchers who raised the question; in general, the problem still awaits deeper research.124 The majority of researchers agree in evaluating the process of the end of the 15th century as evolutional with a clearly contrasting result. In some research the intentional character of the transformation is rejected.125 Other research underlines the categorical character of the renovation, in various cased defining it with the word ‘reform’; however, there is no suggestion of a source for the intentionality (a person or an institution), or even the possibility of its existence.126 As a synonym for the term ‘reform’, ‘stylistic break’ is frequently used127.   Захарьина, Abstract, p. 12.   Школьник, Проблемы реконструкции, р. 274; Грузинцева, Стихирысамогласны, р. 16; Серегина, Песнопения русским святым (see n. 86), p. 17; Тюрина, Большой роспев, р. 8. 124   Zakhar’ina comments that ‘on this important barrier in the history of early Russian music which is mentioned in practical every historical study, unfortunately, there is practically no detailed research with the exception of the article by Е.V. Filippova’: Филиппова, Е., ‘К вопросу об изменении певческой практики в Русской Церкви в период богослужебной реформы XIV–XV вв.’, Ежегодная 16-я богословская конференция ПСТГУ: Материалы, ii (ПСТГУ, 2006), pр. 5-17; Захарьина, Abstract, pр. 12-13. 125   Гарднер, Богослужебное пение, р. 365; Келдыш, Древняя Русь, p. 141. Later Gardner inclines, however, to the idea that the reform of Stolpovoy Znamenny notation took place between the mid-15th century and the mid-16th: Гарднер, Богослужебное пение, p. 373. 126   For example, Гусейнова, З.М., ‘Древнерусская крюковая нотация XV века: Преобразования и новации’, Вестник ЮУрГУ. Серия «Социально-гуманитарные науки», 15, 3 (2015), pр. 84-90. 127  According to Zakhar’ina, the term comes from Karastoyanov: Захарьина, Аbstract, р. 12; it is used by Гусейнова, ‘Нотация XV века’; Парфентьева, Н.В., Творчество мастеров древнерусского певческого искусства XVI—XVII вв. (на примере произведений выдающихся распевщиков) (Cheliabinsk, 1997), р. 18. 122

123

140

S. POLIAKOVA

The beginnings of the view of this period as an intentional reform are found in Smolensky.128 As mentioned above, he distinguished two subdivisions of the period of khomoniya; the second subdivision, which we might call, in accordance with later research, that of the ‘stylistic break’, began, according to him, at the end of the 15th century, and from this moment Smolensky and all the others date the establishment of a continuous tradition up to the reforms of the 17th century. The earlier chro­ nological boundary, which corresponds to the beginning of the renewal indicated by current research, was placed by Smolensky, though hypothetically, at the turn of the 13th to the 14th century, and he considered it, by analogy with the reform in the 17th century, an intentional act of reform revealed in the notation. Smolensky’s hypothesis concerning the reform as the source of the melodic and notational changes was supported by a number of researchers, but less categorically, and also with no attribution as to the source.129 The surest indicator of reform was found in the consideration of the intentional nature of the appearance of the Azbuki.130 The time of the reform suggested by Smolensky is separated from the moment of the appearance of the theoretical manuels by a period of about one hundred years, during which most researchers noted a sharp decrease in the notated manuscripts against the background of a growing number of song books without notation.131 Velimirović, in considering the reasons for the interruption in ­znamenny manuscripts, does not contemplate the hypothesis of a reform, and inclines to the conclusion shared by various other scholars, that given the weakened connections between Byzantium and Russia in the

  Смоленский, О древнерусских певческих нотациях, р. 43.   For example, Пожидаева, ‘О значении’, р. 23. Velimirović wrote of the lack of studies on this question: ‘Russian scholars have maintained that some kind of notational and melodic change took place in the 14th and 15th centuries, but the nature of the change has yet to be established.’: Velimirović, M., ‘Russian and Slavonic Church Music’, Grove Music Online, ed. Macy, L. (Accessed 2 January 2008), http://www. grovemusic.com. 130   Гарднер, Богослужебное пение, р. 375; Lozovaya writes: ‘… the addition of neumes to a large corpus of texts that previously did not have notation, the changes and the high level of variation in chants that before had been relatively stable graphically, appearing at the same time as the Azbuki: all this bears witness to a purposeful activity on the part of the singing masters in the question of revising and correcting znamenny chant.’ See Лозовая, ‘Знаменный распев’. 131   Успенский, Древнерусское певческое искусство, р. 123; Келдыш, Древняя Русь, pр. 119-120, 131; Владышевская, Музыкальная культура, р. 73. 128

129



ON ESTABLISHING THE LIMITS OF THE PROCESS OF ASSIMILATION

141

14th century, there took place, orally, a change in the melodic intonation of znamenny chant.132 Gardner, having also referred on various occasions to a gradual integration of national elements into znamenny chant, also does not connect the transformation with the interruption in the production of znamenny manuscripts. However, he established an important regularity in the connection, on the one hand, between the transformation of znamenny chant and the disappearance of the kondakarian tradition on account of the latter having become unfamiliar and, on the other, between the end of kondakarian chant and the initiatives of the ecclesiastical authorities in 1274 under the direction of Metropolitan Cyril. Gardner says that the authorities undertook the reforms, which, in his opinion, could not but have been reflected in chant; the disappearance of kondakarian chant, which was not easily incorporated into the expansion of the new, NeoSabaitic, church rules,133 he sees as one of the consequences of the reforms. It is probable that it had been these reforms which Smolensky had assumed to have taken place, without having substantiated this assumption. In research from the last decade, the idea of the interruption in the production of notated books as a consequence of a reform of the liturgical books has been supported by the most recent study of the tradition of Russian chant books undertaken by Nina B. Zakhar’ina. According to her, the reform, which could have happened in the 1270s and be connected to the activity of Metropolitan Cyril, decreed the writing of texts without notation or in partially notated form.134 As part of this reform she also includes the changes in the corpus of liturgical books, such as the introduction of the Izborny Oktoechos, which replaced the Kondakarion.135 It is interesting to note that the next attempt at the correction of liturgical books is considered by Zakhar’ina, who proposes as a cyclical periodization of the revisions of Russian repertoires of chant with a fre132   Velimirović assumes: ‘… it seems likely that, in an environment dominated by a process of oral transmission, the singers may have introduced variants that contributed to the total separation of Russian tradition from its Byzantine roots.’ See Velimirović, ‘Russian and Slavonic Church Music’ (see n. 129). 133   Гарднер, Богослужебное пение, рp. 317-322. 134   Захарьина, Русские певческие книги, р. 119. 135   Zakhar’ina supports the idea of the functional substitutability of these two books, previously asserted by Artamonova: Захарьина, Русские певческие книги, р. 120; Артамонова, Ю.В., Песнопения-модели в древнерусском певческом искусстве XI– XVIII веков, Candidate’s thesis (Moscow, 1998), р. 23.

142

S. POLIAKOVA

quency of two centuries, to be from the 1460s-80s. To this revision, Zakhar’ina connects the so-called ‘stylistic break’, which she sees as the objective of the Church’s initiative in general.136 The dates for the two revisions as proposed by Zakhar’ina correspond to the dates proposed by Smolensky. The reforms as seen by Smolensky, and later related by Gardner and Zakhar’ina to the Council of 1274, correspond to the initial phase of the spread in Russia of the spiritual, liturgical and literary tendencies linked to the new ‘Neo-Sabaitic’ rule. The gradually-formed ecclesiastical rule came to include the Byzantine liturgy in the 11th century,137 and in the second half of the 13th century became omnipresent in Constantinople and on Mount Athos, the Greek and Slavic monastic capital,138 where, in the 14th century, Serbian and Bulgarian monks made the first translations into Slavonic of the Typikon and the complete set of liturgical books. In the second half of the 14th century, the process of the substitution of the liturgical rule in Russia began: at the end of the 1360s the first copy of the Typikon in Slavonic was made for the Chudov Monastery in Moscow. A little later, in 1382, Moscow was sacked and burned by the Tartars. This disaster, according to Gardner, halted the progress of the innovations and was responsible for the destruction of a huge quantity of books that had been copied up to that point and later brought to the capital from various regions of the country.139 However, the fire in Moscow did not prove to be a turning-back in the history of liturgy in Russia. After the defeat of the Tartars, at the turn of the 14th to the 15th century, in the capital, which began to be rebuilt quickly, on the initiative of Metropolitan Cyprian, a new translation into Slavonic was made of the Neo-Sabaitic Typikon and the set of liturgical books. Alexei M. Pentkovsky defines the processes in whose context the activity of Metropolitans Alexei and Cyprian, responsible for the first Russian versions of the New-Sabaitic rule, took place, as the second of three liturgical reforms in Russia.140 From this moment on, the liturgical traditions stabilized until the reforms of the middle of the 17th century.

  Захарьина, Русские певческие книги, pр. 120-121.   Пентковский, А.М., ‘Ктиторские типиконы и богослужебные синаксари евергетидской группы’, Богословские труды, 38 (2003), pp. 327-329. 138   Пентковский, ‘Литургические реформы’, р. 73. 139   On this, see Мошин, ‘О периодизации’, pр. 105-106. 140   Пентковский, ‘Литургические реформы’, р. 74. 136

137



ON ESTABLISHING THE LIMITS OF THE PROCESS OF ASSIMILATION

143

The fact of the change of ecclesiastical rule appeared in much research carried out since the 1990s as a criterion for the periodization of the repertoires of Russian chant. However, musicological research does not normally elucidate the historical-liturgical context in which the changes in ecclesiastical rule took place.141 It was Gardner who, in discussing the reforming character of the change of Typikon, extended it to include music. A phenomenon that runs in parallel with the change of ecclesiastical rule but which, however, in musicological research is rarely connected with questions of periodization, is that of the chant books showing the so-called ‘second South-Slavic influence’.142 The theological-literary aspects that influenced the development of Russian chant arose, according to V.A. Moshin, in the Slavic monastic communities of Mount Athos, being the consequence of the spread through Byzantium, the Balkans and Mount Athos of the idea of hesychasm, which accompanied the implementation of the new ecclesiastical rule. For a number of political, religious and cultural reasons, RussianSouth Slavic connections reached a new level in the 13th-14th centuries. At the same time, contacts between Russia, Constantinople and Mount Athos were revived. As a result, in the last quarter of the 14th century, the new Athonite-Slavic style came to Russia, bringing with it SouthSlavic text reflecting the new semi-uncial Cyrillic script and the new, archaizing, orthography, which were the model for Russian writing in the 15th century.143 An important role in the implantation in Russia of the new literary style and the corresponding liturgical and theological aspects was played by Cyprian, Metropolitan of Moscow, probably of Bulgarian origin. While resident in Russia, he maintained close connections with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Bulgarian Patriarch Euthymius, the initiator of the orthographical reform in Bulgaria. The transformations in 141   For example, Тутолмина, Русские певческие Триоди (see n. 117); Заболотная, Н.В., Церковно-певческие рукописи Древней Руси XI-XIV веков: Oсновные типы книг в историко-функциональном аспекте (Moscow, 2001); Лозовая, И.Е., Древнерусский нотированный параклит XII века: Византийские источники и типология древнерусских списков (Moscow, 2009), pр. 5-6, 70. 142   Соболевский, А.И., Южно-славянское влияние на русскую письменность в 14-15 веках (Saint Petersburg, 1894), pp. 11-14; Мошин, ‘О периодизации’, pр. 97-106; Полежаева, А.Е., ‘Второе южнославянское влияние в русской агиографии: Становление стиля «плетение словес»’, Вестник МГЛУ, 4 (637) (2012), pр. 117-127. 143   Мошин, ‘О периодизации’, р. 103.

144

S. POLIAKOVA

Russian literary style that took place between the mid-14th century and the mid-15th century were already understood as a reform when studies on the subject began; the historical context of this reform still lacks a detailed description.144 The first and most complete survey of the South-Slavic influence on the Russian chant repertoire belongs, once again, to Gardner. In particular, he discussed the impact of the new, extended rhetorical style on the changes in znamenny chant, which is apparent in manuscripts from the 15th century onwards in the form of the melodic filling-in of syllables and the enrichment of the vocabulary of melismatic formulas of the litso and theta types.145 Understanding of the second wave of South-Slavic influence as the context for the melodic-textual changes and their establishment in liturgical books returned in research of the 21st century.146 Zakhar’ina147 placed the renewal of the set of liturgical books — something already mentioned by Voznesensky — in the context of phenomena connected with the reform. The series of initiatives which characterize the revision of the chant books at the end of the 15th century, outlined by her, is the most complete amongst those to be found in current research. It includes alterations in the repertoire of chants caused by the change in ecclesiastical rule, the introduction of khomoniya which, as was proved in the 1990s, only affected the writing of the text and did not introduce melodic changes,148 alterations in the neumatic vocabulary and consequently in the notation of the hymns, and the preparation of a new set of books which included the new versions and altered the structure of the old versions. These affirmations appear, in more or less complex fashion, in later research by a number of scholars who recognize the intentional, reforming character of the transformations at the end of the 15th century.

  Idem, p. 103.   Гарднер, Богослужебное пение, р. 374. 146   For example, Lozovaya connects this influence to the introduction at the beginning of the 15th century of the Oktoechos as representative of the Greek and South-Slavic Paraklitiki, and also to the borrowing of terminology and methodology from theoretical treatises: Лозовая, Шевчук, ‘История русского церковного пения’ (see n. 103). 147   Захарьина, Русские певческие книги, pр. 123-127. 148   Успенский, Б.А., ‘К вопросу о хомовом пении’, in Музыкальная культура Средневековья: Тезисы и доклады конференций, ii (Moscow, 1992), р. 145. 144 145



ON ESTABLISHING THE LIMITS OF THE PROCESS OF ASSIMILATION

145

In concluding this survey of the question of the assimilation of Byzantine chant in Russia, I emphasize the following points: – The study of phenomena linked to Russian chant of the so-called Old Russian period extends from the period between the introduction of Christian liturgy into Russia and the reforms of the 17th century which modernized Russian musical thought. – With regards to the starting point, everyone accepts the facts of Greek roots, a Slavic intermission and the Russian transformational initiative; under discussion are the questions of the proportions between these three components, the time of their integration and the evaluation of the way in which the information was transmitted. – The upper chronological limit — the 17th century — is the most studied but even so shows disagreements. Thus, some of the chant styles which characterize the 17th century are defined as ‘Russian chants’. The view on this category underwent significant alterations and continues to be redefined, including corrections with reference to the melodic styles relating to this definition, to the determination of the moment of their transition to this category, to the analysis of its stylistic characteristics, to the explanation of the nature of the transformation of the initial synthesis, and to the definition of the source of this transformation. – As a result, the qualities which, though having their roots in the same tradition in a constant process of development, mark a new stage of musical thought, including its relationship with Russian intonation, were expressed in three melismatic styles. The first, demestvenny chant, in general lying outside the octomodal system, and the second, putevoy, which belongs to the Oktoechos, were from the beginning thought to be the melodic bases of the polyphonic styles. The third melismatic style, great znamenny chant, shows heterogeneous generic groups, within which only the later layer contains independent examples of models formed during the course of the initial phase of the assimilation of the Byzantine synthesis. A similar independence was discovered in some late syllabo-neumatic chants belonging to the socalled lesser znamenny chant. – The flourishing of the new styles recognized as the creation of Russian masters took place in the 16th-17th centuries. As its direct ancestor, research from recent decades identifies stolpovoy znamenny, the syllabo-neumatic style with neumatic incrustations, developed during the initial period of the process of assimilation of Byzantine chant in

146

S. POLIAKOVA

­ ussia, which underwent a renewal in melodic and graphical terms in R the 15th century. The relationship between continuity and renewal in the context of znamenny chant allows the recognition of examples created between the 11th and 17th centuries, including the old melismatic group which came to be known in later manuscripts as great znamenny, a common basis, while demestvenny and putevoy chant, as well as a number of generic groups of great and lesser znamenny, though not transgressing the regularity of the evolution of znamenny chant, distance themselves from any previously-developed model and present a new qualitative stage of transformation. – The changes which occurred at the end of the 15th century in melodic and graphical terms, accompanied by modifications in the typology of the liturgical books, in the texts of the chants and their contents, are viewed by various scholars as a consequence of an intentional reforming activity. The beginning of this activity which spilled over into a reform is observed in processes that took place at the end of the 13th century and, although in a less consistent way, may also be considered a reform. Both reforms are still hypothetical, their foundations more or less sound. – Given that the reforms in terms of chant are normally integrated into liturgical reforms in a wider sense, it makes sense to compare their proposed chronological boundaries with those of the liturgical reforms. Thus, the reforms of the chant must be seen to be part of the context of the change of the Studite for the Neo-Sabaitic rule in Russia, whose culture was had already been established by the end of the 1340s. This reform was accompanied by changes in literary, philological and aesthetic terms under South-Slavic influence; the extend of the changes was so significant that they have been considered as a reform. Though a reforming intentionality of the introduction of South-Slavic literary aspects into Russia has not yet been confirmed, its positioning in parallel with the development of two Russian versions of the Neo-Sabaitic Typikon allow them to be considered as a single initiative. The reason for the discrepancy in the chronological boundaries of the supposed chant reforms (end of the 13th century and end of the 15th) and the liturgical and literary reform (end of the 14th century) still awaits an explanation. However, it should be noted that all three dates fit within the historical-theological context in general of the change of ecclesiastical rule, marking its beginning (end of the 13th century), the moment of its formal implementation (end of the 14th century) and the reflection of its established state in ecclesiastical chant. In principle, the same ­character



ON ESTABLISHING THE LIMITS OF THE PROCESS OF ASSIMILATION

147

that defines the processes of the introduction of the new liturgical rule into Russia and which is expressed by the juxtaposition of the continuous nature of the changes and the impulse to reform,149 is shared by the process of assimilation of the Greek-Slavic-Russian synthesis. Abbreviations used in the footnotes Gardner, Russian Church Singing, i – Gardner, J. von, Russian Church Singing, i, Orthodox Worship and Hymnography, transl. V. Morosan (Crestwood, N.Y., 1980). Богомолова, ‘Демественное пение’ – Богомолова, М.В., ‘Демественное пение’, in Православная Энциклопедия, xiv (Moscow, 2012), pp. 367370. Владышевская, Музыкальная культура – Владышевская, Т.Ф., Музыкальная культура Древней Руси (Moscow, 2006). Вознесенский, О церковном пении, i – Вознесенский, И.И., О церковном пении Православной Греко-Российской Церкви: Большой и малый знаменный роспев, 2 vols (Riga, 1890, 1889). Гарднер, Богослужебное пение – Гарднер, И.А., Богослужебное пение русской православной церкви: Сущность, система и история, i (Moscow, 2004). Грузинцева, Стихиры-самогласны – Грузинцева, Н.В., Стихирысамогласны триодного стихираря в древнерусской рукописной традиции XII-XVII веков, Candidate’s thesis, abstract (Leningrad, 1990). Захарьина, Abstract – Захарьина, Н.Б., Русские певческие книги: Типология, пути эволюции, Candidate’s dissertation, abstract (Saint Petersburg, 2006). Захарьина, Русские певческие книги – Захарьина, Н.Б., Русские певческие книги: Типология, пути эволюции, Candidate’s dissertation (Saint Petersburg, 2006). Келдыш, Древняя Русь – Келдыш, Ю.В., Древняя Русь: XI-XVII века, История русской музыки, 1 (Moscow, 1983). Кондрашкова, Cтрочное многоголосие – Кондрашкова, Л.В., Раннее русское строчное многоголосие, 2 vols (Moscow, 2013). Кондрашкова, Троестрочие – Кондрашкова, Л.В., Троестрочие как феномен русского многоголосия конца XVI – первой половины XVIII века, Candidate’s thesis (Moscow, 2018). Лозовая, ‘Знаменный распев’ – Лозовая, И.Е., ‘Знаменный распев’, in Православная Энциклопедия, xx (Moscow, 2014), pр. 285-297. Металлов, Период домонгольский – Металлов В.М., Богослужебное пение русской церкви: Период домонгольский (Moscow, 1912). Мошин, ‘О периодизации’ – Мошин, В.А., ‘О периодизации русскоюжнославянских литературных связей X-XV вв.’, in ТОДРЛ,   Пентковский, ‘Литургические реформы’, р. 79.

149

148

S. POLIAKOVA

Русская литература XI-XVII веков среди славянских литератур, xix (Moscow and Leningrad, 1963), pр. 28-106. Пентковский, ‘Литургические реформы’ – Пентковский, А.М., ‘Литургические реформы в истории русской церкви’, ЖМП, 2 (2001), р. 73. Пожидаева, Г.А., ‘О значении комплексного подхода в изучении певческих памятников древней Руси’, in Доклады участников I Международной научной конференции «Комплексный подход в изучении Древней Руси», 25-28 сентября 2001г., Москва, Древняя Русь, 7 (2002), pp. 23-24. Пожидаева, Певческие традиции – Пожидаева, Г.А., Певческие традиции Древней Руси (Moscow, 2007). Преображенский, Краткий очерк – Преображенский, А.В., Краткий очерк истории церковного пения в России (Saint Petersburg, 1907). Преображенский, Культовая музыка – Преображенский, А.В., Культовая музыка в России (Leningrad, 1924). Разумовский, Церковное пение – Разумовский, Д.В., Церковное пение в России, 3 vols (Moscow, 1867-1869). Смоленский, О древнерусских певческих нотациях – Смоленский, С.В., О древнерусских певческих нотациях: Историко-палеографический очерк, читанный в Обществе Любителей Древней Письменности 26 Января 1901 года (Saint Petersburg, 1901). Тюрина, Большой роспев – Тюрина, О.В., Древнерусская мелизматика: Большой роспев, Candidate’s thesis, abstract (Moscow, 2011). Успенский, Древнерусское певческое искусство – Успенский, Н.Д., Древнерусское певческое искусство (Moscow, 1965). Школьник, Проблемы реконструкции – Школьник, М.Г., Проблемы реконструкции знаменного роспева XII-XVII веков (на материале византийского и древнерусского Ирмология), Candidate’s dissertation (Moscow, 1996).

THE BYZANTINE MUSICAL TRADITION AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION AMONG THE SLAVS OF THE CARPATHO-RUTHENIAN BASIN A HISTORICAL SURVEY Šimon Marinčák

The Carpatho-Ruthenian Basin under Great Moravia1 Byzantine, i.e. Constantinopolitan religious culture, was first adopted by the Slavs in Great Moravia, the second state of the Central European Slavs, in 863. In need of close relations with Byzantium, Prince Rastislav sent an embassy to Constantinople in 862. In a letter to the Emperor Michael III, he is said to have asked for a ‘teacher who can teach us this same faith in our own language’. On the order of the Byzantine Emperor the brothers Constantine and Methodius with their entourage arrived in the principality of Rastislav to fulfil their mission. Although the brothers have usually been called the ‘Faith Announcers’, in his letter Prince Rastislav refers to his flock as if they had already been Christianized.2 Of course, it would be misleading to suppose that in 862, some fifty years after the arrival of the first Latin missionaries in Great Moravia, the entire nation would already be completely Christian. However, Constantine and Methodius must be given credit for having made the Christian religion accessible to the Slavs through their translations from Greek and Latin into the Slavonic language, as well as for the designing of a script capable of incorporating all the sounds of the Slavonic language.3 It is important to note that Latin missionaries certainly spoke Slavonic, too. It was, however, the liturgical and biblical texts which had been written in Latin and were therefore 1  Since Ukrainians are also often called ‘Ruthenian’, I specifically use the term ‘­Carpatho-Ruthenian’ in the title. 2   Žitije Konstantina, ch. 14: ‘... людємъ нашимъ поганьства сѧ отвръгшимъ, и по христіанєскъ сѧ законъ дръжащимъ ...’, Magnae Moraviae Fontes Historici, 5 vols (Prague and Brno, 1966-1977), ii (1967), p. 99. 3   For a detailed history, see for instance: Dvornik, F., Byzantine Missions among the Slavs: SS. Constantine-Cyril and Methodius (New Brunswick, NJ, 1970); Lacko, M., Sts. Cyril and Methodius (Rome, 1963); Grivec, F., Konstantin und Method, Lehrer der Slaven (Wiesbaden, 1960).

150

Š. MARINČÁK

i­naccessible to the great majority of the Slavic population. Since Slavonic writing characters were brought to Great Moravia later, Latin missionaries had had no chance of translating and writing the texts down for practical use, which is not to say that the idea of translating liturgical texts into the vernacular had not been considered at all at that time. An account of the brothers’ mission in the territory of Great Moravia has been recorded in several literary sources, especially the vitae of single members of the mission. From these we learn that Slavs were provided with a Slavonic translation of the Bible, liturgical books and other instructional literature; they were instructed in liturgical matters, and a school for training Slavonic candidates for the Church was established.4 Thus sources suggest a kind of a ‘boom’ in Byzantine culture among the Great Moravian Slavs, and, given the fact that Latin missionaries worked simultaneously among the Slavs with those from Constantinople, mutual interaction of both groups of missionaries with local (pagan) culture was inevitable. Besides the fact that Great Moravian Slavs learned of religious matters in their native language, the government received a legal framework (Syntagma), and the language of Great Moravian Slavs became a written language. This was not only thanks to the literature translated from Latin and Greek, but also thanks to original compositions in Slavonic, the first of them having very probably been the famous Canon to St Demetrius.5 As for the music, it is obvious that such a new hymnographical form as a canon would certainly have been sung by the Slavs to Byzantine-Greek melodies rather than to any Slavic melody. Closer study of the original source suggests that the music for the Canon to St Demetrius was composed using the Canon of the Dormition as a model and was sung to the same melody. 6 This is a nice 4   Hitherto the most profound collection of selected sources on Great Moravia has been published in the Magnae Moraviae Fontes Historici series (see n. 2). 5   For this Canon, see Jagić, V., Служебные минеи за сентябрь, октябрь и ноябрь в церковнославянском переводе по русским рукописям 1095-1097 г. (Saint Petersburg, 1886), p. 186; Butler, T., ‘Методиевят канон в чест на Димитър Солунски’, in Кирило-Методиевски Студии, iv, ed. Dinekov, P. (Sofia, 1987), pp. 259-260; Tunickij, N.L., Св. Климент, епископ словенский: Его жизнь и просветительская деятельность (Sergiev Posad, 1913), p. 79. 6   Velimirović, M., ‘The Melodies of the Ninth-Century Kanon for St. Demetrius’, Russian and Soviet Music: Essays for Boris Schwarz, ed. Brown, M.H. (Ann Arbor, MI, 1984), pp. 9-33; Jakobson, R., ‘Methodius’ Canon to Demetrius of Thessalonica and the Old Church Slavonic Hirmoi’, Sborník prací Filosofické fakulty Brněnské university, F9 (Brno, 1965), pp. 117-119; Velimirović, M., ‘The Influence of the Byzantine Chant on the Music of the Slavic Countries’, in The Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies (Oxford, 1966), p. 121; Mokrý, L., ‘Der Kanon zur Ehre des



THE BYZANTINE MUSICAL TRADITION AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION

151

example of the early beginnings of Byzantine-Slavic music. First formulas were almost certainly adopted from Byzantine originals, and by using them, they were slowly adjusted to the aesthetical feelings of the Slavs. After the first trained Slavic musicians had appeared, musical composition became an integral part of their religious culture. The Carpatho-Ruthenian Basin under Hungarian Rule After the death of Archbishop Methodius in 885, the disciples of Constantine and Methodius (either those not willing to stop using the Slavonic liturgy, or simply those of foreign origin) were expelled from Great Moravia by the ecclesiastical and governmental authorities in 886 or 887.7 Even after the arrival of the Magyars who took power into their own hands, Byzantine culture still strongly influenced the cultural, religious and political life.8 Not only had a part of the nobility been baptized according to the ‘Greek rite’,9 but from the sources we also know that there existed many Greek monasteries in the Hungarian kingdom.10 Besides these purely Greek monasteries, there were in the Hungarian kingdom also monasteries of a half-oriental nature, as we can also read in the literature.11 A foremost example of Eastern monasticism seems to be the partly-legendary story of St Andrew Svorad (†1009) and St Benedict Stojislav (†1002), who — according to Bishop Maurus,12 Svorad’s hl. Demetrius als Quelle für die Frühgeschichte des Kirchenslavisches Gesanges’, in Anfänge der slavischer Musik (Bratislava, 1966), pp. 35-41. 7   Marsina, R., Metodov boj (Bratislava, 1985), p. 105; Korec, J.Ch., Cirkev v dejinách Slovenska (Bratislava, 1994), pp. 64 and 73. 8   Dvořák, P., Stopy dávnej minulosti, iii, Zrod národa (Budmerice, 2004), pp. 237-238; Halaga, O., Slovanské osídlenie Potisia a východoslovenskí gréckokatolíci (Košice, 1947), p. 32. 9   ‘… secundum ritum Graecorum in civitate Budin fuerat baptizatus … accepit autem potestatem a Graecis, et construxit in prefata urbe Morisena monasterium in honore beati Ioannis Baptiste, constituens in eodem abbatem cum monachis graecis, iuxta ordinem et ritum ipsorum.’: Vita S. Gerardi, caput X, Endlicher, S.L., Rerum Hungaricarum Monumenta Arpadiana, Scriptores (Sankt Gallen, 1849), pp. 214-215. Cf. also Halaga, Slovanské osídlenie Potisia (see n. 8), p. 32. 10   See a letter of Pope Honorius III (1216-1227) to the archbishop of Ostrihom and the abbot of Piliš (nowadays Szentgotthárd in Hungary) in Magnae Moraviae Fontes Historici (see n. 2), iii, p. 252. Cf. also Halaga, Slovanské osídlenie Potisia (see n. 8), pp. 33-34. 11   Cf. Šmálik, Š., Boží ľud na cestách (Bratislava, 1997), p. 309. 12   Saint Maurus of Pécs was the first known prelate to have been born in the kingdom of Hungary. He was abbot of the Benedictine Abbey of Pannonhalma between around 1029 and 1036, and bishop of Pécs from 1036 until his death around 1075.

152

Š. MARINČÁK

biographer — lived a religious life similar to that of the Elder Zosimas13 and kept a strict fast for all forty days of Great Lent, eating only nuts.14 We can also see the Byzantine influence on the legal system of the times. For instance, the beginning of Great Lent was officially prescribed to be on the Monday before Ash Wednesday, by order of King Ladislaus I. The decree says the following: ‘Latins, who were unwilling to agree with the customs of Hungarians when these ceded (waived) meat (on the Monday before the first Lenten Sunday), and Latins who still eat meat on Monday and Tuesday and are unwilling to agree with our better customs, let them move wherever they want. Money, however, which they have earned here, they shall leave behind, unless they repent and abstain from meat as we do.’15 Politically, there were close connections between the Old-Hungarian rulers and the Byzantine Empire, perhaps in an attempt to secure the inclusion of their state into the elite of Europe. Contacts were maintained with both the Byzantine world and the Slavic world (Kievan Rus’, Serbia), especially via ‘marriage policy’. There is no shortage of examples of such marriage alliances: King Andrew I (1046-1061) married Anastasia of Russia, and his son Gejza I (1074-1077) married the Byzantine Princess Sinnadena; the daughter of King Ladislaus I (1077-1095), who after her baptism in Constantinople received the name Eirene, married the Emperor John II Komnenos (1118-1143); King Belo II (1131-1141) was the son-in-law of the Serbian King Uroš; King Stephen IV (11621163) married the Byzantine Princess Maria; King Belo III (1173-1196) 13   He may refer to the Venerable Zosimas of Palestine (second half of the 5th century), who spent all his life in the Palestine desert, and was famous for spending the whole forty days of Great Lent in fasting and prayer, and not returning until Palm Sunday. 14   ‘Mauri, episcopi Quinqueecclesiensis, Vita sanctorum Zverardi-Andree confessoris et Benedicti martyris, eremitarum’, in Legenda ss. Zoerardi et Benedicti, ed. Madszar, Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum, 2 (Budapestini, 1938), p. 358. Cf. also Šmálik, Boží ľud na cestách (see n. 11), p. 282; and Korec, Cirkev v dejinách Slovenska (see n. 7), p. 137. 15   ‘Latini, qui Hungarorum consuetudini legitime consentire noluerint, scilicet, qui, postquam Hungari carnes dimiserunt, ipsi iterum secunda, & tertia feria comederint, si se nostrae consuetudini meliori non consentire dixerint, quocunque volunt, eo vadant: pecuniam vero, quam hic acquisierint, hic relinquant, nisi forte resipuerint, & carnes nobiscum dimiserint’: Synodus Szabolchensis celebrata sub S. Ladislao Hungariae Rege & Seraphino, Archi-Episcopo Strigoniensi, Anno MXCII, Caput XXXI: De carnis dimissione, in Péterffy, C., Sacra concilia ecclesiae romano-catholicae in regno Hungariae celebrata (Viennae, 1742), i, p. 31; Závodszky, L., A Szent István, Szent László és Kálmán korabeli törvények és zsinati határozatok forrásai (Budapest, 1904), p. 163. See also Šmálik, Boží ľud na cestách (see n. 11), pp. 308-309; Korec, Cirkev v dejinách Slovenska (see n. 7), p. 150. Some of the prescriptions are also to be found also in Ratkoš, P., et al., Z prameňov našich dejín (Bratislava, 19742).



THE BYZANTINE MUSICAL TRADITION AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION

153

was the son-in-law of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I (1143-1180); Belo’s daughter Margareta married the Emperor Isaac II Angelos (11851195, 1203-1204); King Belo IV (1235-1270) married the Byzantine Princess Maria Lascaris; and finally the daughter of King Stephen V (1270-1272), Anne, married the Emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282-1328).16 The influence of Byzantine culture on the local Slavonic culture can also be observed in the famous song Hospodine, pomiluj ny (O Lord, have mercy on us).17 Even though the oldest record of this song was found in a document from the second half of the 14th century (ca 1380),18 its origin undoubtedly reaches much further into history — it was composed either in Great Moravia in the 9th century or in Bohemia in the 10th-11th centuries. The latest research suggested that its origin was probably in the third quarter of the 10th century (around 975). This song represents the living continuation of the Old Slavic — originally Constantine-Methodius’ — tradition of versification that had been born based on the model of Byzantine poetry and which had transformed itself into an independent branch.19 To this, we can add another important document: the aforementioned, hitherto unknown text of the Canon to St Demetrius, found in the so-called Ostrožnica Fragments (considered to be a part of the Menaion) and written in Cyrillic. It has been estimated as having originated in the 11th12th centuries,20 although the question of its actual date is not yet settled.21 Such a strong presence of Byzantine culture in the Hungarian kingdom was recorded until the eve of the pre-Mongol era. The presence of many Greek monasteries was continually documented,22 a fact that even   Cf. Adam, M., I sacramenti dellʼiniziazione cristiana nei rapporti interecclesiali tra i cattolici latini e orientali in Slovacchia (Romae, 2003), p. 17. 17   The original text says as follows: ‘Hospodine, pomiluj ny!/Jezukriste, pomiluj ny!/ Ty, spase všeho mira,/spasiž ny i uslyšiž,/Hospodine, hlasy našě!/Daj nám všěm, Hospodine,/žizn a mír v zemi!/Krleš! Krleš! Krleš!’; English translation: Lord, have mercy on us/Lord, have mercy on us,/Jesus Christ, have mercy on us,/Savior of the whole world,/ have mercy on us and hear,/O Lord, our voices;/Lord, give to all of us/life and peace in our land,/life and peace in our land./Kyrie Eleison! 18   MS XVII F 30, fol. 96r, National Library, Prague. 19  Mareš, F.V., ‘Hospodine, pomiluj ny’, Cyrilometodějská tradice a slavistika, ed. Mareš, F.V. (Praha, 2000), pp. 404-406, 446-448, 460. 20   Paňkevič, I., ‘Острожницкие пергаменные отрывки минеи XI-XII вв.’, Byzantinoslavica, 18 (1957), pp. 271-276. 21   Matejko, L., ‘Poznámky o najstaršej cyrilskej rukopisnej pamiatke zo Slovenska’, Slavia, 78, 3-4 (2009), pp. 407-411. 22  Korec, Cirkev v dejinách Slovenska (see n. 7), pp. 187 and 197. He is quoting the slavist Ján Stanislav and the historian Peter Ratkoš. 16

154

Š. MARINČÁK

p­ rovoked a reaction from Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), who reproached King Imrich (1196-1204) in a letter written in 1204 saying that there were too many Greek monasteries compared to Latin ones in his realm.23 A Gradual Change from Byzantine to Latin Culture Hungarian Kingdom in the 13th-14th centuries

in the

If until this time Byzantine culture had played a more important role in the society, the following centuries witnessed a gradual change from Byzantine to Latin culture in the Hungarian kingdom. This change had five main causes, universal and local: 1. It started when Constantinople fell to the Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade in 1204 and the subsequent establishing of the Latin Empire. 2. An important event was the 4th Lateran Council in 1215, during which the policy of the Catholic Church towards the Eastern faithful was settled — its decrees showing a considerable impact on countries such as the Hungarian Kingdom, it being a strongly Catholic country. 3. The Mongol invasions (the first one took place in April 1241) of Old-Hungary resulted in many changes. Firstly, it ruined the established governmental system together with its culture. Secondly, the entire country was in great uncertainty; how to secure stability in the country again? 4. Because of the death of King Andrew III in 1301 — which meant the end of the male line of the Árpáds — the previously close relationship with the Byzantine royal court, as well as with the Byzantine-Slavic countries, came to an end. 5. The victory of King Charles of Anjou (1308-1342) over the Hungarian oligarchs in 1323 marked a new direction in the Old-Hungarian state policy: concrete steps to Latinize society were now taken. In spite of such change of political and cultural direction towards the Latin West, Byzantine cultural elements were still present and exerting some influence in the Old-Hungarian kingdom. Its gradually weakening impact was soon revived by the so-called ‘Colonization under Wallachian 23   ‘Quia vero nec novum est nec absurdum, ut in regno tuo diversarum nationum conventus uni domino sub regulari habitu famulentur, licet hoc unum sit tibi Latinorum coenobium, qum tamen ibidem sint multa Graecorum…’, PL 215, 418C; Fejer, J., Codex Diplomaticus Regni Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, 42 vols (Buda, 1822-1844), xlii (1844), part ii, p. 47; Halaga, Slovanské osídlenie Potisia (see n. 8), p. 34.



THE BYZANTINE MUSICAL TRADITION AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION

155

Law’, which forced immigrants coming from the East to integrate into domestic society and to adopt the older and original layer of Byzantine culture that had survived until that time. The ‘Anonymous Chronicle’ (Gesta Hungarorum, end of 12th, or beginning of 13th century), recognizes Ruthenian24 immigrants, who lived dispersed amongst Old-Hungarian inhabitants. It does not, however, consider them native and places their arrival somewhere in the past.25 Sources suggest that Hungarians and Germans were also joining the Greek faith in the 13th century.26 The Byzantine presence in the Old-Hungarian kingdom at that time had risen to such a degree that the territory of the eastern Slovakia of today had been named ‘Ruthenia’ (derived from the Latin name Russia): the region inhabited by Eastern Slavs, in 1271.27 At that time, a kind of ‘bi-ritual religious life’ had been obtained in upper Hungary (Slovakia) and references speak about the simultaneous use of both traditions (Latin and Byzantine). For instance, a reference from Spiš from 1273 says that at the pilgrimage Chapel of Our Lady people traditionally prayed to Salve Regina, as well as to Gaude Dei genitrix (Богородице дѣво).28 We also find references mentioning several people, such as a certain Jacob of Farkašovce (later bishop of Spiš) in 1288, who was said to be of the ‘graeci ritus’;29 the same applied to a certain Lucas, praepositus from Spiš, in 1293.30

 The word ‘Ruthenian’ refers to the Eastern faithful coming from Halich (then Poland), Sub-Carpathian Rus’, Wallachia and Transsylvania. 25  ‘… Similiter et multi de Ruthenis Almo duci adherentes, secum in Pannoniam uenerunt, quorum posteritas, usque in hodiernum diem per diuersa loca in Hungaria habitat’, in Gesta Hungarorum, ch. 10. Cf. also Halaga, Slovanské osídlenie Potisia (see n. 8), p. 56. 26   ‘… Nonnulli de regno Ungariae, tam Ungari, quam Teutonici … transuent ad eosdem (Graecos)’, cf. Halaga, Slovanské osídlenie Potisia (see n. 8), p. 34. 27   ‘… qua eum idem Cletus episcopus nobilitauerat, per eundem redactus in seruitutem exstilisset, ut asserunt, et inde in Rutheniam auffugiset et sic euasisset …’, Endlicher, Rerum Hugaricarum Monumenta Arpadiana, Scriptores (see n. 9), p. 530. Cf. also Halaga, Slovanské osídlenie Potisia (see n. 8), pp. 56-57. 28   ‘... ut singulis sabbatis post vesperas Salve Regina in capella Beatae Virginis, vel Gaude Dei genitrix cantare teneantur’, Mothmer, Praepositus scepusiensis, Testamentum a. 1273, in Hradszky, J., Initia progressus ac proesens status Capituli ad S. Martinum E. C. de Monte Scepusio olim Collegiati sub jurisdictione A. E. Strigoniensis nunc vero Cathedralis sub proprio Episcopo Scepusiensi constituti (Szepesváralja, 1901), p. 300. 29   ‘Attigimus, non modo Jacobum Praepositum, paulo post futurum Scepusiensem Episcopum, graeco Ritui addictum fuisse ...’, Bárdossy, J., Supplementum Analectorum Terrae Scepusiensis, notationibus, ex veteri ac recentiore Hungarorum Historia depromptis (Levoča, 1902), p. 348. 30   ‘Lucas Praepositus Scepusiensis, et ipse Graeci Ritus, Ecclesiam suam vocat ...’, idem, p. 348. 24

156

Š. MARINČÁK

Later waves of immigration arose from two additional events: the plague in 1346-1360, which literally emptied the territories, and thus caused the necessity for new settlers;31 and the defeat of the Serbs by the Turks at the Battle of Kosovo Polje in 1389, after which new immigrants from the Balkans started arriving. According to the sources, adherents of both traditions, Latin and Byzantine, lived peacefully together in the 14th century.32 The presence of the Eastern faithful was so considerable at that time that it attracted the attention of the patriarch of Constantinople, as proved by his correspondence of 1370.33 Equally, when Pope Boniface IX renewed episcopal privileges to the praepositus of Spiš in 1402, he also mentioned the huge number of ‘Ruthenians and Wallachians, living in the neighbourhood, who visited the Church of St Martin in the Spiš chapter, where, despite being Orthodox themselves, they frequented the Catholic chapel’.34 Given the fact that immigrants were usually shepherds, lacking any substantial education, there is no musical piece extant that represents this period. We find, however, an ancient document known as the Spišské modlitby (Spiš prayers), written in Slovak under the influence of the Spiš dialect.35 When a chapter church of the Spiš praepositure had been consecrated on 25 October 1479, prayers composed for it by the praepositus36 were written down in an apograph, which later served as a tool in the spiritual formation of the Carthusian brothers in the ‘Červený kláštor’ (Red Monastery). The Spiš prayers represent a complex of prayers and liturgical acclamations focused on Gospel readings, homilies, prayers of the faithful, and the Creed. Such liturgical and linguistic factors imply some connection to the liturgical practice of the Byzantine Church.37  Korec, Cirkev v dejinách Slovenska (see n. 9), pp. 325-326.  Halaga, Slovanské osídlenie Potisia (see n. 8), p. 32; Hodinka, A., A munkácsi görög-katholikus püspökség története (Budapest, 1909), p. 39. 33   Miklosich, F., Müller, F.-J., Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana (Vindobonae, 1860-1890), i, 1, pp. 532-534; 535-536. Cf. also Halaga, Slovanské osídlenie Potisia (see n. 8), p. 34. 34  Korec, Cirkev v dejinách Slovenska (see n. 9), p. 376. 35   MS Codex mixtus 2 E S-MSS 406, Public Library, Olomouc (Czech Republic). Cf. Povala, G., ‘Spišské modlitby, otázka ich genézy’, Štolcov zborník, 10 (Bratislava, 1969), p. 246. This document has hitherto been studied merely from a linguistic point of view. Cf. Pastrnek, F., ‘Stará jazyková památka slovenská’, Sborník filologický, 7 (1927), pp. 100-127; Stanislav, J., ‘Modlitby pri kázni zo Spišskej kapituly’, Jazykovedný sborník, 4 (1950), pp. 141-155; Pauliny, E., Dejiny spisovnej slovenčiny: Od začiatkov až po Ľudovíta Štúra (Bratislava, 1971), p. 135. 36  Praepositus Gašpar Bak (1464-1493) studied in Bologna and Rome, and was ordained a priest by Pope Sixtus IV on 25 October 1472. 37   Cf. Vasiľ, C., ‘Slovenskí gréckokatolíci, vzťahy a súvislosti’, Monumenta Byzantino-Slavica et Latina Slovaciae, 1 (Rím – Bratislava – Košice, 2003), pp. 248-249. 31

32



THE BYZANTINE MUSICAL TRADITION AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION

157

The structure of the prayers strongly resembles the Synapte of the Byzantine liturgy. In the prayers, the faithful are admonished to utter their ‘general request to the dear Saviour’ (‘obecnu prosbu milemu Spasiteli’), which corresponds with the ‘Миром Господу помолимся’. The appeal ‘Let you first ask the dear Lord God for calm and peace and good weather’ (‘Najperve poproste mileho Pana Buoha za mir a za pokoj i za dobre povetre ...’) corresponds with the ‘O свышнем мире ...’ ‘О мире всего мира’ ... ‘о благорастворении воздухов’. The appeal ‘... For all the priests, for the ordained pupils ...’ (‘... Za všechny kneze, za žaky svecene ...’) corresponds with the ‘О честнем пресвитерстве, во Христе диаконстве ...’. The appeal ‘... For the faithful pilgrims ...’ (‘... za verne putniki ...’) corresponds with the ‘О путешествующих ...’, and the formulation ‘We have already prayed for the living; let us also not forget the deceased ...’ (‘Juž sme za žive prosili, take mertvych ne zapominajmy ...’), which corresponds with the ‘Еще молимся о упокоении душ усопших рабов Божиих ...’, etc. An analysis of this text shows that the author has not translated the prayers from an authentic text of the Synapte; rather, he has used a loose variant, probably some kind of ‘oral form’, which, although originating in an actual liturgical text, had been adapted to the local popular cultural context. According to philological and linguistic research, these prayers do not depend on the secondary colonization under Wallachian Law; rather, they are connected to the original tradition of Great Moravia.38 From the 16th Century Onwards The first musical manuscripts in use in the churches are those from the 16th century. The manuscripts found in the archives and libraries include Heirmologia and various Anthologies of both domestic and foreign origin, transmitting Byzantine music mostly of Halich provenance. Printed books were used as well, especially those from Lvov, and Supraśl. It is interesting to note that in part Carpatho-Ruthenians usually drew from academic institutions in Halich (nowadays situated in western Ukraine). Culturally, however, in general they were closer to the Russian than to the Ukrainian tradition.   Cf. Vasiľ, ‘Slovenskí gréckokatolíci, vzťahy a súvislosti’ (see n. 37), p. 249.

38

158

Š. MARINČÁK

With the creation39 of a Byzantine rite bishopric in 1771, the situation changed in that Byzantine and Latin churches became administered independently, officially creating two independent entities and therefore two groups of followers. The religious differences became more visible, or, rather, the people became more aware of them only in the 18th century, as it is clear that before that time they had closely shared their religious traditions with their neighbours without any substantial problems (here, we do not mention the turmoil caused by the Reformation and its resul­ tant political instability, which had deeply interfered with both traditions). While the internal religious life of the Byzantine Church strengthened and intensified, its interaction with public in general was practically suspended. In modern times, Byzantine religious culture displays great vitality in the public arena. Existing as it does in the midst of a Latin majority, it seems to be very attractive in every respect. We see icons appearing in the Latin churches, prayers such as the Akathist hymn are being used in Latin rite communities, etc. Several chants of Carpatho-Ruthenian chant have appeared in Latin chant books. In music festivals, Byzantine choirs, or Byzantine chants form a stable part of the repertoire, etc. Although we cannot speak of any kind of a renaissance of Byzantine religious culture in contemporary Slovakia, it is important to note the interest of the general public in Byzantine culture. Throughout history, Byzantine religious culture has mostly played a minor role in society, although often a quite influential one. It is proper to conclude with asserting that Byzantine culture, rooted in the Central European Slavs in the early medieval period, seems to have deeply influenced the local DNA, and although accommodating itself to its surrounding Latin cultural influence, it has developed into a very unique cultural variant, which, as yet, can only be described in an apophatic way.

39   The word ‘recognition’ would be more suitable, as a bishop resided in the Monastery in Mukačevo from the 15th-16th centuries at least.

THE BYZANTINE TRADITION OF THE ALLELOUIA CHANTS Gerda Wolfram

The repertoire of Byzantine allelouiaria is part of the Psaltikon, the liturgical book for the soloists, which contains kontakia, allelouiaria and hypakoai. The oldest known Psaltikon is from the end of the 12th century,1 the MS Patmos 2212 in early Middle Byzantine notation. The major part of the notated Psaltika dates from the 13th and 14th centuries. Unlike the Greek allelouiaria in 11th-century Latin manuscripts, there are no Byzantine musical manuscripts with allelouiaria from that period. Two different musical traditions can be identified: the short melodic tradition of the allelouiaria, which seems to have been influenced by Constantinople, and the long melodic tradition of the allelouiaria, in particular in notated manuscripts from Southern Italy. The evidence of allelouiaria from long before the notated manuscripts appeared, can be verified by Lectionaria and liturgical Typika. The allelouiarion is a responsorial chant, in which verses from the psalms are more important than the allelouias. It is sung at the mass of the catechoumens, the so-called proanaphora, after the reading from the Apostles and before the reading from the Gospels. It is also chanted at the hours and at vespers. There is a difference between ἔμμνημα and ἄμνημα allelouiaria. The ἔμμνημα are for weekdays, for the great feasts of the Dodekaorton and for the feasts of the Saints. The ἄμνημα are sung on Sundays. There are eight ἄμνημα allelouiaria, arranged according to the eight modes.3 Their verses from the psalms are not connected thematically with the feast of the day. The allelouiarion was introduced by the protopsaltes, the soloist, in the following way: «Ἀλληλούια, ψαλμὸς τῳ Δαβίδ», the diacon said 1   For the abbreviations used in the footnotes, see p. 166. Thodberg, Alleluiarionzyklus, p. 20f. 2   Patmos 221 was written between 1168-1179. It contains prokeimena, allelouiaria, kontakia and hypakoai. The allelouiaria belong to the short style. 3   Every echos has only one ἄμνημο ἀλληλουιάριο. The allelouiarion ἐπἰ σοὶ κὺριε ἤλπισα in the second mode can also be sung in the third mode. See Høeg, Contacarium Ashburnhamense, 208v.

160

G. WOLFRAM

«πρόσχωμεν», the choir answered with «ἀλληλούια, ἀλληλούια, ἀλληλούια».4 Then the protopsaltes sang one or two verses of the psalm, which refer either to the specific feast of the day or to a Sunday. In many examples the protopsaltes stopped singing before having finished the complete verse. We do not have any written evidence as to who took over the last words of the verse. We can only assume that the well-trained choir sang the last words before chanting the refrain ‘allelouia’. The repertoire of the allelouiaria begins at Christmas with the first mode. It seems that this order belongs to an even older tradition than that of the kontakia, which begin on September 1st, the day of the Roman indiction. The kontakia form the main part of the Psaltikon. The allelouiaria of both fixed feasts and movable feasts are intermingled, without a discernible system. In the fourth mode, for example, the first allelouiarion is for Good Friday, then for the Sunday after Christmas and Theophaneia follow September 1st, the beginning of the liturgical year. The tonal system of the allelouiaria in the tradition of Constantinople and Southern Italy is limited to six echoi, to protos, deuteros, tetartos, plagios protos, plagios deuteros and plagios tetartos. The third echos and its plagios, the barys, are not represented in the allelouiaria. There is only a note about the third mode in Codex Ashburnhamensis: «ἄμνημον, ψάλλεται καὶ εἰς τὸν τρίτον ἤχον.»5 In an extensive study Christian Thodberg has discussed the Byzantine allelouiaria in general terms and the short melodic tradition of the alle­ louiaria specifically. He gives a survey of all available Psaltikon manuscripts.6 According to Thodberg the leading manuscripts for the musicological investigation of the allelouiaria in the short Psaltikon style are the following:7 – Vaticanus gr. 345, 13th/14th century, Italo-Greek – Grottaferrata, Γ.γ. ΙΙΙ, year 1247, Italo-Greek – Grottaferrata, E.β. II, 13th/14th  century, Italo-Greek 4  Vindοb. theol. gr. 185, fol. 242v: «καὶ μετὰ τὸ πληρῶσαι τὸν ἀπόστολον, ὁ  πρωτοψάλτης ἐπὶ ἄμβωνος λέγων οὕτως· ἀλληλούια, ψαλμὸς τῷ Δαβίδ.» See ­example 2. 5   Høeg, C., Contacarium Ashburnhamense, 208v. 6  Thodberg, Alleluiarionzyklus, pp. 20-28. 7  Thodberg, Alleluiarionzyklus, p. 22.



THE BYZANTINE TRADITION OF THE ALLELOUIA CHANTS

161

The earliest manuscripts are: – Patmos 221, about 1168-79, with early Middle Byzantine notation, tradition of Constantinople – Sinai 1280, early 13th  century, tradition of Constantinople The most important manuscripts for the long tradition of the a­ llelouiaria are: – Messina 129, 13th  century, a Psaltikon – Asmatikon, Italo-Greek – Grottaferrata, Γ.γ. V, year 1225, a Psaltikon – Asmatikon, San Salvatore di Messina – Ashburnhamensis 64,8 year 1289, Grottaferrata For our investigation of the melodies of the three allelouiaria the following manuscripts were used: – in the long allelouiarion style: – Codex Ashburnhamensis 64, sigle A – in the short allelouiarion style: – Vaticanus gr. 345, sigle Va – in the kalophonic style: – Vindob. theol. gr. 185, sigle Vi, from the last quarter of the 14th century, written in Thessaloniki. There the allelouiaria are headed: «Ἀλληλουιάρια τῶν μεγάλων ἑορτῶν καλοποιηθέντα.» They comprise anonymous compositions and also allelouiaria of Koukouzeles.9 In our comparison we refer only to the anonymous allelouiaria of that manuscript. What information do we have about the formation of the allelouiaria? The first valuable information about the formation of a liturgy in and outside Jerusalem is given by the nun Egeria, a French or Spanish pilgrim, who visited the Holy City between 383 and 385. She described the stational liturgy: on each day of the liturgical calendar, the celebration was held in a different church or other place. In this way, in the course of the year, it moved throughout the whole city of Jerusalem.10 We may assume that there was already an annual cycle for the biblical readings, responsorial psalms and allelouias for the celebration of the mass.   Høeg, C., Contacarium Ashburnhamense.   Thodberg refers to the allelouiaria of the kalophonic codex GR-EBE 2458 from 1336, pp. 27-28. 10   Wilkinson, J., Egeria’s Travels to the Holy Land: Newly Translated with Supporting Documents and Notes (Jerusalem, 1981). 8 9

162

G. WOLFRAM

In the first decades of the 5th century the Armenian community of Jerusalem collected and translated all these chants for their own use in a liturgical book, a so-called Lectionary.11 Unfortunately the original Greek text did not survive. The allelouiarion is first recorded with the allelouia, then the number of the psalm, then the beginning of the first verse from the psalms and the allelouia. It is probable that the whole psalm would have been sung. The Georgian community of Jerusalem also collected and translated the liturgy of the Holy City as if it were its own. In this Georgian Lectionary we can discern different stages of development between the 5th and the 8th centuries.12 It includes about 150 allelouiaria, whereas the manuscripts of the Constantinopolitan tradition and that of Southern Italy have about 60. There are a small number of allelouiaria which appear in the Georgian collection as well in as in the Byzantine Psaltika.13 In the Georgian Lectionary the liturgical year begins on December 24th. All modes are represented with the exception of echos plagios deuteros. The third mode and its plagios are present, contrary to the notated examples of the Psaltika of Constantinopolitan and Southern Italian tradition. The Lectionary records only the first psalm verse, but we may assume that in the first centuries the entire psalm was sung in the following way: a psaltes chanted the psalm verses, the people (ὁ λαός) answered after each verse with allelouia. In the course of time the allelouiarion was shortened to one or two verses, probably ὁ λαός being replaced by a choir. In Constantinople the formation of an allelouiaria-cycle must have developed in a similar way to how this had taken place in Jerusalem. The earliest non-musical sources are from the 9th/10th century, Patmos 266 and Staurou 40, the Typika of the Hagia Sophia,14 which show the formation 11   Le codex arménien de Jérusalem 121, i, Introduction aux origines de la liturgie hiérosolymitaine, lumières nouvelles, ed. Renoux, A., Patrologia Orientalis, 35/1 (Turnhout, 1969); ii, Édition comparée du texte et de deux autres manuscrits, ed. Renoux, A., Patrologia Orientalis, 36/2 (Turnhout, 1971). 12   Le grand lectionnaire de l’église de Jérusalem (Ve-VIIIe siècles), ed. Tarchnischvili, M., 2 vols, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 188-9, 204-5 (Louvain, 19561960); Jeffery, P., ‘The Earliest Christian Chant Repertory Recovered: The Georgian Witnesses to Jerusalem Chant’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 47, 1 (1994), pp. 1-13; Leeb, H., Die Gesänge im Gemeindegottesdienst von Jerusalem (vom 5. bis 8. Jahrhundert), Wiener Beiträge zur Theologie, 28 (Vienna, 1970). 13  Thodberg, Alleluiarionzyklus, p. 35. 14   Дмитриевский, А., Описания литургических рукописей хранящихся в библиотеках православного Востока, 3 vols; i, Τυπικά (Kiev, 1895), pp. 1-152; Mateos, J., Le Typicon de la Grande Eglise: Ms. Sainte-Croix N° 40, i-ii, Orientalia christiana analecta, 165-166 (Rome, 1962-1963).



THE BYZANTINE TRADITION OF THE ALLELOUIA CHANTS

163

of the liturgy of the city of Constantinople. In addition there is the Typikon of the Euergetis Monastery in Constantinople from the 11th/12th century,15 and the Typikon of the Monastery of San Salvatore di Messina,16 most probably from the year 1131, in the tradition of Southern Italy. There we find only the word «ἀλληλούια» before the reading of the gospel, without any verses from the psalms. There is also the Typikon of the Anastasis Church in Jerusalem from the year 1122.17 It gives only the liturgy of Holy Week.18 The liturgical typika give also hints as to the use of the allelouiaria in the liturgy, in the hours and in the evening service.19 We can take it that the cycle of allelouiaria was already completed in Constantinople by the end of the 5th to the 6th century.20 Thodberg assumes two archetypes of musical style for the allelouiaria in Constantinople and Southern Italy. In both traditions only the great ‘old’ feasts were provided with an allelouiarion. New feasts which were introduced after the 6th century were not. The only exception being the Sunday of Orthodoxy, which was added to the liturgical calendar in the year 843, the restauration of the iconolatry. It is celebrated together with the feast of the prophets. The verses of psalm 98, 6a-b, 98, 6c-7 doubtless refer to prophets. The common ‘allelouiaria’ of the Latin and the Byzantine tradition are: – Δίκαιος ὡς φοῖνιξ – Iustus ut palma, psalm 91:13, «ἦχος δ᾿, εἰς μάρτυρα ἕνα» respectively «εἰς μεγάλο μάρτυρα» – Ἐκέκραξαν οἱ δίκαιοι – Clamaverunt iusti, psalm 33:18, «ἦχος δ᾿, εἰς μάρτυρα» resp. «εἰς μάρτυρας», in Vindob. theol. gr. 185 «είς μάρτυρα ἅγ. Δημήτριο» (26. 10.), as well in ἦχος δ` as in ἦχος α᾿. – Ἀναστήτω ὁ Θεός – Exsurgat Deus, psalm 67:2, «ἦχος δ᾿, τῷ μεγάλῳ σαββάτῳ» It is remarkable that all three allelouiaria common to the Latin tradition are composed in the fourth mode.   Дмитриевский, Описания, i, pp. 256-656.   Arranz, M., Le Typicon du monastère du Saint-Sauveur à Messine: Codex Messinensis gr. 115, Orientalia christiana analecta, 185 (Rome, 1969). 17   Παπαδόπουλος-Κεραμεύς, A., Ἀνάλεκτα Ἱεροσολυμιτικῆς σταχυολογίας (Saint Petersburg, 1891-1898), ii. 18  Thodberg, Alleluiarionzyklus, p. 35f., refers to another cycle of 16 allelouiaria, handed down in codex gr. Petropolitanus 44, a manuscript from Sinai from the 9th century. It seems to hand down a liturgical tradition from the 6th century or even earlier. See Thibaut, Monuments, p. 17f. 19   Дмитриевский, Описания (see n. 14) (Kiev, 1917), iii, Τυπικά, p. 83; Дмитриевский, Описания, i, p. 611. 20  Thodberg, Alleluiarionzyklus, p. 36f. 15 16

164

G. WOLFRAM

Example 1. At the beginning of each echos in codex A (Ashburnhamenis 64) there is a relatively long allelouia. It is the allelouia by means of which the psaltes introduces the allelouiarion. The melisma of the alle­ louia in echos protos and echos tetartos is nearly the same. The fourth mode is parallel to the first mode one interval deeper. In plagios deuteros and plagios tetartos we can again see a similarity at the beginning of the allelouia. In the plagal modes in particular there are sequences moving up and down within a wide range. In many musical theseis we find the aporrhoe or hyporrhoe. It has a special influence on the vocal rendering. In the music theories of the 15th century we find the following explanations: Gabriel Hieromonachos writes: «… ταύτην (τὴν ἀπορροήν) ἐκφέρομεν διὰ τοῦ γαργαρεῶνος ὡς ἄν τινα ἀπόρροιαν»;21 and Pseudo-Johannes Damaskenos writes: «  (ἡ ἀπορροὴ) οὔτε σῶμα ἐστὶν οὔτε πνεῦμα, ἀλλ᾿ ἔκβλημα τοῦ γουργοῦρου.»22 That means a specific use of the larynx. The kratema is also a significant element to mark and emphasise the highest interval in the mele of the allelouias and the allelouiaria. The finales are remarkable in the different modes. Echos protos and plagios protos end on E, plagios deuteros ends on F, plagios tetartos ends on b. Maybe these finales prepare for the transition to the allelouia of the choir. Example 2. A late example to introduce the allelouiarion is from Vi, fol. 242v. Here is written: «καὶ μετὰ τὸ πληρῶσαι τὸν ἀπόστολον, ὁ πρωτοψάλτης ἐπὶ ἄμβωνος λέγων οὕτως·» It is a very simple allelouia. The allelouia of the choir moves within the range of a fifth. The allelouia of the psaltes has no martyria, ‘while’ the allelouias of the choir are in the second mode. Example 3. Δίκαιος ὡς φοῖνιξ «Δίκαιος ὡς φοῖνιξ ἀνθήσει, ὡσεὶ κέδρος ἡ ἐν τῷ Λιβάνῳ (πληθυνθήσεται)» Ιn all our examples, in codices A fol. 217v, Va fol. 27v, Vi fol. 247r, the beginning is the same. Codex Va introduces the medial cadence by a

21   Ηannick – Wolfram, Gabriel Hieromonachos, lines 225-230; p. 59: ‘Wir bringen sie ja mit Hilfe der (rauen) Gurgel hervor, sozusagen wie ein Herausfließen.’ See also Troelsgård, Byzantine Neumes, p. 44. 22   Wolfram – Hannick, Pseudo-Johannes Damaskenos, line 744; p. 95: ‘Sie ist weder Soma noch Pneuma, sondern ein Strömen aus der Kehle.’



THE BYZANTINE TRADITION OF THE ALLELOUIA CHANTS

165

short ouranisma,23 followed by a typical cadence of an ascending third and an ascending second, above the syllables γγι γγι, df-de. This cadence recurs in all allelouiaria at different pitches, always above the psaltic syllables with double gamma, as γγο γγο, γγου γγου. The kalophonic version conforms with the psaltic melos in the first line. Then sequences, consisting of three or four intervals, demonstrate the late kalophonic tradition. Example 4. Ἐκέκραξαν οἱ δίκαιοι «Ἐκέκραξαν οἱ δίκαιοι, καὶ ὁ κύριος εἰσήκουσεν αὐτῶν καὶ ἐκ πασῶν τῶν θλίψεων αὐτῶν (ἐρρύσατο αὐτούς).» In codices A fol. 217r, Va fol. 27r, Vi fols 247r and Vi 245r the examples begin with a fifth upwards. The kalophonic examples are in the fourth and in the first mode. The melos of the first mode is much more elaborate than that of the fourth mode. The typical psaltic medial cadences are also found in the kalophonic version. Example 5. Ἀναστήτω ὁ Θεός «Ἀναστήτω ὁ Θεός, καὶ διασκορπισθήτωσαν οἱ ἐχθροὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ φυγέτωσαν (οἱ μισοῦντες αὐτὸν) ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ.» This allelouiarion for Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday, A fol. 214r, Va 26r, shows many common melodic formulas, although Va is not as elaborate as A. Vi fol. 247r, also begins with an ascending fifth, but then it shows the ouranisma formula at the pitch of b e f e d c b. In the Typikon of the Anastasis Church of Jerusalem we find the following note: «Ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀλληλούια λέγομεν τοῦτο τὸ στιχηρόν· ἦχος βαρύς· Ἀνάστα ὁ Θεὸς, κρίνων τὴν γῆν.»24 This is not a sticheron but a great prokeimenon in echos barys. In general terms we can say that both codex Ashburnhamense and codex Vaticanus preserve an ancient tradition and seem to represent two different archetypes — the short tradition of Constantinople and the long tradition of Southern Italy. Whilst the anonymous kalophonic versions of 23  Troelsgård, Byzantine Neumes, p. 51; Hannick – Wolfram, Gabriel Hieromonachos, p. 69: ‘Das Uranisma trägt die Stimme in die Höhe und führt sie wieder herab.’ Floros, Universale Neumenkunde, iii, p. 125, where the ouranisma of the ‘Mega Ison‘ of Ioannes Koukouzeles forms the melodic formula G c h a G. Thodberg, Allelouiarionzyklus, pp. 64-79, investigated the long and the short ouranisma cadences in the allelouiaria of the short style. 24   Παπαδόπουλος-Κεραμεύς, Ἀνάλεκτα (see n. 17), ii, p. 187.

166

G. WOLFRAM

the Viennese manuscript adopt some elements of the old allelouiaria, they also show the new elements of the composing style. These three Byzantine allelouiaria, which also belong to the Latin tradition,25 are written in the 4th mode. Perhaps the medial position of this mode could be easily transferred to the Latin modal system. Another consideration could be that these allelouiaria had been adopted before the Byzantine modal system was definitely established. A common musical character cannot be found: Latin liturgical music developed in another direction. Abbreviations used in the footnotes Floros, Universale Neumenkunde – Floros, C., Universale Neumenkunde, 3 vols (Kassel, 1970). Hannick – Wolfram, Gabriel Hieromonachos – Gabriel Hieromonachos: Abhandlung über den Kirchengesang, ed. Hannick, Ch. – Wolfram., G., MMB CSRM 1 (Vienna, 1985). Høeg, Contacarium Ashburnhamense – Høeg, C., Contacarium Ashburnhamense (reproduction intégrale du Codex Laurentianus Ashb. 64), MMB 4 (Copenhagen, 1956). Thodberg, Alleluiarionzyklus – Thodberg, Ch., Der byzantinische Alleluiarionzyklus: Studien im kurzen Psaltikonstil, MMB Subsidia 8 (Copenhagen, 1996). Wolfram – Hannick, Pseudo-Johannes Damaskenos – Die Erotapokriseis des Pseudo-Johannes Damaskenos zum Kirchengesang, ed. Wolfram, G. – Hannick, Ch., MMB CSRM 5 (Vienna, 1997).

25   See Wanek, N.-M.’s article in this volume: ‘Bilingual Allelouia Chants in Latin Manuscripts of the 11th Century and their Byzantine Counterparts’, pp. 175-198.



THE BYZANTINE TRADITION OF THE ALLELOUIA CHANTS

Example 1.

Example 2.

167

168

G. WOLFRAM

Example 3a.



THE BYZANTINE TRADITION OF THE ALLELOUIA CHANTS

Example 3b.

169

170

G. WOLFRAM

Example 4a.



THE BYZANTINE TRADITION OF THE ALLELOUIA CHANTS

Example 4b.

171

172

G. WOLFRAM

Example 5a.



THE BYZANTINE TRADITION OF THE ALLELOUIA CHANTS

Example 5b.

173

BILINGUAL ALLELUIA CHANTS IN LATIN MANUSCRIPTS OF THE 11TH CENTURY AND THEIR BYZANTINE COUNTERPARTS1 Nina-Maria Wanek

1. Introduction In Western liturgical manuscripts of the 9th-11th centuries many chants are already known, whose texts and/or melodies might have been borrowed from Byzantium. During the past 150 years research has con­centrated on the ordinary chants of the so-called Missa graeca (Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ / Gloria in excelsis Deo, Πιστεύω / Credo, Ἅγιος / Sanctus, Ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ / Agnus Dei) and various bilingual chants, mainly for Good Friday, Easter and Christmas. Nevertheless there are still chants with Greek texts to be discovered in Western manuscripts, which have hitherto been hardly looked at. Among these are e.g. some alleluia-chants for the Easter vespers, which have only been partly studied.2 But the question re­garding the origins of these alleluias has still not been solved. Even more enigmatic than the Easter-alle­luias are the following alleluias which have so far been treated only cursorily: – Ἀγαλλιᾶσθε τῷ Θεῷ / Exsultate Deo (Psalm 80:2–3): Pa 9449, fol. 50v; Cai 75, fol. 119r – Δίκαιος ὡς φοῖνιξ / Iustus ut palma (Psalm 91:13): Cai 75, fol. 114r – Ἐκέκραξαν οἱ δίκαιοι / Clamaverunt iusti (Psalm 33:18): Cai 75, fol. 114r Due to the fact that some of the alleluia chants are attributed to Pentecost or the time after Pentecost, the introit antiphon for Pentecost – Πνεύμα (του) Κυρίου πλήρωσε / Spiritus Domini replevit together with its introit psalm Ἀναστήτω ὁ Θεός / Exsurgat Deus (Psalm 67:2) will also be taken into account. Both antiphon and psalm can be found in MS Pa 9449. The antiphon without the psalm verse is also used in the MSS Pa 779, Pa 1871 and Le Puy. 1  This article is part of the research project P 27115 ‘Cultural Transfer of Music between Byzantium and the West’ funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF). For abbreviations often used in the footnotes see p. 198. 2  See especially Thodberg, Ch., Der byzantinische Alleluiarionzyklus: Studien im Kurzen Psaltikonstil, MMB Subsidia, 8 (Copenhagen, 2011), pp. 168-195.

176

N.-M. WANEK

2. Western Alleluias The abovementioned alleluias are of great interest because the origins of the Western alleluia are still unclear and under discussion. The alleluia in the West is a responsorial proper chant during the Fore-Mass after the gradual and is performed thus: the cantor sings the word alleluia, to which the choir re­sponds with alleluia and the following wordless melismatic jubilus on the final syllable ‘a’. Then the cantor sings the main part of the verse and the choir the ending. Finally the word ‘alleluia’ is repeated by the cantor and the jubilus by the choir.3 In the Latin West the alleluia was the last proper chant of the Mass to be standardized. Until the later Middle Ages, different churches assigned different alleluias to the same Masses and still new alleluias were being composed. Identical series of chants can only be found in sources from one and the same church (or churches in the same city). Apparently the alleluias were added later to a pre-existing cycle of proper chants. Also the days they were assigned to were far more variable than is the case with other proper chants.4 We know from an Armenian Lectionary, outlining the liturgy of early 5th-century Jerusalem, that two psalms were sung responsorially in the Eucharistic proanaphora, the second one with alleluia. This is still the Eastern practice, where two psalms are sung, the second being an alleluia-psalm. But by approximately the 6th century only a single psalm-verse accompanied by an alleluia seems to have been performed. The situation in the West was different, because here we cannot find two psalms where the second one is an alleluia-psalm in the ­proanaphora. Augustineʼs sermons tell us that in the 4th century one particular psalm (and not two) was sung in the proanaphora. But sometimes, mostly during the time between Easter and Pentecost, this psalm was sung with an alleluia.5 McKinnon, who has done extensive research on the history of the Western alleluias, assumes that this was not the alleluia of the Mass, but only meant that the word alleluia was affixed to any given psalm. 3   Hiley, D., Western Plainchant: A Handbook (Oxford, 2005), p. 130; McKinnon, J., The Later-Seventh-Century Creation of the Roman Mass Proper (Berkeley, 2000), p. 249. 4   Hughes, F.G., ‘The Paschal Alleluia in Medieval France’, Plainsong and Medieval Music, 14, 1 (2005), pp. 11-57, on pp. 11f. See also McKinnon, J., ‘Preface to the Study of the Alleluia’, Early Music History, 15 (1996), pp. 213-249, on p. 214: ‘All the evidence points to a late origin for the genre.’ 5   Idem, pp. 219-222.



BILINGUAL ALLELUIA CHANTS IN LATIN MANUSCRIPTS

177

Because of the late emergence of the alleluia Apel hypothesized that the jubilus was sung as a melismatic chant unrelated to any psalm; only later on psalm-verses were added to the jubilus. It was Thodberg and after him McKinnon, who thought that the Western alleluia of the Mass did probably not originate as a mature chant, but was taken over from Byzantium with its dual responsorial psalms, the second one being the one with alleluia, showing the typical structure ‘alleluia–verse–alleluia’.6 This hy­pothesis was based on the three alleluias Ἐπὶ σοὶ, Κύριε / In te, Domine, Ὁ Κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν / Domin­us regnavit and Ὅτι Θεὸς μέγας / Quoniam Deus magnus for the vigils of Easter found with Greek text in Western manuscripts. Still, opinions differ as to whether there is a connection at all to Byzantine alleluias or not.7 3. Western Manuscripts The abovementioned alleluias can be found with Greek text in five neumed manuscripts, which contain one or more of the alleluias respectively the introit verse in question: – the gradual-proser-troper Pa 9449, fol. 49v (St Cyr in Nevers; ca. 105910618) – the proser-troper Pa 779, fol. 67v (Limoges?; 2nd half 11th century) – the troper Pa 1871, fol. 22v (Moissac; 2nd half 11th century9) 6  Apel, W., Gregorian Chant (Bloomington, Ind., 1958), pp. 391-392; McKinnon, J.  Alleluia, in Grove Music Online: www.oxfordmusiconline.com:80/subscriber/article/ grove/music/40711 (accessed: 24.10.2015). 7   See a.o. Wellesz, E., Eastern Elements in Western Chant (Oxford, 1947), pp. 35f.; Gastoué, A., Les origines du chant romaine: LʼAntiphonaire grégorien (Paris, 1907), pp. 288ff. According to McKinnon, J., The Advent Project: The Later-Seventh-Century Creation of the Roman Mass Proper (Berkeley, 2000), pp. 259f. and pp. 257f., the alleluia with Greek text, O Kyrios, has been taken over from Byzantium, whereas Dominus regnavit — its Latin counterpart — constitutes a kind of Roman ‘primordial alleluia’: ‘There were not enough […] appropriate Mass alleluias to provide alleluias for the entire [Easter] week and hence the decision to abstract the vesper tone from Dominus regnavit decorem and to stamp out a considerable varie­ty of new verses. In doing so the Roman singers made generous use of Byzantine alleluiarion verse texts, including no less than four translitera­ted from the Greek.’ 8   Dating according to Delisle, L., ‘Rapport sur les publications de la Société nivernaise’, Revue des sociétés savantes des departements, 3, 2 (1860), pp. 559–563, on p. 561. See also Crosnier, A.-J., Étude sur la liturgie nivernaise, son origine et ses développements (Nevers, 1868), p. 105, and Reier, E.J., The Introit Trope Repertory at Nevers: MSS Paris B.N. lat. 9449 and Paris B.N. n.a. lat. 1235, i (Diss. Berkeley, 1981), pp. 18f. 9  The manuscript was first published together with a commentary by Daux, C., Tropaire-prosier de lʼAbbaye St. Martin de Montauriol (Paris, 1901). Due to manifold

178

N.-M. WANEK

– the proser-gradual, Cai 75, fol. 119r (St Vaast in Arras; 2nd quarter 11th century10) and – the ritual-sacramentary Le Puy, fol. 163v (Le Puy-en-Velay, Auvergne; 3rd quarter / middle of the 11th century) Having been written during the 2nd half of the 11th century, all five manuscripts show a close proximity in time. This is backed up by the fact that most of the chants with Greek text can be found in codices of the 11th century: e.g. from the approximately 50 neumed manuscripts containing chants of the so-called Missa graeca more than half date from the 11th century, although this was actually a time when the production of codices was in decline.11 Not only were the manuscripts written during the same time, they all come from West Francia as well, although from far apart places (see below ‘Conclusio’).12 mistakes this edition was severely criticised by Bannister, H.M., ‘Un tropaire-prosier de Moissac’, Revue dʼhistoire et de littérature religieuses, 8 (1903), pp. 555-581, on p. 558 and p. 579. In his article Bannister tried to specify the dating as well as the origins of the manuscript and comes to the conclusion that it was not written for the Monastery of St Martin at Montauriol (as Daux assumed), but probably for the Abbey of St Pierre at Moissac. A new edition came out in 2006: Tropaire séquentiaire prosaire prosulaire de Moissac (Troisième quart du XIe siècle) Manuscrit Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, n. a. l. 1871, ed. Colette, M.-N., Gousset, M.-Th. (Paris, 2006). 10   Dating according to Borries-Schulten, S., ‘Die Buchmalerei des 11. Jahrhunderts im Kloster St. Vaast in Arras’, Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 7 (1956), pp. 49-90, on p. 85. 11   See Leonardi, C., ‘Intellectual Life’, in The new Cambridge Medieval History, iii, c. 900–c. 1024, ed. Reuter, T. (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 186-211, on pp. 186f.: ‘The boom in writing’, states Leonardi, ‘from the last years of the eighth century was a result of the huge cultural developments brought about by Charlemagne. The Carolingian renaissance … created a need for a written culture based on manus­cripts. But given the high cost of books, continued production was unnecessary once demand had been met. This, rather than cultural decline, explains the tenth-century fall in manuscript production … .’ 12   Cai 75 from St Vaast in Arras in the North of France, Pa 9449 from the bishopʼs see St Cyr in Nevers in central France, Pa 1871 from the Abbey St Pierre of Moissac in the Southwest of France and the Ritual-Sacramentary from the Auvergne (from the cathedral of Notre Dame in Le Puy-en-Velay). The provenance of Pa 779 though is uncertain: It was usually ascribed to St. Martial in Limoges, lately it was argued that Arles was more likely. About Pa 1871 see a.o. Dufour, J., La bibliothèque et la scriptorium de Moissac (Geneva, 1972), pp. 33f., and Tropaire séquentiaire, ed. Colette–Gousset (see n. 9), p. 8. The attribuition of Paris BN lat. 779 to Limoges seems to go back to Chailley, J., ‘Les anciens Tropaires et Séquentiaires de lʼécole de St. Martial de Limoges (X.–XI. s.)’, Études Grégoriennes, 2 (1957), pp. 163-188, on p. 183, and was taken over by most of the subsequent authors. See a.o. Planchart, A.E., ‘Notker in Aquitaine’, in Music in Medieval Europe: Studies in Honor of David Gillingham, ed. Bailey, T., Santosuosso, A. (Aldershot, 2007), pp. 312-366, on p. 361; Fassler, M., Gothic Song: Victorine Sequences and Augustinian Reform in Twelfth-Century Paris (Cambridge, 1993), p. 99 n. 52; Corpus Troporum, iv, Tropes de lʼAgnus Dei, ed. Iversen, G. (Stockholm, 1980), p. 21 and p. 157.



179

BILINGUAL ALLELUIA CHANTS IN LATIN MANUSCRIPTS

4. The Greek Chants Therein

in the

Manuscripts,

their

Position

and

Use

The five manuscripts use the chants with Greek text in very different ways. Pa 9449 contains the largest number of Greek chants, not only the alleluia Ἀγαλλιᾶσθε τῷ Θεῷ but also the antiphon Πνεῦμα (τοῦ) Κυρίου πλήρωσε together with the introit psalm Ἀναστήτω ὁ Θεός and the lesser doxology (Δόξα Πατρί) as well as all the ordinary chants of the Missa graeca (Doxa, Pisteuo, Hagios/Agios and Amnos), which normally do not appear as a complete ‘set’ but only individually. One could therefore describe the set in Pa 9449 as one of the most complete Missae graecae which is known up to now (Levy also included the cheroubikon Οἱ τὰ χερουβίμ in the Missa graeca,13 which cannot be found in Pa 9449). As in many other manuscripts, the Greek chants in Pa 9449 belong to the feast of Pentecost.14 Due to this fact the use of the Greek language is often explained as a means to show the ‘language diversity’ of Pentecost and of ‘demonstrating’ the unity of the Latin and the Greek Church by using both languages.15 Why Pa 9449 contains that many Greek chants is not yet clear,16 comparable manuscripts feature far less. See also Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, vi, Nachträge, Handschriftenverzeichnis, Bibliographie, ed. Lipphardt, W. (Berlin, 1981), pp. 366f., as well as Husmann, H., ­Tropen- und Sequenzenhandschriften, i (Munich, 1964), p. 115, who tends to ascribe the manuscript to Arles. 13   Levy, ‘Byzantine Sanctus’, p. 37. 14  Cf. Graduale Romanum, pp. 252f. 15   See Kaczynski, B., Greek in the Carolingian Age: The St. Gall Manuscripts (Cambridge, Mass., 1988), pp. 110f.: ‘Their time of appearance within the liturgical year seems to have been chosen with purpose, for the feast of Pentecost commemorates the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles … And so Pentecost called to mind all of the languages spoken by Christians. To sing the mass in Greek and Latin, then, was to celebrate the feast in a way that was singularly appropriate.’ Delisle, ‘Rapport’ (see n. 8), pp. 561f. also writes that the Greek constitutes ‘… sans doute en souvenir du don des langues, qui ce jour-là avait été accordé aux apôtres.’ 16   The additional chants with Greek texts in Pa 9449 are hardly ever mentioned in the relevant literature: e.g. Delisle, ‘Rapport’ (see n. 8), pp. 561f., who describes and dates the manuscript in his article in 1860, mentions that it contains Greek ordinary chants, but does not refer to the other Greek chants therein. The first or one of the first ones to draw attention to this fact is Crosnier, Étude (see n. 8), p. 111, who states in 1868 that Pa 9449 contains not only the Gloria, Credo and Agnus Dei in Greek, but also the introit for Pentecost. However he does not list the other Greek hymns, which can also be found in Pa 9449. Only Wagner, P., Einführung in die gregorianischen Melodien: Ein Handbuch der Choralwissenschaft, i (Leipzig, 19113), p. 52 n. 3 and 4, writes more about these chants in his first chapter ‘Griechisches im lateinischen Kirchengesang’ in 1895. Wagner here develops his ‘Roman theory’, which claims that the origins of the Greek chants in Western manuscripts lie in Rome (pp. 49f.). Brou, ‘Chants’, pp. 174f. mentions the alleluia

180

N.-M. WANEK

This is true for Pa 779 which only contains — also for the feast of Pentecost — the lesser doxology and the antiphon Πνεῦμα (τοῦ) Κυρίου πλήρωσε.17 Pa 1871 combines the lesser doxology with the Πνεῦμα (τοῦ) Κυρίου for Pentecost, but does not contain any Greek ordinary chants. Pa 1871 includes the Greek Hagios/Agios and Amnos in a separate section with the tropes of the Agnus Dei. For the alleluia Ἀγαλλιᾶσθε τῷ Θεῷ Pa 1871 uses the Latin version Exsurgat Deus.18 The MS Cai 75 is special insofar as it contains three alleluias with Greek text — more than any other codex.19 Furthermore two of these alleluias — Δίκαιος ὡς φοῖνιξ and Ἐκέκραξαν οἱ δίκαιοι — cannot be found in any other manuscript. Cai 75 does not contain any ordinary chants though. The alleluia-chants are not assigned to Pentecost, but to other feasts: in Cai 75 Ἀγαλλιᾶσθε τῷ Θεῷ20 is sung on the 8th Sunday after Pentecost, whereas the Graduale Romanum assigns it to the 11th Sunday after Pentecost.21 Moreover, in Cai 75 Δίκαιος ὡς φοῖνιξ22 is Ἀγαλλιᾶσθε τῷ Θεῷ/Exsultate Deo for Cai 75, but does not write that it can also be found in Pa 9449. In the newer literature the Greek chants in Pa 9449 (supplemented with Pa 779 and Pa 1871) are treated in a separate chapter in Corpus Troporum, 3, Tropes du propre de la messe, ii, Cycle de Pâques, ed. Björkvall, G., Iversen, G., Jonsson, R. (Stockholm, 1982), pp. 24-27 (‘Les parties grecques des tropaires’) because — as the authors state — it is not clear if they constitute tropes or not. 17   Pa 779 is hardly ever referred to in the secondary literature: There is only a footnote in Huglo, M., ‘Les chants de la Missa Greca de Saint-Denis’, in Essays presented to Egon Wellesz, ed. Westrup, J.A. (Oxford, 1966), pp. 74-83, on p. 75 n. 4, where Pa 779 is mentioned. 18   The ‘Hagios’ in Pa 1871 is mentioned in Uglo, M., ‘La tradition occidentale des mélodies byzantines du Sanctus’, in Der kultische Gesang der abendländischen Kirche: Ein gregorianisches Werkheft aus Anlaß des 75. Geburtstages von D. Johner, ed. Tack, F. (Cologne, 1950), pp. 40-46, as well as in idem, ‘Chants’, p. 75 n. 4: ‘À Nevers, au XIe siècle, plusieurs pièces de la messe de la Pentecôte se chantaient en grec. Il subsiste par ailleurs un certain nombre de versets alleluïatiques occidentaux traduits en grec. Ces exemples dʼadoption dʼauthentiques pièces byzantines et de rétroversions de pièces latines témoignent de lʼengouement admiratif du clergé pour le grec, tant à lʼépoque carolingienne que dans les siècles suivants.’ Also Björkvall–Iversen–Jonsson, Cycle de Pâques (see n. 16), pp. 24-27 and Colette–Gousset, Tropaire (see n. 9), p. 13 refer to Pa1871, but without discussing the alleluia. 19   See also the reference in Hiley, Plainchant (see n. 3), p. 528: ‘The (Greek) mass was usually sung at Pentecost, when two alleluias would normally have been performed, but no special provision for them appears to have been made. Some other alleluias with Greek texts are known, however, from a small number of most north French and English manuscripts: Dies sanctificatus/Ymera agiasmeni and a set in Cambrai, Bibliotheque Municipale 75 … None of these appears to be based on Eastern originals, but they are certainly evidence of a lively interest in Greek learning, typical particularly of northern French centres in the second part of the ninth century.’ 20  Schlager, Thematischer Katalog, pp. 220f. 21  Cardine, Graduel neumé, p. 325. 22  Schlager, Thematischer Katalog, pp. 86f.



BILINGUAL ALLELUIA CHANTS IN LATIN MANUSCRIPTS

181

used for the feast of St Marcus (bishop of Rome) on 7th October in Greek, and in Latin for the feast of St Prisca of Rome on 18th January, both times using the same melody. The Graduale Romanum generally lists Iustus ut palma as alleluia for the Commune of Saints.23 Ἐκέκραξαν οἱ δίκαιοι24 is again noted once in Greek for the feast of St Dionysius on 9th October and with the same melody in Latin for the feast of the Saints Gordianus and Epimachus on 10th May. This alleluia is not included in the Graduale Romanum. The MS Le Puy contains the antiphon Τὸ πνεῦμα Κυρίου πλήρωσε for Pente­ cost. This is not followed by the corresponding psalm-verse Ἀναστήτω ὁ Θεός (as in Pa 9449), but by the troparion Ὅτε τῷ σταυρῷ” / ‘O quando in cruce for Good Friday. This can only be due to a scribal error: the scribe probably did not know what he was writing here.25 Nevertheless this is interesting, because until now Ὅτε τῷ σταυρῷ was just known from Beneventan and Ravennitic manuscripts,26 and only two codices — Benevento VI. 38 and Modena O. I. 7 from Ravenna — contain the neumed Ὅτε τῷ σταυρῷ.27 5. Melodies a) Ἀγαλλιᾶσθε τῷ θεῷ / Exsultate Deo (Psalm 80:2-3) In Cai 75 the Greek text is followed immediately by the Latin one, while the melody is twice the same.28 It is not clear why the same melody is used twice in two different languages, but we might assume that the Latin text was simply meant as a translation of the Greek text, as is probably also the case with the Missa graeca-chants.

  Graduale Romanum, pp. 516f.  Schlager, Thematischer Katalog, p. 154. 25   The MS Le Puy was first described in Klugseder, R., ‘Bedeutende, bisher unbekannte liturgisch-musikalische Quellen aus Salzburg und Le Puy-en-Velay’, Beiträge zur Gregorianik, 58 (2015), pp. 159-170. 26   See the relevant details in Wellesz, Eastern Elements (see n. 7), and Kelly, Th.F., The Beneventan Chant (Cambridge, 1989). 27  Wellesz, Eastern Elements, p. 69, according to J. Gayard, who transcribed the chant for Wellesz. Wellesz states: ‘ ... the codex in the Library of Modena might have had its origin in Ravenna seems very convincing to me, as Ravenna was one of the places through which Byzantine and Syrian ecclesiastical art and liturgical customs entered Italy.’ 28   Brou, ‘Chants’, pp. 174f. 23 24

182

N.-M. WANEK

Illustration 1.  Cai 75, fol. 119r (© Cambrai Bibliothèque municipiale).

The manuscript itself does not give any hint, as there are no rubrics. In his article, Brou observes that the alleluia appears as if it had two verses, one in Greek, the second one in Latin.29 According to Brou a possible explanation for this practice might be that some of the alleluias for the Sundays after Pentecost have got two verses in Cai 75. For instance the alleluias Omnes gentes, Te decet hymnus and Confitemini were sung with two verses during Easter week.30 This practice might go back to the early 5th-century liturgy of Jerusalem, where two psalms used to be sung, the second one with alleluia as response.31 But there is no evidence for the Exsultate Deo ever having been chanted with two verses. In Pa 9449 the case is different: here Ἀγαλλιᾶσθε τῷ Θεῷ is found among the Greek chants for Pentecost. Why this alleluia has been chosen to be sung with Greek text, while others remain with their Latin text, is also unclear. Regarding the history of Exsultate Deo, there are not many clues: in his catalogue about the oldest alleluia-melodies, Schlager lists a great number of manuscripts for the text from France and Italy, display­ing the beginning of the alleluia from the diastematic MS Pst 120 from the early 12th century, which corresponds with the melody in the Graduale Romanum.32 According to Schlager, Exsultate Deo belongs to the ‘stan­ dard repertory’.33 Cardine in his handwritten insertions in his ‘Graduel   Brou, ‘Chants’, p. 175.   Idem, p. 175 n. 1. 31   See a.o. McKinnon, ‘Alleluia’ (see n. 6) (accessed: 24.10.2015). 32  Schlager, Thematischer Katalog, pp. 220f. 33  Schlager, Thematischer Katalog, p. 22. 29 30



BILINGUAL ALLELUIA CHANTS IN LATIN MANUSCRIPTS

183

Illustration 2.  Pa 9449, fol. 50v (© Paris Bibliothèque national).

neumé’, where he wrote adiastematic neumes on top of the square notation, dates the alleluia to the 8th century:34

Illustration 3.  Cardine, Graduel Neumé p. 325.

Cardine states that he got this information from Amedée Gastoué, which is usually the case, when a chant does not belong to the ‘old ­Gregorian repertoire’.35 How Gastoué dated or acquired the dating of Exsultate Deo is not known. Cardin used as his sources three antiphonaries from the 9th/10th century, which are Compiègne (Pa 17436), Corbie (Pa 12050), and Sen 111. As all three antiphonaries are without neumes, we can only assume that the alleluia was already in use during the 9th century, but we cannot draw 34  Cardine, Graduel neumé, n.p. (introduction). There are no clues in regard to the dating of Exsultate Deo in the Graduale Romanum, pp. 312f. 35  Cardine, Graduel neumé, p. 325.

184

N.-M. WANEK

any conclusions regarding the melody, nor know which manuscript was the melodic source for the Graduale Romanum. Huglo writes that Pa 17436 is the oldest codex for the alleluias after Pentecost, dating from the 9th century,36 but the chants here are also still without neumes. In Pa 17436 the incipit for Exsultate Deo can be found for Pentecost on fols 21v and 64v; it is also named on the alleluia-list for the Sundays of the Temporale on fol. 25r. Although this manuscript states on fol. 58 that alleluias are also sung in Greek, Exsultate Deo only appears in Latin.37 The oldest sources I could locate are SG 359 (922-925) and SG 342 (2nd quarter of the 10th century), which both show the same melody as the one in the Graduale Romanum:

Illustration 4.  SG 359, p. 147 (© Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallen).

Illustration 5.  SG 342, p. 259 (© Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallen).

As Schlager has shown, the melody of Exsultate Deo is in authentic G-Mode and has — due to its text — a ternary form (I: from ‘Exsultate’ to ‘nostro’, II: from ‘iubilate’ to ‘Iacob’, and III: from ‘Sumite’ to ‘cythara’), meaning that every part starts with a demand. The third part (‘Sumite’) has 36   Huglo, M., ‘Observations codicologiques sur lʼantiphonaire de Compiègne (Paris, B.N. lat. 17436)’, in De musica et de cantu: Studien zur Geschichte der Kirchenmusik und der Oper — Helmut Hucke zum 60. Ge­burtstag, ed. Cahn, P., Heimer, A.-K. (Hildesheim, 1993), pp. 117-130, on pp. 123f. 37   Idem, p. 126, assumes though that the Greek alleluias were not inserted in order to be chanted, but because they suited Charles the Boldʼs taste.



BILINGUAL ALLELUIA CHANTS IN LATIN MANUSCRIPTS

185

the same initium as the beginning of the alleluia-part. The melody ascends more or less continually, so that at the end of ‘Iacob’ it needs the leap of a fourth downwards to reach g again for the final verse on ‘Sumite’.38 The melismata can be seen very clearly and stretch the words ‘deo’, the final syllable of ‘adiutori’, ‘nostro’, ‘iubilate’, and ‘iucundum’. The second ‘deo’ as well as ‘Iacob’ and ‘psalmum’ are extended in the middle. The melody of Ἀγαλλιᾶσθε τῷ Θεῷ in Pa 9449 and in Cai 75 is almost identical and concurs with the melody of the Latin Exsultate Deo in the Graduale Romanum.39 There are only two slight deviations in Cai 75: there are no melismata on the final syllable of ‘ymnon’/‘nostro’ and ‘chitara’/‘cithara’. Perhaps the melodic version in Cai 75 displays an older, more syllabic version. b)  Δίκαιος ὡς φοῖνιξ / Iustus ut palma (Ps. 91:13) The alleluia Iustus ut palma too is already used during the 9th century for various saints’ days. For the subsequent centuries the alleluia is found in many manuscripts not only from Italy and France, but also from Germany.40 Cardine uses as his sources the abovementioned antiphonaries from the 9th/10th century:41

Illustration 6.  Cardine, Graduel neumé p. 49 (Commune Sanctorum). 38   Schlager K., ‘Anmerkungen zu den zweiten Alleluja-Versen’, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 24 (1967), pp. 199-219, on p. 206. 39   Graduale Romanum, pp. 312f. 40  Schlager, Thematischer Katalog, pp. 86f. 41  Cardine, Graduel neumé, p. 49.

186

N.-M. WANEK

The oldest neumed sources date from the early 10th century, e.g. the MSS La 23942 (ca 900-930?43, Northern France / Belgium), SG 359 (922925) and Ch 7444 (900-950?45):

Illustration 7.  La 239, fol. 86r (© Laon Bibliothèque municipiale).

Illustration 8.  SG 359, p. 152.

Due to this geographical variety Brou thinks that Iustus ut palma might not be of French origin alone. Cai 75 shows Iustus ut palma twice, once in Greek on fol. 114r and once in Latin on fol. 43v, using the same melody for both:

42   Facsimile-edition: Antiphonale missarum sancti Gregorii (IX–Xe siècle): Codex 239 de la Bibliothèque de Laon, ed. Beyssac, G., Paléographie musicale, 10 (Tournai, 1909). 43   Levy, K., Gregorian Chant and the Carolingians (Princeton, 1998). The manuscript is sometimes dated to the last quarter of the 9th century, see e.g. Bischoff, B., Katalog der festländischen Handschriften des neunten Jahrhunderts (mit Ausnahme der wisigotischen), ii (Wiesbaden, 2004), p. 30. 44   The manuscript itself was destroyed during World War II, but a facsimile-edition exists: Antiphonale missarum sancti Gregorii (Xe siècle): Codex 47 de la Bibliothèque de Chartres, ed. Ménager, A., Paléographie musicale, 10 (Tournai, 1909). 45   See Hiley, D., ‘The Sequentiary of Chartres, Bibliotheque Municipale, Ms. 47’, in La sequenza medievale: Atti del Convegno Internazionale Milano 7–8 aprile 1984, ed. Ziino, A. (Lucca, 1992), pp. 105-117, on p. 106, according to Huglo and Escudier.



BILINGUAL ALLELUIA CHANTS IN LATIN MANUSCRIPTS

187

Illustration 9.  Cai 75, fol. 114r.

Illustration 10.  Cai 75, fol. 43r.

The same question as with Ἀγαλλιᾶσθε τῷ Θεῷ remains: why was the same alleluia used twice, but for two different saints’ days and in two different languages? Contrary to Ἀγαλλιᾶσθε τῷ Θεῷ, Iustus ut palma is not sung twice successively in both languages, but only once in Greek. The melody in Cai 75 agrees with the one in the Graduale Romanum46 and the one used with Latin text in the 10th-century manuscripts. In Cai 75 the alleluia plus jubilus is not repeated at the end as is normally the custom. This has not got anything to do with the language used, because the 10thcentury codices do not repeat the initial alleluia. The melody of Iustus ut palma is as melismatic as Exsultate Deo: there are melismata on ‘Iustus’, ‘florebit’ and most notably on the first syllable of ‘cedrus’, which is kept in all of the abovementioned codices and shows a very formulaic structure: there is a theme A and a theme B, each of them being repeated twice one after the other. ‘… settings of the Justus ut palma verse’, explains Taruskin, ‘function as “lesson chants”, sung between the scripture readings … at a time when there is little or no liturgical action going on. Of all the chants   Graduale Romanum, pp. 516f.

46

188

N.-M. WANEK

in the Mass, these are the most florid, because more than any other they are meant as listenerʼs music … .’47 The Western melody of the alleluia does not show any similarities to the Byzantine one (see e.g. the melodies in the 13th/14th-century Byzantine codices Ash 64, fols 217v-218r, Vat 345, fol. 27v, Wi 185, fols 247v and 244v48 or Mess 129, fol. 80v). Even taking into account the time-gap between the Western and the Byzantine melody and the latter’s highly melismatic form, it is safe to say that we are dealing here with two completely different melodies. Apparently the Latin text of Iustus ut palma was only translated into Greek. Thodberg assumes that this must have happened at a rather late point in time.49 As Cai 75 is so far the only manuscript containing Iustus ut palma in Greek, we can only guess that this translation must have been made at some point during the early 11th century. c) Ἐκέκραξαν οἱ δίκαιοι / Clamaverunt iusti (Psalm 33:18) Cai 75 is also the only source for the Greek version of Clamaverunt iusti. Like Iustus ut palma, Clamaverunt is also used for two different saints’ days. The Latin text does therefore not follow the Greek one, but both use the same melody again:

Illustration 11.  Cai 75, fol. 114r. 47   Taruskin, R., From the Earliest Notations to the Sixteenth Century, i (Oxford, 2005), p. 25: ‘The lesson chants are responsorial chants, in which a soloist (precentor) alternates with the choir (schola). At the beginning, the precentor sings the word “alleluia” … following which the choir begins again and continues into the jubilus. The same precentor/ schola alternation is indicated in the verse (given mainly to the soloist) […] before multiplicabitur. The choral alleluia is repeated like an antiphon after the verse, giving the whole a rounded (ABA) form.’ 48   See the transcription of Ash 64 by G. Wolfram on p. 167. 49  Thodberg, Allerluiarionzyklus (see n. 2), pp. 191f.



BILINGUAL ALLELUIA CHANTS IN LATIN MANUSCRIPTS

189

Illustration 12.  Cai 75, fol. 97r.

Although Clamaverunt iusti is used in the same way in Cai 75, the case is slightly different because this alleluia cannot be found in any gradual of the 8th/9th century.50 The almost illegible Clamaverunt iusti with Visi­gothic neumes in the 9th-century manuscript of Isidoreʼs Etymologiae, Pa 13024 from Corbie, apparently does not contain the melody of the alleluia (as Brou and Huglo believed),51 but that of the Gradual as a newer description of the manuscript has shown.52 Because of this manuscript Brou thought that Clamaverunt iusti might be of later French or even Visigothic origin, due to the neumes which he classified as Visigothic.53 But according to an information from Emma Hornby, ‘there is not a single chant with the incipit Clamaverunt iusti in the Old Hispanic repertory, although it is quite a common verse incipit (and no chants start alleluia Clamaverunt iusti either).’54 In Schlagerʼs book on the alleluias there are only six codices listed which contain the alleluia Clama­verunt iusti, all dating from the 11th to 13th centuries, with the exception of Lo 11862 from the 9th century. Schlager names a codex from St Denis, Pa 9436 (11th century),55 but omits a second one from the same century — PaM 384 — which contains

  See Brou, ‘Chants’, pp. 173f.   According to Huglo, ‘Chants’ (see n. 17), p. 78 n. 3, Pa 13024 contains the alleluia Clamaverunt iusti. 52   ‘Le mouvement neumatique indique clairement qu’il s’agit du graduel et non du V. alleluiatique comme l’a écrit M Huglo’: (http://saprat.ephe.sorbonne.fr/media/ad8c129c644b87a1d1a4e2385e4d2efb/latin-13024.pdf). 53   Brou, ‘Chants’, p. 174 n. 1. 54   E-mail correspondence 18th Oct. 2015. 55  Schlager, Thematischer Katalog, p. 154. 50 51

190

N.-M. WANEK

the Latin Clamaverunt iusti for the feast day of St Cyriacus and furthermore lists the incipit for the octave of St Dionysius:56

Illustration 13.  PaM 384, p. 210-211 (© Paris Bibliothèque Mazarine).

Hornby draws attention to another, non-liturgical codex, which is not mentioned in Schlagerʼs cata­logue: Lo 19 comes from St Augustinus in Canterbury and dates from the mid-10th century — which is the oldest source so far for the alleluia with Latin text. Clamaverunt iusti can be found twice in this manuscript, once on fol. 88v with Breton neumes among the texts of the Commune martyrum for Easter time and once on fol. 89r with Anglo-Saxon neumes. The melody though is always the same and corresponds with the other codices:

Illustration 14.  Lo 19, fol. 89r (© British Library). 56   Hesbert, R.-J., Le graduel de Saint-Denis: Manuscrit 384 de la Bibliothèque Mazarine de Paris (XIe siècle), Monumenta Musicae Sacrae, 5 (Paris, 1981), pp. 210, 235.



BILINGUAL ALLELUIA CHANTS IN LATIN MANUSCRIPTS

191

Illustration 15.  Lo 19, fol. 88v.

Besides Clamaverunt iusti the Canterbury manuscript contains another four alleluias, ‘… none of which’, as Hornby explains, ‘were part of the core repertoire adopted in Northern Europe in the late-eighth century by the Franks. These alleluias suggest that the influences of both Saint Denis and Corbie were present in Canterbury during the late-10th century. The alleluia Clamaverunt iusti is widely and consistently transmitted, and the melody in Item 27 (= Lo 19) is broadly compatible with the melody for the same chant in Den1 (= PaM 384).’57 Perhaps it is no coincidence that Clamaverunt iusti is found in two manuscripts from St Denis, where Greek chants were thought to be connected with the cult around St Dionysius: there are two later codices from the 13th century (PaM 526, fol. 184r and Pa 976, fol. 137r) which mention the alleluia with its Greek text among their chants for a so-called ‘Officium in greco’ for St Dionysius. Unfortunately both manuscripts are not neumed.58 Regarding the melody, Clamaverunt iusti remains even more a mystery than the aforemen­tioned alle­luias: contrary e.g. to Δίκαιος ὡς φοῖνιξ, Clamaverunt iusti does not belong to the standard Gregorian repertoire and can therefore not be found in the Graduale Romanum either. Hesbert does not list it either in his ‘Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex’, where the texts of the Roman Mass from the 8th to the 10th centuries are collected according to the six oldest manuscripts.59 57   Hornby, E., ‘Interactions between Brittany and Christ Church, Canterbury in the Tenth Century: The Linenthal Leaf’, in Essays on the History of English Music in Honour of John Caldwell: Sources, Style, Performance, Historiography, ed. Hornby, E., Maw, D. (Woodbridge, 2010), pp. 47-65. 58   Omont, H., ‘La messe grecque de saint-Denis au Moyen Âge’, in Études dʼhistoire du Moyen Âge dédiées à Gabriel Monod (Paris, 1896), pp. 177-185, on p. 180 and n. 1. 59   See the online list: www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_I/Musikwissenschaft/cantus/ams/incipit.html (accessed: 08.10.2015).

192

N.-M. WANEK

All the selected manuscripts contain the same melody regardless of the language and the century. Most of the sources for Clamaverunt iusti are adiastematic, with the exception of Be 664 from the 12th/13th century, which already uses accent neumes on a four-line staff system:

Illustration 16.  Be 664, fol. 150r-v (© Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz SBB-PK).

The basic melodic outline is less melismatic than the alleluias described above, except for the long melisma on the final syllable of ‘dominus’ at the end of the alleluia. It is mostly the stressed syllables which have a short melisma of four to six notes. We can only guess if this rather s­imple melodic outline might point to an early (or earlier) origin of the alleluia. The Byzantine counterpart is, of course, so much more melismatic, that a comparison with the Western melody will probably not yield any results. d) Πνεῦμα (τοῦ) Κυρίου πλήρωσε / Spiritus Domini replevit and Ἀναστήτω ὁ Θεός / Exsurgat Deus (Psalm 67:2) The introit antiphon Spiritus Domini with its introit psalm Exsurgat Deus are both a difficult case in itself: only Exsurgat Deus has a Byzantine counterpart, but Spiritus Domini has none. The first one to draw attention to the Greek version in Pa 9449 was Peter Wagner in his book on Gregorian melodies in 1911.60 In a footnote, Huglo mentions that three French manuscripts contain Greek pieces for Pentecost.61 It was Kenneth Levy, who,  Wagner, Einführung (see n. 16), p. 52, n. 3 and 4.   Huglo, ‘Chants’ (see n. 17), p. 75 n. 4.

60 61



BILINGUAL ALLELUIA CHANTS IN LATIN MANUSCRIPTS

193

during the late 1950s, dealt with Spiritus Domini in more detail in the course of his study on the Sanctus in East and West.62 The melody of Spiritus Domini with Greek text is not only the same in all four manuscripts here (Pa 9449, Pa 779, Pa 1871 and Le Puy), but also agrees with the one used for the Latin text, as it can be found e.g. in the Graduale triplex:63

Illustration 17.  Pa 9449, fol. 49v.

Illustration 18.  Pa 779, fol. 67v (© Paris Bibliothèque nationale Paris).

Illustration 19.  Pa 1871, fol. 22v (© Paris Bibliothèque nationale Paris).   Levy, ‘Byzantine Sanctus’, pp. 7-67.   Graduale triplex: Seu Graduale Romanum Pauli PP. VI cura recognitum et rhythmicis signis a Solesmensibus monachis ornatum neumis laudunensibus (Cod. 239) et Sangallensibus (codicum San Gallensis 359 et Einsidlensis 121) nunc auctum (Solesmes, 1979), p. 252. 62 63

194

N.-M. WANEK

Illustration 20.  Le Puy, fol. 163v (© private possession).

Illustration 21.  Cardine, Graduel neumé p. 271.

It is not clear why Levy does not use the authentic translation Πνεῦμα (τοῦ) Κυρίου πλήρωσε / Pneupma [sic] tu kyrriu as mentioned in the French manuscripts, but writes that there is indeed a Byzantine counterpart, namely the koinonikon / prokeimenon for Pentecost Τὸ πνεῦμα σου τὸ [ἅγιον] ἀγαθὸν, ὁδηγήσει με εν γῇ εὐθεῖᾳ.64 The text for Τὸ πνεῦμα σου is taken from Psalm 142:10 which would be ‘Deus meus es tu spiritus tuus bonus deducet me in terra recta’ in Latin — a psalm verse which is not used in the Western Church. There are also two stichera for Pentecost starting with the words «Τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον (ἦν μὲν ἀεί)» and «Τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον (φῶς, καὶ ζωή)», but they do not have any counterpart in Latin either. Nevertheless Levy states that, ‘Clearly the Introit with its Doxology [i.e. To pneuma to agion and Doxa patri] were existing Latin chants translated into Greek for the occasion [i.e. Pentecost …]. The 64   Levy, ‘Byzantine Sanctus’, p. 37. Regarding the prokeimenon see also Conomos, ‘Communion Chants’, p. 248.



BILINGUAL ALLELUIA CHANTS IN LATIN MANUSCRIPTS

195

Introit and Lesser Doxology were probably translated to announce the Greek cast of the whole Mass at its outset … .’65 Levy therefore adds Πνεῦμα (τοῦ) Κυρίου πλήρωσε to the Missa graeca, together with the lesser doxology (Δόξα Πατρί), the Kyrie, the cheroubikon and the alleluia Factus est repente, which is nowhere transmitted with Greek text.66 Until now, no manuscripts have been found containing such a complete ‘set’ of a Missa graeca, if it indeed ever existed. So far, Pa 9449 is one of the codices including the most Greek chants for Pentecost. The introit psalm Ἀναστήτω ὁ Θεός can only be found in Pa 9449 with transliterated Greek text — as far as I know, it is not included in any other manuscript:

Illustration 22.  Pa 9449, fol. 49v.

Pa 779 and Pa 1871 as well as Le Puy contain the incipit of Exsurgat Deus, but only in Latin. Levy does not mention Ἀναστήτω ὁ Θεός, nor does he add it to the Missa graeca, although Exsurgat Deus ‘be­longs’ to Spiritus Domini. The melody in Pa 9449 is again the same as the one used with Latin text (e.g. in the Graduel neumé):

Illustration 23.  Graduale triplex p. 252.   Levy, ‘Byzantine Sanctus’, p. 38.   Idem, pp. 37f.

65 66

196

N.-M. WANEK

There are not many manuscripts which show a neumed Exsurgat Deus — mostly they contain the un­neumed incipit. There exists a Byzantine counterpart to Exsurgat Deus — the alleluia Ἀναστήτω ὁ Θεός on Easter Saturday — but again it is much more melismatic than the melody found in Western manu­scripts. The melody in the latter ones assigns only one or at the most two neumes per syllable. Typical for the melody of the introit psalm is the consecutive repetition of one and the same note (in this case C). Exsurgat Deus belongs to the standard Gregorian ­repertoire and therefore also seems to be only a translation from Latin into Greek, without taking over a Byzantine melody. 6. Conclusion As we have seen, each alleluia-chant uses the same melody, regardless of the text being Greek or Latin. There are only small differences due to the differing number of syllables of the words. The word accent does not seem to have played a major role. With the exception of Clamaverunt iusti the two other alleluias as well as the introit (Spiritus Domini replevit and Exsurgat Deus) belong to the standard Gregorian repertoire. Regarding their melodies, they are clearly Western compositions with the Latin text translated into Greek and made to fit the melody. Still, there remains one question — the central question in regard to chants with Greek texts in Western manuscripts: why was Greek used for Western chants, when the Latin texts were at hand and most probably known by heart? As was shown at the beginning of the article, the Western manuscripts all date from the second half of the 11th century. This corresponds with the findings of the ordinary chants with Greek texts, the majority of which was also written during this time span. The manuscripts not only share their date of origin, they have got yet another feature in common: as far as the origins of some of the used manuscripts are tenable (see above) — and with the exception of the manuscript from the Cathedral of Notre-Dame in Le Puy-en-Velay — four out of five come from Benedictine monasteries. Kaczynski was the first one to draw attention to this fact in her dissertation and to make a connection between chants with Greek texts and Benedictine monks:67 ‘The Cluniac and other 10th-century reform 67   Kaczynski, B., Greek Learning in the Medieval West: A Study of St. Gall, 816-1022 (Diss. Yale, 1975), p. 262: ‘… the Greek texts appear in manuscripts of the late-tenth through the eleventh centuries, and these originate … chiefly in Benedictine monasteries (as in St. Gall).’



BILINGUAL ALLELUIA CHANTS IN LATIN MANUSCRIPTS

197

­ ovements’, Kaczynski states, ‘had placed a new emphasis on the cultim vation of the liturgy and had brought to Greek, as the mother tongue of that liturgy, an added esteem.’68 Here St Gall is the most fam­ous example, with a long tradition of being interested in the Greek language and of using it in many dif­ferent ways, so that a great number of manuscripts with Greek ordinary chants can be found there. Also the Benedictine Abbey of St Martial of Limoges, which was taken over by Cluny in 1065, boasts about six manuscripts with Greek ordinary chants. Music was of enormous importance for the Benedictines and their music became almost synonymous with Western liturgical chant and the development of Gregorian chant. They were in charge of copying manuscripts in their scriptoria and spent the greater part of their day singing the elaborate liturgy, which was more and more expanded with the help of tropes, sequences, verses etc.69 Even churches and cathed­rals were in accordance with monastic rules, thus we can expect to find similar additions in manuscripts from these places (e.g. Le Puy). To say that using Greek words was a temporary fashion would belittle its significance. Greek was much more to the monks of the Middle Ages: as Berschin has already stated, ‘The valuation of Greek in the Latin Middle Ages has its origin primarily in the position of prominence which the Greek language enjoyed in the early history of Christianity. In scriptural study and to a great extent also in medieval ex­egesis, it was never forgotten that Greek was one of the original languages of the Scriptures.’ For the monks Greek texts belonged to their very own monastic tradition and culture.70 Let me once more refer to Kaczynski, who summed up the use of Greek in the Latin world accurately when she writes: Liturgical language is not the same as social language, and it need not be understood by all who use it … In the liturgical pieces of the medieval West, Greek served as a sacral or hieratic language. It was used in order to give an impression of solemnity, of formality, and of mystery. The authors of Latin tropes and sequences sought the same effect when they brought Greek words into their verse … It did not seem to matter that few people knew the language. For if the words of the Greek chants were not accessible to the intellect, they were accessible to the senses. Whenever m ­ edieval writers used Greek … they took evident pleasure in its foreign sounds and   Idem., p. 262.   See McKinnon, J., ‘Benedictine Monks’, in Grove Music Online: www.oxfordmusiconline.com:80/subscriber/article/grove/music/02659 (accessed: 26.11.2015). 70  Kaczynski, Greek in the Carolingian Age (see n. 15), p. 116. 68 69

198

N.-M. WANEK

rhythms. Greek belonged to their liturgy perhaps because it was a token of Christian unity, perhaps because it was a sacred tongue, but cer­tainly because they thought it was beautiful.71

Abbreviations used in the footnotes Brou, ‘Chants’ – Brou, L., ‘Les chants en langue grecque dans les liturgies latines’, Sacris Erudiri, 1 (1948), pp. 165-180. Cardine, Graduel neumé – Cardine, C., Graduel neumé: Facsimile-edition of the 1908 Graduale Romanum with Handwritten St. Gall neumes (Solesmes, 1966). Graduale Romanum – Graduale Romanum: Graduale Sacrosanctae Romanae Ecclesiae de tempore et de sanctis (Solesmes, 1974). Levy, ‘Byzantine Sanctus’ – Levy, K., ‘The Byzantine Sanctus and its Modal Tradition in East and West’, Annales Musicologiques, 6 (1958-1963), pp. 7-67. Schlager, Thematischer Katalog – Schlager, K., Thematischer Katalog der ältesten Alleluia-Melodien aus Handschriften des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts, ausgenommen das ambrosianische, alt-römische und alt-spanische Repertoire (Munich, 1965).

  Idem, pp. 112f.

71

INDEX OF NAMES A Aalst, V. van: VIII Abū al-Barakāt: 102 Adaïewsky, E.: 30, 31, 32 Adler, G.: 15 Agathon Korones: 51 Alberic of Trois-Fontaines: 4 Alexandru, M.: 64 Amy Apcar: 84, 89, 93 Anastasia of Russia: 152 Andronikos II Palaiologos: 52, 153 Angelopoulos, L.: VII Apel, W.: 177 Aristakēs Hisarlean: 64, 76 Aristakēs Yovhannisean: 85 Askold, Russian ruler: 121 Athanasius of Alexandria: 98, 99 Athanasius Kircher: 7, 8 B Balasios the priest: 26 Barthélemy Koutloumousyanos: 30 Basilios the Great: 98 Benedict XV: 15 Bernard de Montfaucon: 8 Berschin, W.: 197 Bianchini, P.: 89, 93, 156 Boniface IX Pope: 156 Borsai, I.: 105, 107 Bourgault-Ducoudray, L.A.: 11 Boyer, J.M.: 77 Brou, L.: 182, 186, 189 Burmester, O.H.E: 105 C Cardine, C.: 183, 185 Charles Burney: 8 Chourmouzios Chartophylax: 21, 22, 23, 30 Chrysaphes the New: 19 Cirillo Martini: 8 Clement of Alexandria: 97, 98

Constantine and Methodius, s. Sts. Cyrill and Methodius: 149 Cosgrove, Ch.H.: 98 Cyprian Metropolitan: 142 Cyril IV Pope: 101 D Dimitrios Dokeianos: 48, 54, 57 Diamantes M. Salgaras: 77 Diocletian: 9 Dioscuros: 99 Dir, Russian ruler: 121 E Egeria nun: 161 Elena: 56 Erasmus of Rotterdam: 5 Eusebius of Caesarea: 3 Euthymius Patriarch: 143 F Francesco Barberini: 7 G Gabraîl from Cairo: 9 Gabriēl Awetik’ean: 62 Gabriel Naudé: 7 Gaisser, H.A.: 12, 13, 14 Gardner, J. von: 134, 138, 141, 142, 143 Gastoué, A.: 183 Gavriil from Anchialos: 43, 56 Gejza I: 152 Gēorgios Lesbios: 60 Giambattista Martini: 8 Giovanni Battista Doni: 9 Gregorios Protopsaltes: 21, 23, 24, 30 Grigor dpir Gapasak‘alean: 65, 69, 71, 72, 75, 76 Gusseynova, S.M.: 138 H Hambarjum Limōnčean: 76

200

index of names

Heiler, F.: 16 Hesbert, R.-J.: 191 Hornby, E.: 189, 190, 191 Huglo, M.: 184, 189, 192 I Ibn Saba: 105 Innocent III Pope: 154 Ioan Alexander Tsar: 56 Isaac Angelos Emperor: 153 Ismaïl Djénany Bey: 91 Ivan the Terrible: 134, 136 J Jacob of Farkašovce: 155 Jacques Goar: 7 Jan Rutgers: 4 John Glykys: 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 51, 54, 57 John Kladas: 57 John II Komnenos: 152 John Koukouzeles: 40, 42, 43, 46, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 161 John Lampadarios Kladas: 54 K Kaczynski, B.: 196, 197 Karas, S.: 28 Keldish, Y.V.: 121, 128, 129, 138 King Andrew I: 152 King Andrew III: 154 King Belo II: 152 King Belo III: 152 King Belo IV: 153 King Charles of Anjou: 154 King Imrich: 154 King Ladislaus I: 152 King Stefan Urush V: 56 King Stephen IV: 152 King Stephen V: 153 King Uroš: 152 Komitas Archimandrite: 90, 92 Konstantinos Protopsaltes from Anchialos: 43, 56 Kosmas the Macedonian: 46, 47, 56 K’ristap’or Kara-Murza: 93 L Leo Allatius: 7

Leo XIII: 15 Levy, K.: 192 Lingas, A.: 64, 77, 104 M Mac Cull, L.S.B.: 105 Makar Ekmalian: 93 Malxaseanc‘: 76 Manuel I Emperor: 153 Maurus Bishop: 151 Markos Vasileiou: 28 Marpurg, F.W.: 10 Martin Gerbert: 8, 9 Martin Luther: 5 McKinnon, J.: 177 Melanchthon, Ph.: 6 Metallov, V.M.: 118, 119, 122, 125, 126, 134, 135, 138 Michael III Emperor: 149 Mikhail al-Batanouni: 108 Mkrtic‘ Xrimean: 93 Moftah, R.: 101 Möller, G.: 102 Moshin, V.A.: 143 Moutsopoulos, E.: 98 O Olga, Russian ruler: 121 Origenes: 98 P Pachtikos, G.D.: 83, 90 Papadopoulos, G.: 11 Parisot, J.: 14 Pentkovsky, A.M.: 142 Petros Byzantios: 17, 20, 21, 23, 24 Petros Čēōlmēk’čean: 76 Petros Peloponnesios: 17, 19, 28, 71 Pérèz, M.: VII Philipp Melanchthon: 6 Pius IX: 15 Pius X: 15 Pius XI: 15 Plato: 97, 98 Preobrazhensky, A.V.: 123, 124, 125, 126, 134 Prince Rastislav: 149 Prince Vladimir: 115



index of names

Princess Eirene: 152 Princess Margareta: 153 Princess Maria: 152 Princess Maria Lascaris: 153 Prosper of Aquitania: 4 Psachos, C.: 13 Q Quecke, H.: 105 R Razumovsky, D.V.: 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126, 129, 132, 133, 137, 138 Rufinus of Aquileia: 4 S St. Ambrose of Milan: 4 St. Andrew Svorad: 151 St. Augustine: 4, 176, 190 St. Benedict Stojislav: 151 St. Cyriacus: 190 Sts. Cyrill and Methodius: 121 St. Dionysius: 181, 190, 191 Sts Gordianus and Epimachus: 181 St. Gregory of Nazianzus: 62, 124 St. Marcus, bishop of Rome: 181 St. Prisca of Rome: 181 Sanfratello, G.: 77 Sarafov, P.: 46, 77 Schlager, K: 182, 184, 189, 190 Shvetz, T.B.: 132 Simon Payean (Bayan): 64 Sinnadena Princess: 152 Smolensky, St.V.: 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 134, 140, 141, 142 Sulzer, F.J.: 9, 10 Stanchev, K.: 35 Stefan Dušan: 56 Stefan Uruš V: 56 Sulzer, F.J.: 9, 10 T Takla Cantor: 101

201

Taruskin, R.: 187 Tawfiq, H.: 101 Tessari, S.: 8 Thibaut, J.-B.: 11, 12, 14 Thodberg, Ch.: 160, 177, 188 Tillyard, H.J.W.: 1 Tntesean E.: 76, 87, 89 Toncheva, E.: 35, 53 Troelsgørd, Ch.: 68, 71, 72, 75, 94 Tyurina, O.B.: 132, 133 Tzetzes, I.: 11, 13 U Uspensky, N.D.: 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 134, 135, 138 V Vasileiou, M.: 13, 28 Vazgēn Santruni: 82, 83 Velimirović, M.: 1, 35, 36, 53, 140 Venediktos of Rethymnon: 50, 54 Villoteau, G.-A.: 9, 10, 84, 89 Vladyshevskaya, T.F.: 125, 126, 128, 130, 138 Vladislav Grammarian: 41 Voznesensky, I.I.: 117, 118, 119, 120, 123, 124, 125, 126, 129, 130, 133, 134, 144 W Wagner, P.: 192 Wellesz, E.: 1, 2, 15 Winkelmann, F.: 5 Y Yaroslav the Wise: 115 Yarut’iwn Mkrtič’ean: 63 Z Zakhar’ina, N.B.: 141, 142, 144 Zareh Aznaworean: 82, 83 Zennē Połōs: 64 Zosimas the Elder: 152

INDEX OF TECHNICAL TERMS A ἁγιορειτικόν: 53 ἁγιοσοφιτικόν: 53 Aigyptioi: 97 Akathistos hymn: 158 Akolouthia: 7 Akolouthia-Anthology: 36 al-hazzāt-vibration: 103 allelouia: 161, 162, 164, 175, 176, 177, 180, 187 alleluia-chant: 180, 182, 183, 185, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 195, 196 allelouiaria cycle: 162 allelouiarion: 160, 161, 162, 164, 166 ἄμνημα allelouiaria: 159 Anaphora: 101 Anastasimatarion: 17 ancient Greek music: 10, 13 Anthologia: 19, 21, 23, 26, 30, 32, 37, 47, 52, 55, 57, 77, 157 antiphon: 180 antiphonal chant: 103, 109 Antiphonary: 183, 185 apolytikion: 26 aporrhoe: 164 apostrophos: 70 Arabic: 99 Arabic chant: 99 Arabic secular music: 100 ἀρχαῖον: 17 Armenian chant: 10 Armenian church: 4 Armenian hymnal: 59, 60, 61, 88 Armenian music culture: 109 Armenian neumes: 60, 69, 70 Armenian odes: 63 Armenian oktoechos: 87 Armenian sacred music: 61, 90 Armenian system: 64 Asmatologika: 90 Athonite-Slavic style: 143 Athonite tradition: 30 azbuki: 138, 140

B βατοπεδινόν: 53 bilingual chant: 175 binary rhythm: 81 βλαχικόν: 37 Bohairic-Coptic: 99, 105 Bohairic-Coptic hymns: 102, 105 bolshoy znamenny chant: 130, 134 βουλγάρα: 35, 40, 41, 42 bulgaria (instrument): 54 βουλγαρικόν: 35, 38, 49 βουλγαρίτσα: 35, 42, 46, 49 Bulgarian chant: 35, 38, 52, 55, 56, 57, 115, 119 Bulgarian cheroubikon: 53 Bulgarian polyeleos: 42, 46, 51 Byzantine allelouia: 177 Byzantine allelouiarion: 159 Byzantine-Athonite tradition: 119 Byzantine chant: 3, 9, 10, 11, 109, 111, 117, 118, 128, 158 Byzantine chant notation: 12 Byzantine liturgy: 157 Byzantine music culture: 109 Byzantine musical notation: 8, 77 Byzantine neumes: 69, 70 Byzantine Psaltikon: 162 Byzantine rite: 2, 9 Byzantine sacred music: 61 Byzantine Typika: 18, 25 C Catholic church music: 14 Čerč’ean hymnal: 63 chamele: 70 cantor: 176 cheironomic sign: 48 cheroubikon: 38, 50, 51, 52, 55, 195 Choiak-psalmodia: 102, 105 chromaticism: 26 Chrysanthine notation: 77, 81, 83, 84 Chrysanthine system: 61, 64

204

index of technical terms

Chrysanthine theory: 18 Chrysanthine transcription: 88, 90 Cilician hymnal: 60 Commune of Saints: 181 communion: 51, 52 Constantinopolitan cathedral rite: 18 contrafactum: 71, 72 Coptic: 99 Coptic chant: 10, 99, 101, 107, 109 Coptic culture: 97 Coptic liturgical music: 100 Coptic rituals: 105 cymbal: 100 D darjuack’: 85, 86 Demestvennaya: 136 Demestvennik: 115, 135 demestvenny chant: 115, 116, 124, 125, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 145 Demestvenny notation: 116, 134 Diatonic barys: 19 didactic poem: 51 digorgon: 84 Divine Liturgy: 57, 86, 90, 92, 94 Dodekaorton: 159 dogmatic: 128 domestikos: 115 Doxastarion: 17 doxologia: 102, 194 δυσικόν: 38, 41 E early kondakarian chant: 118 early polyphonic period: 126 early stolpovoy chant: 118 Easter: 86 Eastern chant: 1, 14, 15, 16 Eastern Christian music: 36, 57, 117 Ecumenical Patriarchate: 19 Egyptian Christians: 97 ekphonetic: 82 ekphonetic chant: 83 ἔμμνημα allelouiaria: 159 Ethiopian chant: 10 Ethiopian music culture: 109 ἐθνικόν: 37 ethnomusicology: 13

Euchologion: 18 exaposteilarion: 132 exegesis: 19, 21, 24, 197 exegetic version: 24, 32 F Fayyumic-Coptic: 99 folk music: 127 φραγκικόν: 37 G Ganjaran: 69 Georgian church: 4 Georgian music culture: 109 gradual: 176, 189 Graduale Romanum: 182, 184, 185, 187, 191 graeci ritus: 155 Great Vespers: 25 great znamenny chant: 119, 130, 132, 133, 145 Greek chant: 13, 114, 115, 116, 119 Greek neumes: 70 Greek paleography: 8 Greek Papadike: 68 Greek rite: 151 Greek-Slavic-Russian synthesis: 111, 112, 113, 114, 129 Greek-Syriac tradition: 119 Gregorian chant: 3, 13, 14 Gregorian repertoire: 191, 196 Gulezyan manuscripts: 100 H Heirmologion: 7, 17, 26, 131, 157 heirmos: 51, 71, 72, 75 hesychasm: 143 heterophony: 100, 109 heterophonic singing: 134 Hierarchical Divine Liturgy: 18 homalon: 84 homophone: 98, 100, 103 Hübschmann-Meillet system: 75 hymnal: 87 hypakoai: 159 hyporrhoe: 164 hypsele: 70



index of technical terms

I idiomelon: 129 introit: 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 194, 195, 196 introit antiphon: 175, 192 introit psalm: 179, 192, 195 Izborny Oktoechos: 141 J Jacobite church: 4 jubilus: 187 K kalophonic chant: 135 kalophonic tradition: 165 kathisma: 26 Kazan’ notation: 125, 134, 136 Kazanskaya: 136 kekragarion: 7 kentema: 69 Kievan chant: 119 Kievan staff notation: 23 khomoniya: 114, 116, 119, 122, 124, 126, 138, 140 koinonikon = communion: 55, 194 kondakarian chant: 115, 117, 121, 126, 134, 135, 141 Kondakarion: 117, 135, 141 Kondakarian notation: 122 kontakion: 51, 159, 160 kratema: 38, 47, 48, 49, 52, 55, 63 kratema: 164 κωνσταντινοπολιτικόν: 53 L lampadarios: 19, 21, 44 Latin chant: 14 Lectionarion: 159, 162 Lehrgesang: 51 lesser doxology: 179, 180, 195 Levavi hymn: 61 Limōnčean notation: 62, 81, 89 Limōnčean system: 60, 77, 85, 87 litso: 144 Little Entrance: 18 M maly bolshoy: 133

205

maly znammeny chant: 130, 134 makâmlar: 87 manrusmunk’ genre: 84 Martyria: 18 medieval Byzantine chant: 16 megalynarion: 132 melisma: 192 melismatic formula: 144, 164 melismatic jubilus: 176 melodic formula: 127 melos: 127 miaphysite belief: 99 microintervals: 87 microtonal nuances: 81 Middle Byzantine neumes: 10, 68 Middle Byzantine Notation: 8, 9, 11, 71, 72 Middle Byzantine system: 61 Missa graeca: 175, 178, 179, 195 Missa graeca chants: 181 monodic: 136 monophonic putevoy: 137 monophonic vocal music: 59, 109, 111 monophonic tradition: 111 musical thesis: 164 N national style: 112 Neo-Sabaitic Typikon: 36, 141, 142, 146 nerk’naxał: 87 new bolshoy: 133 New Method: 11, 13, 24 New Method notation: 20, 21, 28 New Papadike: 17 Nuagaran: 65, 69, 70, 76 Nubian church: 4 O Obikhod: 124, 137 obikhod scale: 120 Oktoechos (book): 115, 124, 129, 131, 132, 134, 137, 138, 139 oktoechos system: 102, 109, 127, 145 old Gregorian repertoire: 183 Old Slavic tradition: 153 old znamenny chant: 117 oligon: 70 oral tradition: 30, 94, 100, 103, 109 oral transmission: 130

206

index of technical terms

oriental churches: 15 oriental liturgies: 9 oriental rites: 2 orphanon: 54 orthros: 38 ouranisma: 165 P παλαιόν: 17 Papadike: 7, 8, 76 papadopoula: 54 parakalesma: 48 paraliturgical chant: 115, 117, 124 Paschal Divine Liturgy: 89 Pentekost: 62 περσικόν: 37 phthora: 22, 23, 81 πολιτικόν: 53 polyeleos: 38, 47, 52, 55 polyphonic style: 111, 112, 134, 136, 137, 145 polyphony: 91, 100, 122 popevki: 116 Prazdniki: 124, 129 pre-Chalcedonian dogma: 9 proanaphora: 159, 176 prokeimenon: 165, 194 prosomoion: 129 protopsaltes: 159, 160 psali: 105 psalmodia: 104, 105 psaltes: 9, 10, 19, 23, 25, 31, 164 Psaltikon: 159, 160 Putevaya: 136 putevoy chant: 117, 122, 133, 135, 136, 137, 145 Putevoy notation: 134 R responsorial chant: 103, 109 rhinophonia: 9, 10 Roman rite: 3 Russian chant: 116, 121, 123, 124, 128, 145 Russian Kondakarion: 114, 132 Russian oktoechos: 120, 138 Russian polyphony: 11, 135 Russian sacred music: 111, 112, 113, 114, 118, 129

Russian style: 111, 112 Russian tradition: 157 S sacred music: 127 Sahidic-Coptic: 99, 105 σερβικόν: 37 Serbian chant: 115 sequences: 197 short Psaltikon style: 160 Siculo-Albanian tradition: 13 Slavic chant: 1, 115, 116 Slavonic language: 149 Solea: 18 stenographic theory: 13 Sticherarion: 131 sticheron: 51, 165, 194 sticheron eothinon: 132, 133 sticheron idiomelon: 62 sticheron theotokion: 132 stolpovoy: 130 Stolpovoy Znamenny notation: 136, 138 stolpovoy znamenny chant: 132, 135, 137, 145 synapte: 157 Syntagma: 150 Syrian chant: 10 Syrian church: 4 Syrian liturgy: 9 Syrian music culture: 109 T Tałaran: 59 ταταρικόν: 37 tenen: 105 teretisma: 38, 47, 104, 109 Theophany: 62 theotokion: 102 theotokion apostichon: 132 θεσσαλονικαῖον: 51 theta: 144 Tnetesean hymnal: 63 Trezvony: 124 triangle: 100 Triodion: 131 troestrochie chant: 136, 137 troparion: 181 tropes: 197



index of technical terms

Turkish music: 9 Typikon: 142, 143, 159, 163, 165 U Ukrainian tradition: 157 V Vałaršapat Missal: 63 vernaxał: 87 vigil: 102 vocalizes: 103 vulgaritsa: 52, 53 W Western alleluia: 176

Western Western Western Western Western

207

European polyphony: 11 musical notation: 59, 81, 87 neume notation: 12 notation: 82, 83 style polyphony: 114

Z znamenny bolshoy: 117 znamenny chant: 112, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 129, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 139, 144, 145 znamenny maly: 117 Znamenny notation: 116, 125, 134, 136

= 100,2 mm

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706