Studies on Eastern Orthodox Church Chant (Variorum Collected Studies) [1 ed.] 1032454814, 9781032454818

Citation preview

Studies on Eastern Orthodox Church Chant

This book focuses on the compilation of the different practices of Eastern Orthodox Chant, looking at the subject through various languages, practices, and liturgical books and letters. The subject of this book is also analysed through newly found, unique material, to provide the entire history of Eastern Orthodox Chant, from the ninth to the nineteenth centuries and approached through a number of different disciplines. The book consists of sixteen topics, grouped in four parts: Studies on Genre, Studies on Liturgical Books, Studies on Distinguished Men of Letters, and Studies on Bulgarian Orthodox Church Chant. The aim of the book is to present the Eastern chant as a phase in the evolution of Mediterranean art, which is the cradle of Graeco-Roman heritage. This complex study brings in a variety of sources to show the purpose of Eastern Orthodox Chant as strengthening the Christian faith during the Middle Ages and the revival of Balkan nationalism in the nineteenth century. This book will appeal to students and scholars alike, interested in liturgical musical books, liturgy, and chant repertory. Likewise, it will be of interest to those engaged in medieval and early modern history, music, and culture. Svetlana Kujumdzieva, Dr. of Sciences, is Professor of Medieval Music at the National Musical Academy “Prof. Pancho Vladigerov” and Theological Faculty of the Sofia State University “St. Clement of Ohrid”; academician at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. She has published 12 monographs and more than 150 articles in Bulgaria, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, USA, etc. Kujumdzieva was an associate member of the John W. Kluge Center at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., the Resource Center for Medieval Slavic Studies at the Ohio State University in Columbus, OH, St. John’s College, Oxford, GB, etc. She is a member of many national and international scientific organizations.

Also in the Variorum Collected Studies Series

SARAH CARPENTER, edited by John J. McGavin and Greg Walker Early Performance: Courts and Audiences Shifting Paradigms in Early English Drama Studies (CS1090)

EVELLEEN RICHARDS

Ideology and Evolution in Nineteenth Century Britain Embryos, Monsters, and Racial and Gendered Others in the Making of Evolutionary Theory and Culture (CS1089)

DAVID S. BACHRACH

Administration and Organization of War in Thirteenth-Century England (CS1088)

GÉRARD GOUIRAN, edited by Linda M. Paterson From Chanson de Geste to Epic Chronicle Medieval Occitan Poetry of War (CS1087)

JOHN A. COTSONIS

The Religious Figural Imagery of Byzantine Lead Seals II Studies on the Images of the Saints and on Personal Piety (CS1086)

JOHN A. COTSONIS

The Religious Figural Imagery of Byzantine Lead Seals I Studies on the Image of Christ, the Virgin and Narrative Scenes (CS1085)

WENDY DAVIES

Christian Spain and Portugal in the Early Middle Ages Texts and Societies (CS1084)

PEREGRINE HORDEN and NICHOLAS PURCELL The Boundless Sea Writing Mediterranean History (CS1083)

MOHAMED EL MANSOUR

The Power of Islam in Morocco Historical and Anthropological Perspectives (CS1082)

JOHN MARSHALL, edited by Philip Butterworth

Early English Performance: Medieval Plays and Robin Hood Games Shifting Paradigms in Early English Drama Studies (CS1081)

JENNIFER O’REILLY, edited by CAROL A. FARR and ELIZABETH MULLINS

Early Medieval Text and Image II The Codex Amiatinus, the Book of Kells and Anglo-Saxon Art (CS1080) [[www.routledge.com/Variorum-Collected-Studies/book-series/VARIORUM]]

Studies on Eastern Orthodox Church Chant

Svetlana Kujumdzieva

VARIORUM COLLECTED STUDIES

First published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 Svetlana Kujumdzieva The right of Svetlana Kujumdzieva to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Kui︠ u︡ mdzhieva, Svetlana- author. Title: Studies on Eastern Orthodox church chant / Svetlana Kujumdzieva. Description: New York : Routledge, 2023. | Series: Variorum collected   studies | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2023011101 (print) | LCCN 2023011102 (ebook) |   ISBN 9781032454818 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032454894 (paperback) |   ISBN 9781003377238 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Church music—Orthodox Eastern Church. |   Orthodox Eastern Church—Liturgy—History. | Byzantine   chants—History and criticism. Classification: LCC ML3060 .K873 2023 (print) | LCC ML3060 (ebook) |  DDC782.32/219—dc23/eng/2023 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023011101 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023011102 ISBN: 978-1-032-45481-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-45489-4 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-37723-8 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003377238 Typeset in Times New Roman by Apex CoVantage, LLC VARIORUM COLLECTED STUDIES SERIES CS1115

TO T H E B R I G H T M E M O RY O F M Y B E L O V E D H U S B A N D S A S H O (1946–2022)

CONTENTS



Foreword: Eastern Orthodox Church Chant at the Crossroads of Various Traditionsix

PART 1

Studies on Genre

1

1 Psalm 140: Versions and Redactions

3

2 The Akathistos Once Again

15

3 The Byzantine-Slavic Sanctus: Notes on Its Liturgical Context

28

PART 2

Studies on Liturgical Books

37

4 The Tropologion: Sources and Identifications

39

5 The Tropologion Vaticanus Graecus 771

49

6 The Tropologion Vaticanus Graecus 2008

57

7 The Notated Repertory in the Early Oktoechoi Revisited

67

8 Studying the Oktoechos: From the Oktoechos to the Anastasimatarion90

vii

C ontents

PART 3

Studies on Distinguished Men of Letters

99

9 St. Cyril and St. Methodius: In Looking for the Roots of Slavic Orthodox Church Music

101

10 Metropolitan Тheoleptos of Philadelphia: Between Tradition and Innovation

124

11 Hieromonk Evstatie of Putna: The Putna Music School Revisited139 12 Metropolitan Serafim of Bosnia: New Findings in the Graeco-Slavic Contacts in Balkan Orthodox Church Chant PART 4

151

Studies on Bulgarian Orthodox Church Chant

161

13 Melismatic Chants in the Sources Up to the Fifteenth Century Related to Bulgarian Church Music

163

14 Indications of Musical Performance From the Fifteenth Century

171

15 “Bulgarian” Chants in Musical Manuscripts Revisited

181

16 The Transition From Monophonic to Polyphonic Church Music: The Case of Bulgaria

197 213 232

Bibliography Indexes

viii

FOREWORD Eastern Orthodox Church Chant at the Crossroads of Various Traditions

Eastern Orthodox church chant is the sacred chant of all Christian churches following the Eastern Orthodox rite. It was developed in Byzantium and used in its Asiatic provinces, the region up to Caucasus, Egypt, Jerusalem, Syria, etc. Eastern chant is also present in the so-called Magna Graecia area in Southern Italy. From the ninth century onwards it was accepted in the Slavic countries of Bulgaria, Russia and Serbia, as well as in Walachia and Moldavia after their Christian conversion. Of the whole Eastern church chant, only the music of Byzantine and Slavic rites survived in manuscripts (there was no notated tradition of chant in the Coptic, Armenian and other Eastern Orthodox churches until at least the late eighteenth century). That is why speaking of Eastern church chant, I shall have in mind Byzantine and Slavic as it was presented in the extent primary sources.1 With regard to Slavic chant, however, I limit myself to that in the Balkan Orthodox countries – Russian chant remains outside the scope of discussion, as it has a different path of development since about from the twelfth century on. Studying Eastern Orthodox church chant, we see that one of the major concerns in its domain was the preservation of the sacred Faith as it was established by the Holy Fathers and written down in the ancient texts.2 Actually this concern represents the well-known idea about the universal character of Eastern Christianity, that is, the Faith had to be preserved as it was established by the Holy Fathers. The Faith had to be transmitted to all the Christians without changes in terms of its sense. Hence, the primary function of the art was to express the message that has never varied in sense. According to Bishop Kallistos Ware, the Byzantine liturgy reflected a developed sense of “togetherness and corporate solidarity”.3 The Slavs accepted the Byzantine Christian model. They accepted also the idea about the universal character of Eastern Christianity. By means of this idea, the unity and the strength of the Church in the Orthodox world were maintained. The singing in unison, which we hear in Orthodox churches, could be considered a symbol of this unity. The idea about the universal character of Eastern Christianity distinguished East from West. For the Franks, for instance, the adoption of Christianity was an impulse to go ahead, to try new ways and to follow new paths.4 For the Byzantines the new ways and paths were there where the sacred Faith could be ix

F oreword

expanded as the Holy Fathers established it. The new for them meant a close reading of the old texts and their true accommodation to the new liturgical and, in particular, musical demands. That is why, many composers were often called “Masters”: they followed the established patterns and composed the melodies skillfully using these patterns. The Byzantines turned back to their roots again and again to prove that they keep the Faith and thus, they are its true successors. They believed that they carry out a perfect continuation of Antiquity without any interruption. And they tried to demonstrate this everywhere in everything and to transmit the sacred prototypes as faithfully as they could. This may explain why the Eastern chant did not fall in the category of artistic phenomena confined to a single race or to any specific geographic area, but its intonation fund and composition techniques were in use in all of the Orthodox countries. This is also why its theory and practice were perceived as the “world standard”5 in these countries and they had to be learned most precisely as a guarantor of the true Faith. In its aim to preserve the Faith as it was established by the Holy Fathers, the Eastern chant turned out to be at the crossroads of various traditions of different countries and languages. The traditions were compiled according to the established theory and practice at the time. The evidence about the compilation of such traditions is revealed in almost all of the sources up to the nineteenth century. The precise designations above the chants prove this. They indicate which piece is “old” or “new”, “monastic” or “cathedral”, “ecclesiastical” or “ethnical”, “large” or “short”; where it came from or how it was performed in Constantinople, Jerusalem, Athens, Thessaloniki, Bulgaria, Serbia, Mount Athos, and even in the Frankish empire and Persia; which piece imitated sounds from the outside reality, such as a “bell”, “viola”, “trumpet”, “nightingale”; how it was done: “skillfully”, “easily” or “with difficulties”; what it presented: “pearl”, “daisy”, “orphan”, “instrument”, etc. Such designations are revealed in both Byzantine and Slavic sources. They, in turn, prove what Dimirti Obolensky calls cultural “commonwealth” that is achieved in Byzantine-Slavic medieval world.6 This “commonwealth” mirrored the idea of the universal character of Eastern Christianity as well. Writers and composers from different nationalities worked together in the name of the unity of the Christian Faith. It should be stressed that the traditions compiled by them were not a statement of influence of one upon another, but a statement of dialogue: each of these traditions enriched itself by assimilating the foreign elements and converting them into its own intrinsic substratum. Problems of the Eastern chant in the field of genres, liturgical books, the various connections between some of the Balkan Orthodox countries and in particular such related to Bulgarian Orthodox chant, are in the focus of this book. It should be stressed that the scholarly interest in the music of the Balkans is great. The complex history of this music has to be explored and evaluated from different points of view. It is well known that the region of the Balkans in terms of its geopolitical place has often been defined as a bridge between East and West, between Islam and Christianity, and respectively, a bridge between various civilizations. In regard to its rich historical, ethnical, cultural and religious aspects, it is not yet x

F oreword

enough investigated. The studies in this book are chosen to show both unknown issues of the Eastern chant and at the same time its ability to compile various traditions in different languages and national practices contaminating their wealth. The chosen issues are from periods that mark both the crisis and the renewal in the development of the Eastern chant. Such are the ninth – tenth centuries, the period of the appearance of “Slavia Orthodoxa”,7 the third Christian civilization in Europe after the Latin and Greek ones, the fourteenth – sixteenth centuries, the period of the establishment of both the new liturgical order of Jerusalem and the doctrine of the hesychasm in the Balkans, and the eighteenth – nineteenth centuries, the period of the Balkan National Revival. All these examples go beyond a local significance: as we shall see, they were designed to foster the unity of the Christian Faith. Some of them spread to the West and became the “ambassadors” for the beauty of the Eastern Orthodox culture. They are proof of an “open” culture between East and West during the Middle Ages about which our knowledge is still rather rudimentary. Eastern church chant compiled musical traditions in different languages: Greek, Georgian, Armenian, Syrian, Coptic, Slavic in various redactions (Bulgarian, Russian and Serbian), etc. It should be stressed that the Greek language did not have any ethnic connotation in Slavic countries: it was perceived there as both the language of the rich heritage of the Antiquity and the language of the Christian cult. Chants in Greek and in Slavic are revealed in musical manuscripts up to the middle of the nineteenth century in Slavic countries. The bilingualism in the latter was bequeathed from the time of the first Slavic Apostles, St. Constantin-Cyril the Philosopher and St. Methodius. The Vita of St. Methodius, for instance, informs us that at the funeral of the great Apostle in April 885, his pupils sang in three languages – Latin, Greek and Slavic.8 The earliest musical sources, which are a direct evidence for the Cyrillo-Methodian work, are bilingual. Such as, for instance, the ceramic plate from the end of the ninth or the very beginning of the tenth century, found in a tomb near the Golden Church in Preslav in North Bulgaria, which contains the beginnings of the refrains of the weekly Vespers prokeimena, that is, psalm-based texts sung before the reading of the Gospel or Apostle.9 The plate is divided by a horizontal punctual line. The names of the days from Sunday through Friday evening are written on the upper row in Slavic. The texts of prokeimena are written on the lower row in Greek with Cyrillic letters. Speaking of the compilation of various traditions the period of the fourteenth – fifteenth centuries could be pointed out: at that time the revised liturgical order of Jerusalem along with the hesychasm, a movement for spiritual renewal from the time of the early Christianity of the fourth – fifth centuries, were spread.10 Mount Athos, known also as the Holy Mountain, was one of the first centers from which both the new order and the hesychasm were spread. Representative for the crossroads of various traditions are chants called “Bulgarian”. These chants are of various genres, all of which are performed in different solemn services: polyeleoi, communions, cherubika or offertories, etc.11 The designated as “Bulgarian” chants constitute a stable repertory in one of the major chant books from the fourteenth century onwards, xi

F oreword

the Akolouthiai-Anthology. They are linked with the names of John Glykys, John Lampadarios Kladas, Dimitri Dokeianos, John Koukouzeles and others. As a whole, Eastern chant is a phase in the evolution of Mediterranean art, which in fact, is the cradle of our common Graeco-Roman heritage. That is why we should study it to become aware of our roots and of our traditions. It is important to know where the latter have split up and where they have crossed, what of them has been transmitted and how it has been preserved, who gave it to us and what we have done with it. Certainly a considerable amount of work still remains to be done in this respect. Especially nowadays, when – with the changes in our world – the interest in the Eastern chant has greatly increased. It is a challenge of our time to appreciate the beauty of its music, to reconstruct it and to try to transmit it as a living tradition for future generations. I am convinced that nothing dies utterly, if one works at knowing and preserving its spirit. It is my great pleasure at the end, to express my deepest gratitude to all the colleagues and institutions that supported this project. It could not have been accomplished if I had not had the rare chance to work with the rich literature at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. twice, during my association as a Fellow at the international John W. Kluge Center in 2003/2004 and 2009/2010. My deep gratitude goes out to all the colleagues from the Center’s administration, especially to its two directors during my stay there, who provided excellent conditions for my research, to the already late Dr. Prosser Gifford and Dr. Carolin Brown. I also want to extend my gratitude to Dr. Alice-Mary Talbot and Dr. Margaret Mullett, directors of Byzantine Studies at the Dumbarton Oaks Center of Harvard University, who provided access to work in this unique Center during my stay in Washington, D.C. I owe further thanks to the administration of the Vatican Film Library at St. Louis University in Saint Louis, Missouri, USA, and especially to its director, Dr. Gregory Pass, and Dr. Susan L’Egle, the editor-in-chief of the Manuscripta journal, where I also had the opportunity to do research work twice – in 2003/2004 and 2012. Also, I would like to acknowledge the Monks of Hilandar monastery for their forethought in seeking ways to preserve and make accessible the manuscript treasures in their library and to thank my colleagues at the Hilandar Research Library and the Resource Center for Medieval Slavic Studies, Dr. Predrag Matejić, Dr. Mary-Allen Johnson and Mrs. Helene Senecal, for their excellent working conditions and the care they show both the scholars visiting their library and materials in their keeping. Especially deep is my gratitude to the late professors Miloš Velimirović and Jorgen Raasted: my discussions with them on some of the topics were of utmost importance. My deep gratitude goes also to Professor Ivan Zhelev, who edited my Greek texts. And finally, my greatest gratitude goes to my husband Alexander Kujumdziev, who was always with me and supported my research in every step. To all of them – my gratitude and deep respect! 23 January 2023

xii

F oreword

Notes 1 The discussed problems first are posed in: Kujumdzieva, S. Eastern Church Chant on the Crossroads of Various Traditions. – In: Историjа и мистериjа музике. У част Роксанде Пеjовиħ. Београд, 2006, 69–81. 2 Speck, P. Byzantium: Cultural Suicide? – In: Byzantium in the Ninth Century Dead or Alive? Ed. by L. Brubaker. Variorum, 1996, 73–84. 3 Mary, Mother, Arch. K. Ware. The Festal Menaion. London, 1969. 4 Speck, P. Op. cit. 5 Term of Sergei Averincev, see: Аверинцев, С. С. Западно-восточный генезис литературных канонов византийского Средневековья. – В: Типология и взаимосвязи средневековых литератур Востока и Запада. Москва, 1974. 6 Obolensky, D. The Byzantine Commonwelth: Eastern Europe 500–1453. London, 1974. 7 Term of Ricardo Picchio in: Пикио, Р. Православното славянство и старобългарската културна традиция. София, 1993. 8 According to Лавров, П. А. Материалы по истории возникновения древнейшей славянской письмености. Hague-Paris, 1966, 75–77. 9 Петров, С., Х. Кодов. Старобългарски музикални паметници. София, 1973, 87–89; Тончева, Е. Преславската керамична плочка с прокименов репертоар от ІХ – Х в. като старобългарски музикален паметник. – Музикални хоризонти, 4, 1985, 15–42. 10 Taft, R. Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of Byzantine Rite. – Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 42, 1982, 179–194; Lingas, A. Hesychasm and Psalmody. – In: Mount Athos and Byzantine Monasticism. Ed. by A. Bryer, M. Cunningham. Variorum, 1996, 155–168. 11 About these chants see Велимирович, М. „Българските“ песнопения във византийските музикални ръкописи. – Известия на Института за музика, 18, 1974, 197–203; Станчев, К., Е. Тончева. Българските песнопения във византийските аколутии. – Музикознание, 2, 1978, 39–71; Тончева, Е. Полиелейни мелодии, обозначени като български в балканската песенна практика (пс. 135 по извори от XII/XIII и XIV/ XV в.). Докторска дисертация. София, 1993; Куюмджиева, С. Означените като „български песнопения в православните музикални ръкописи от XIV до XIX в. – В: Стара българска музика. София, 2011, 99–116. See also part IV.3. in this volume.

xiii

Part 1 STUDIES ON GENRE

1 P S A L M 140 Versions and Redactions

Psalm 140 “Κύριε, ἐκέκραξα”/“Господи, воззвах” (according to the Septuagint classification) is designed in the sources as “kekragarion” (plural “kekragaria”) in Greek and “vozvatelen” (plural “vozvatelni”) in Slavic.1 It is one of the very important and significant psalms in the history of Orthodox music. This psalm has been focusing basic sides of its development in the course of the centuries. It turns out to be one of the oldest psalms linked to the Vespers2 and it is even considered a central point for its formation, a stable and constant part of it around which were grouped other psalms and prayers according to different local practices.3 Its historical transmission goes back to the pre-Christian Jewish and late-classical tradition.4 In Byzantine worship the psalm was in the Vespers rituals of the three basic types of services developed simultaneously from the fourth century onwards in direction of both distinction and assimilation and synthesis – cathedral (“chanted”), monastic and “mixed” (the last one was formed as a result of the interaction of the first two in the period from the eighth century onwards).5 Psalm 140 transmits the theme of “bloody sacrifice” in verse 2, which was one of the central themes still in the Jewish worship. In Christianity this theme received its eschatological reevaluation and reflected the ultimate goal of Christian doctrine – the salvation. Psalm 140 and its accompanying psalms and prayers were put in the center of the main liturgical act: sin – disgrace – repentance – salvation. St. John Chrysostom said that this psalm was known by everyone and sung at every age.6 Church Fathers ordered for it to be said as a salutary medicine and forgiveness of sins, so that “whatever has dirtied us . . . we get rid of it in the evening through this spiritual song”.7 That is why psalm 140 was sung daily and at Saturday Vespers. Its use in the evening services is attested in all the early liturgical rites: Syrian, Chaldean, Maronite, Armenian, Roman, etc. The chanting of this psalm was accompanied by some of the most solemn ceremonies in the Christian Church – the censing, a symbol of repentance, and the light, a symbol of the resurrection of Christ, lightening our paths to salvation (in the First Letter of John was said: “God is light”8). It was believed that the double symbol of incense and light goes back into the pagan and pre-Christian religious life of the Eastern Mediterranean and emerged in its Christian form as the ceremony of “lucernarium” (“lucernare”) in Latin and “λυχνικὸν” in Greek, the ancient nucleus of all Christian Vespers.9 DOI: 10.4324/9781003377238-2

3

S tudies on G enre

The present study is based on the sources from the fourteenth to the beginning of the nineteenth century until the period of the New Method that was established after 1814 with the reform of the three music teachers Chourmusios the Hartophilaks, Chrysantos Archimandrit of Madytos and Gregorios Protopsaltes. The sources studied are preserved in various libraries: the library of Rila monastery, the biggest Bulgarian monastery,10 the National library “St. St. Cyril and Methodius” in Sofia,11 the Church-Historical and Archival Institute at the Patriarchate in Sofia,12 the Center for Slavo-Byzantine Studies “Ivan Dujčev” in Sofia,13 the National library in Vienna,14 the Bavarian State library in Münich,15 the Center for Medieval Slavic Studies at the Ohio State University in Columbus, OH (according to the available microform collection of the Hilandar manuscripts),16 the National library in Athens,17 the library of St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai18 and the Vatican Apostolic library in Rome.19 Information about psalm 140 is also drawn from published materials, such as catalogues and some publications.20 Psalm 140 consists of ten verses. Despite of its age-old history, its melodies were transmitted in an oral way for a long time. Its systematic notation in neumes in the eight modes or echoi is revealed by the beginning of the fourteenth century after the adoption of the new redaction of the Jerusalem Typikon on the Balkans. This new redaction was formed on the basis of the synthesis between monastic and cathedral rituals of Jerusalem and Constantinople. Psalm 140 was recorded in the new type of chant books compiled according to the practice of the new redaction of the Typikon, the Akolouthiai or Anthologies. From the seventeenth century on the psalm was included in the book of the Anastasimatarion as well (the book for the resurrection services on Saturday Vespers and Sundays in the eight modes succession; it was detached from the Sticheraria as separate chant book by the second half of the seventeenth century). The kekragaria melodies were composed in the eight modes or oktoechos: there is a melody for each one of the eight modes. The place of the melodies of psalm 140 was not exactly determined in the chant books. In the Anthologies they usually follow the psalm 1 from the first stasis of the Great Vespers, “Μακάριος ἀνὴρ”/“Блажен муж” in their oktoechos succession. In the Anastasimataria the kekragarion follows the theoretical section or papadike and the chants are arranged again in the oktoechos succession. They are the opening chants of each one of the eight modal sections. Psalm 140 is followed by different chants: the chant for the Great Entrance “Φῶς ἱλαρὸν”/“Свете тихий” (“Gladsome Light”), prokeimena, polieleoi, etc. The lack of uniformity in the content of the earlier repertory of the chant books until the fourteenth century has already been pointed out.21 The similarity or diversity of musical manuscripts could be considered as one of the criteria for arranging them in groups in terms of determining their scriptoria: manuscripts that have a similar content might belong to scriptoria with close musical practice. The numerous records of the kekragarion reveal a common intonation fund and a similar compositional structure. Three basic chant versions were distinguished. Each one of them has its own redactions. Both terms (version and redaction) were not precisely determined in musicological literature. I shall give my 4

P salm 1 4 0

“working” definitions of them. By version I mean a kind of chanting with determined structural arrangement of the relationship between text and music. The redaction presents a variable exposition of each one of the versions where the intonation development and the compositional structure of the latter are preserved as a whole. In other words, if the version is a kind of chanting, the redaction is a form of exposition of this kind, preserving its stylistic parameters. The three versions – in terms of their stylistic – could be characterized as syllabo-neumatic,22 syllabic and melismatic. The syllabo-neumatic version has a modest ornamentation with two or more groups of tones linked to one syllable. The basic melodic movement of the syllabic version is tone – syllable; there is a longer melisma in some medial cadences only. Highly ornamented melodies belong to the melismatic version. Many scholars pointed out two different versions of chants – long and short, such as the akathistos, allelouaria, prokeimena, kontakia, amomoi, polyeleoi, etc.23 Some of the scholars have arrived to two basic conclusions. The first one is that both versions are similar to each other: they use the same intonation material. The second conclusion is that the long version is the “secondary” in terms of the short one: the latter is the original version and the long version aroused through the embellishment of the original short version.24 The question about the existence of different chant versions was not considered in terms of the liturgical function of music. Erik Werner drew attention to the problem investigating Hebrew music and its heritage in early Christian time. He established the existence of two kinds of responsorium: a simple one and a melismatic one. He also established melismatic chants (often without text) which, as important types of forms, entered from Hebrew into the Christian music.25 Erik Werner put the melismatic version in connection with the rank of the service: the more solemn was the service (depending on the day or the celebrated feast) the more melismatic was the music.26 Besides, it is well known that the Middle Ages were the age when not everything was written down. Oliver Strunk arrived at the conclusion that the greater part of the medieval melodies were sung only once a year: the rarely performed chants, which were difficult and impossible for remembering in their oral transmission, were notated.27 Thus, the conviction that short versions were “primary” in terms of long ones, might be questioned to some extent – both of them have been co-existing from an earliest time. In the studied sources verse 1 only, “Κύριε, ἐκέκραξα”/“Господи, воззвах”, of psalm 140 was notated in the fourteenth century. Verse 2, “Κατευθυνθήτω”/“Да исправится”, was notated in some of the sources from the fifteenth century, as for example in manuscripts Barb. Gr. 300 and Athens 2406. Obviously verse 2 began to be regularly notated after verse 1 from the sixteenth century onwards. This observation shows that the written practice for verse 1 was established at first. It does not mean that the verse 2 has not been chanted at the same time but could mean that it was performed in an oral way: there is no stylistic differences between the two verses. The rest of the psalm verses were not notated and respectively, their text was not included in the chant books. 5

S tudies on G enre

The earliest notated chants of psalm 140 are revealed in two manuscripts housed at the National library in Paris, Ancien Fond: Gr. 261 and Gr. 260.28 Both of them are Sticheraria, written on parchment in middle Byzantine notation by the end of the thirteenth century. In the Catalogue of the manuscripts in the Paris library the two manuscripts are dated from the fourteenth century but it is a wrong dating because there is an inscription in the first one (Gr. 261), pointing out that the manuscript was written in the last quarter of the thirteenth century. The manuscript Gr. 261 is a full Sticherarion, compiled of Menaion, TriodionPentekostarion and Oktoechos. At the beginning of the Triodion-Pentekostarion, on f. 141r, is read the year 6797, that is, 1289.29 It is assumed that the manuscript is stemming from Cyprus because of the inclusion of some Cyprus saints, like St. Epiphany of Cyprus and St. Triphyllius of Cyprus. A table of neume signs (great and small) is included after the Menaion. Jorgen Raasted considered the signs in relation with the Didactic Poem (known in German as Lehrgesang) by John Glykys, the supposed teacher of St. John Koukouzeles:30 almost the same selection of signs is revealed in the Paris source and in the Didactic poem by John Glykys.31 The table is an evidence that the reformative work, related to the establishment of the new redaction of the Jeusalem Typikon, in the Balkan Orthodox church music, has already been a fact in last quarter of the thirteenth century. The chants of psalm 140 are included after the ordinary notated repertory of the Oktoechos in the Sticherarion (from f. 240v on). Most often the Oktoechos is compiled of the notated stichera anatolika and alphabetika, anabathmoi and eothina. The chants of psalm 140 are recorded in a very interesting way in the Paris manuscript: they are put on the upper half of the folia above the eothina (the morning Gospel stichera) and are written in red ink, which is unusual. Verse 1 is notated in all of the eight modes but not in full: only its first part and the beginning of its second part is notated – “Κύριε, ἐκέκραξα πρὸς σέ, εἰσάκουσόν μου, εἰσάκουσόν μου, Κύριε. Κύριε, ἐκέκραξα”. The kekragaria chants are written down in a cycle with the morning psalms 117:27a “Θεὸς Κύριος” (“Lord is God”), 150:6 “Πᾶσα πνοὴ” (“All the Breath”) and 148:1,2 “Αἰνεῖτε τὸν Κύριον” (“Praise the Lord”). The latter are not notated in full either – their initial parts are notated only. It looks like this succession was written with the same hand as those of the main text. The chants are in the short syllabic version, which is very simplified – it represents a melodic model-formula that is repeated. Whether this is some short syllabic kind of psalm 140 representative for particular regional practice that was performed before the codification of the syllabo-neumatic version for Saturday Vespers, which we find systematically notated in the Anthologies from the fourteenth century onwards, remains an open question. The second Paris manuscript, Gr. 260, is also a full Sticherarion, compiled of Menaion, Triodion-Pentekostarion and Oktoechos. In terms of both its compilation and palaeographic characteristics, the manuscript is very close to the former one. The kekragaria chants are written down after the ordinary notated repertory of the Oktoechos in the same oktoechos succession with “Theos Kyrios” and psalm 148:1,2 (psalm 150:6 is not included). The chants are written in the same 6

P salm 1 4 0

way as in the former manuscript – on the upper part of the folia. Unlike the former manuscript, however, they are written in black ink. It is notated the same part of verse 1 of psalm 140 and also in a short syllabic version. There is an inscription at the end of the manuscript (f. 252v), which reads: “Toῦ αὐτ[oῦ] στιχηραρίου ηγωρά [?] παρά [?] ὑπάρ[χει] ἐμοῦ Θεοδούλου ἱερομονάχου” (“The same Sticherarion is [written?] by me, Theodul Hieromonachos”). It is very likely that this Theodul was the older contemporary of St. John Koukouzeles who lived within the second half of the thirteenth and the first half of the fourteenth century.32 It is very likely also that Theodul was the writer of the two Paris manuscripts: both of them, as it was said, are very close in their palaeographical characteristics. A table with neume signs is included in both manuscripts. In Paris Gr. 260 it is put after the inscription. The two Paris manuscripts give reasons to conclude about the transmission of the psalm verses by the end of the thirteenth century: 1) the book of the Anthology, in which the notated psalm verses were included systematically for the first time, has not been compiled yet – the cited psalm verses are included in an unusual chant book for them: the Sticherarion that contains in principle not psalms but stichera; 2) the notation of part of the psalm verses speaks that they should have been transmitted in an oral way: in all probability they were recorded as they were performed in oral practice; and 3) the notation of the psalm verses for the evening and morning services has already been in progress before the fourteenth century. The syllabo-neumatic version of the kekragarion is the earliest entirely notated one. It was this version that was the most often recorded in both the Anthologies and the Anastasimataria. The earliest dated manuscript in which a notated kekragarion is found is the Sinai Hirmologion 1257 from 1332: after the proper content of the Hirmologion a repertory of the Anthology was written down (it is possible that this repertory was added by a later hand). The notated verse 1 of the kekragarion is included. Unlike the two presented Paris manuscripts, the melodies of the syllabo-neumatic version are notated in full. Until the New Method from the beginning of the nineteenth century this version shows a great intonation stability in the consulted sources. Verse 1 of the syllabo-neumatic version was notated in all the sources of the fourteenth century only. Verse 2 was notated in some of the sources from the fifteenth century. As it was said the systematic notation of this verse is revealed in the sources from the sixteenth century onwards. Until the seventeenth century the stable part of the attributions in redactions linked to the syllabo-neumatic version is “κατ’ ἦχον” (“according to the echos”). During the second half of the seventeenth century numerous new attributions appeared. They are the following: 1) the kekragaria ascribed to St. John of Damascus; the explanation that they are “palaia ke entehna” (“old and skilful”) is often added; 2) the kekragaria ascribed to Chrysaphes the New with the explanation that they were “kalopistenta” (“embellished”) by Chrysaphes or done according to his “melos”; 3) the designed as “megalon kekragarion” (“great kekragarion”); 4) the designed for “sabbato hesperas” (“for Saturday evening”); and 5) the kekragaria 7

S tudies on G enre

ascribed to John Glykys and Germanos of New Patras (in two single manuscripts only). The melodic differences between all of these redactions are quite minimal. Two redactions of the syllabo-neumatic version were recorded in manuscript Athens 2406 from 1453. The manuscript was written in the “St. John Prodromos” monastery near Serres – one of the greatest cultural centers during the late Byzantine period. The first redaction is named “thessalonian” and the second one – “politikon”, that is, constantinopolitan (Constantinople has always been designed as “the city”/“the polis”). The differences between them are minimal but the Thessalonian redaction is simpler in melodic aspect than the Constantinopolitan one. The latter was rather precisely written down. Some places in it are more embellished. The studied sources from the fourteenth century, Athens 2458, Palat. Gr. 243 and Theol. Gr. 185, follow closely the thessalonian redaction. The sources from the fifteenth century (Athens 899, Dujčev Gr. 34, Vienna Phil. Gr. 194 and Vatican Barb. Gr. 300) and all the sources from the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries follow the Constantinopolitan redaction. This shows that the thessalonian redaction started losing its popularity during the fifteenth century. Study of the punctuation system in both texts and music reveals a coincidence of the caesuras between them in all of the modes. Three large periods (according to the definition of Peter Wagner33) could be distinguished. They are linked to the fixed text lines. The second period, composed of two parts, is the variant of the first one in both intonation and structural aspect, which actually presents the main approach in the psalmody, known as “parallelismus memborum” – the rhythmical repetition of an important thought in two or more sentences (in our case we shall call the latter periods). The scheme AAIB, valid for all of the redactions in all of the modes, was determined. The periods A and B are very stable in the different redactions of the psalm transmission from the fourteenth to the eighteenth centuries. There are changes in the second period (AI). The periods reveal a structure in which the basic classical psalmodic elements could be determined: initium, tenor, medial cadence and final cadence. There is also a refrain – “εἰσάκουσόν μου, Κύριε”/“Услыши мя, Господи”. It is assumed that this refrain goes back to the practice of Jerusalem and evidenced a responsorial way of chanting. For the first time it was pointed out by Patriarch Anthimus I in his Kanon from the first half of the sixth century. The third period (B) consists of final cadence and refrain. The expositions of the initium and tenor in the first two periods are similar in all of the sources. The most variable are the medial cadences. The punctuation signs as points, martyriai, apodermata, etc. have structural meaning. The points distinguish most often the psalmodic elements. In the sources from the seventeenth century onwards the points were systematically and ultimately replaced by martyriai written down in both the text and the neumes: the number of martyriai has considerably increased in later manuscripts. The earliest syllabic version of psalm 140 is revealed in manuscript Athens 2406 from 1453. The kekragarion in mode 4 of the mentioned thessalonian redaction was recorded twice there. The attribution of the second record reads: “τoῦ αὐτoῦ συνοπτικὸν” (“the same short”). This record testifies that along with the 8

P salm 1 4 0

Figure 1.1  Psalm 140:1, “short”

longer syllabo-neumatic version the shorter syllabic version was performed as well. A little bit later three chants of the short version of the kekragarion are revealed in Hilandar manuscript gMS 53 from the end of the sixteenth century. They are in modes 1, 4 and plagal 4. The attribution above them reads: “ἐκκλησίας βατοπαιδινὰ” (“church vatopedi”). The number of the redactions of the syllabic version increased greatly during the second half of the seventeenth and the eighteenth century. The following redactions were determined as belonging to the syllabic version: 1) all attributed as “συνοπτικόν” or “σύντομα” (“short”); 2) all attributed as “ἐκκλησιαστικόν” (“church”); 3) those attributed as “ἁγιορείτικα”, “Ἁγίων ὄρει” and “ἁγιορείτικα” (from Mount Athos, somewhere the same redaction is also accompanied with the designation “vatopaidina”); 4) all attributed as “μικρά” (“quite short”); 5) all attributed as “ναυπλιωτικά” (from town of Nafplion) often with “συνοπτική”;34 and 6) the author’s redactions of Balasios Hiereos (often with the attributions “σύντομα καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικά”), Kiriak Kulida Nafpliotes, Petros Lampadarios, Daniel Protopaltes, Petros Byzantios, Joasaph of Rila and the authors in some single manuscripts: Anthonios Hiereos, Manuil Gutas and Dionisios Photinos. The basic compositional structure of the three periods are revealed in the redactions of the short syllabic version as well. The second period (AI) is abridged and especially its second part. The intonation fund is common to this of syllaboneumatic version but only a part of it is used, that is, it is reduced and simplified. Medial cadences are the most abridged. A strophic compositional structure or the 9

S tudies on G enre

Figure 1.2  Psalm 140:1 by Joasaph of Rila

existence of a melodic model, which is repeated in a variable form, is revealed in most of the redactions. The great variety between redactions of this version testifies its oral transmission. The singers performed chants as they remembered their melodies and when they have to notate them, they recorded what they have memorized. The most stable in the notated items are their initial and final parts. The numerous redactions of the short syllabic version, according to the similarity of their intonation material and in particular to the similarity of their cadences, could be systematized in three groups. The latter refer also to their local performances and circulation: 1) the Athonite redactions. Here I put the redactions attributed as “Agion oros”, “ekklisiastika” and “mikra”. In melodic aspect these redactions are the same. The redaction “ekklisiastika vatopeidina” is rather close to them. The strophic principle is revealed in almost all of the pieces. In all probability these redactions were performed in the monastic churches on Mount Athos; 2) the redactions that were performed probably in some of the urban churches. Here I put the author’s redactions of Kiriak Kulida Nafpliotes, Petros Lampadarios, Daniel Protopsaltes, Petros Byzantinos and Joasaph of Rila. The anonymous redaction in Slavic, revealed in Hilandar manuscript HM SMS 668 from the end of the eighteenth – the beginning of the nineteenth century, is rather close to them; and 3) the redactions that were performed in some local places. This is the most heterogeneous group. The strophic principle is replaced by the “throughout composed” melody.35 The kekragaria attributed as “short nafpliotika” and three anonymous Slavic redactions in Hilandar manuscripts HM SMS 309 and HM SMS 311 refer 10

P salm 1 4 0

to it. Probably this group has had a local significance and that is why the chants are revealed in single manuscripts. The melismatic version was found in later manuscripts – from the second half of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century. The exegetic (interpreted) redactions refer to it. Petros Lampadarios, Joasaph of Rila, Theophanos Pantokratorinos and Sava of Cyprus interpreted the syllabo-neumatic version ascribed to John of Damascus. The study of these redactions reveals a high creative author’s work. The interpretation manifests itself in an ornamentation. The psalmodic elements are considerably broadened (in particular parts of the tenor and the medial cadences). The text syllables are linked to the same tones in both redactions – the original and the interpreted. Thus, the tones linked to the text syllables outline the melodic profile of chants. The redaction of Jakovos Protopsaltes belongs to this version. It bares the attribution “abridged after the old”, which could mean that it was done according to the syllabo-neumatic version. Jakovos followed in general Petros Lampadarios’ melismatic redaction. During last quarter of the eighteenth century the kekragarion appeared in the new for the Balkans Church-Slavonic language in redactions of all of the three discussed versions. The syllabo-neumatic Slavic version follows the traditional one ascribed to John of Damascus, Chrysaphes the New, etc. There are several Slavic redactions of the syllabic version. The melismatic version has one redaction only, which is anonymous. It follows quite literally the exegetic redaction of Petros Lampadarios. To sum up the said above. The numerous written records of psalm 140 represent the different ways of rationalization of the same text and respectively, its different kinds of chanting. The earliest entirely notated version, the syllabo-neumatic one, is the version performed more rarely – it was designed for the festal Saturday Vespers. The intonation and structural stability of its transmission in the sources shows that the version was compiled according to the determined stylistic norms and it could be made up with some anonymous author’s interference. This version might be composed especially as part of the Great Vespers first notated with the kekragarion. The short version is this one chanted at daily Vespers during the week and/or in the smaller churches. It shows a simplified psalmodic scheme whose basic characteristic is the intoning up and down around the tones of support. This characteristic gives an idea of orally maintained repertory: an intoning around the tones of support in the borders of trichord or tetrachord by using some of the most wellknown formulas of the established intonation fund put at the end of the phrases (for instance the formulas of kylisma and epegerma). The melismatic version represents another kind of chanting of the kekragarion and namely, an ornamental enlargement of a simpler melody.36 This enlargement could be achieved in the oral performance of chants as well. When this oral performance was notated, it received its standard written format. The interpretation is an author’s work and reveals the invention of the interpreters. The way of the 11

S tudies on G enre

interpretation shows a new individual freedom in Balkan Orthodox music from the second half of the seventeenth century onwards. The freedom was restricted to some extent to the primary redaction that was interpreted – to its intonation fund and compositional structure established at an earlier time. Also, the freedom was one of the essential characteristics of the Orthodox music distinguishing it from the West-European monody. During the early National Revival this freedom achieved a new expression in the phenomenon of exegesis or interpretation (after the procedures of the embellishment during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries). It was manifested in the direction of an increasing author’s individuality. And in this sense the statement that the phenomenon of the interpretation was linked to the fact that it became necessary for the “real” melody (called also “melos”) to be written down with more signs of diastemacy, since this melody was “concealed” in the great hypostases and their thesis, could be questioned.37 It is hardly to believe that an established kind of “real” melody (the “melos”) had been existing in the oral practice at all. We could speak about such kind of “melos” only after the recording of the chants. The singers had freedom for their performance of chants knowing the established rules of their kind, genre and liturgical place.38 The freedom came to an end with the introduction of the solmization system in the beginning of the nineteenth century. The improvisation of the interpretation was “stiffed” and “killed” by the act of chanting according to determined intervals, precise rhythmic signs and measuring of time. One of the goals of the age of the National Revival was to obtain a unified repertory: the numerous different author’s and anonymous “methods” (like the Athonite for example) were replaced by a single one – the New Method established after 1814. In the nineteenth century three of the numerous kekragarion redactions remained only – just one for each of the versions.

Notes 1 About this psalm see Kujumdzieva, S. Versions and Redactions of Psalm 140. – In: Musica Antiqua Europae Orientalis. Vol. X. Bydgoszcz, 1997, 151–167. 2 Williams, E. John Koukouzeles’ Reform of Byzantine Chanting for Great Vespers in the Fourteenth Century. Ph.D., Yale University, 1968, 43. 3 Мансветов, И. Церковный устав. Москва, 1885, 35. 4 Wegman, H. A. J. Christian Worship in East and West. New York, 1985, 269. 5 There is already a rich literature on the question about these services. See for instance: Williams, E. Op. cit., 45; Arranz, M., N. D. Uspensky. The Office of the All-Night Vigil in the Greek Church. – St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly. Vol. 24, N 2, 1980, 83–115; Touliatos-Banker, D. The Byzantine Amomos Chant of the 14th and 15th Centuries. Ph.D., The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 1979; Taft, R. Beyond East and West. Problems in Liturgical Understanding. Washington, D.C., 1984; Taft, R. The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West. Collegeville, 1986; Тончева, Е. Полиелейни мелодии, означени като български в балканската песенна практика (пс. 135 по извори от XII-XIII и XIV-XV в.). Докт. дисертация. София, 1993. 6 Williams, E. Op. cit., 43. 7 According to Taft, R. Beyond East . . ., 134. 8 Taft, R. The Liturgy of the Hours . . ., 287.

12

P salm 1 4 0

9 Williams, E. Op. cit., 47. 10 The manuscripts containing psalm 140 in the Rila library are from the 18th and 19th centuries. They are the following (according to the order of their shelf marks in the library): 5/66, 5/78, 6/11, 6/19, 6/31, 6/46, 6/47, 6/50, 6/56, 6/59, 6/63, 6/66 and 6/67. Two of them, 5/78 and 6/67, are bilingual – Graeco-Church Slavonic, the rest are in Greek, see Атанасов, А., С. Куюмджиева, В. Велинова, Е. Узунова, Е. Мусакова (= Атанасов et al). Славянски музикални ръкописи в Рилския манастир. София, 2012; Атанасов, А., В. Велинова, Е. Узунова, И. Желев, С. Куюмджиева (= Атанасов et al). Двуезични (гръцко-църковносавянски) музикални ръкописи в Рилския манастир. София, 2018. 11 The musical manuscripts containing psalm 140 in this library are also from the 18th and 19th centuries. All of them are in Greek: Gr. 61, Gr. 76, Gr. 77, Gr. 78 and Gr. 80. 12 Two manuscripts contain psalm 140. Both of them are in Greek from the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century: 875 and 892. 13 The kekragarion is found in the following manuscripts: D. Gr. 34 from 1436, D. Gr. 9 from the 16th-17th century and D. Gr. 61 from 1689, see Kujumdzieva, S. Methodological Notes on the Description of Musical Manuscripts Written in Greek at the “Ivan Dujčev” Research Center for Slavo-Byzantine Studies. – In: Actes de la table ronde: “Principes et méthodes du cataloguage des manuscrits grecs de la collection du centre Dujćev”. Thessalonique, 1992, 91–115. 14 The following manuscripts are investigated: Theol. Gr. 185 from the end of the 14th century, Phil. Gr. 194 from the 15th century, Phil. Gr. 344 from the first half of the 16th century, Suppl. Gr. 130, 160 and 190 from the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century. See about these manuscripts Hunger, H. Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. T. 1. Wien, 1961. 15 Cod. Gr. 617, 620 and 625 from the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century. 16 The following manuscripts are studied (in chronological order according to their shelf marks in the Center): in Greek – gMS 53 from the 16th century, gMS 32 from 1799, gMS 27, gMS 39 and gMS 144 from the 18th century, gMS 33 from the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century; bilingual – Slav. 311, Slav. 565 and Slav. 668 from the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century. See about Hilandar manuscripts Matejić, P., H. Thomas. Catalog. Manuscripts on Microform of the Hilandar Research Library. 2 volms. Columbus, OH, 1992. 17 Athens Gr. 2458 from 1336, 2406 from 1453 and 899 from the 15th century. 18 Sinai Gr. 1257 from 1332. 19 Palat. Gr. 243 from the 14th century and Barb. Gr. 300 from the 15th century. 20 Στάθης, Γ. Θ. Τὰ χειρόγραφα Βυζαντινῆς μουσικῆς – Ἅγιον Ὄρος. Κατάλογος περιγραφικὸς τῶν χειρογράφων κωδίκων Βυζαντινῆς μουσικῆς τῶν ἀποκειμένων ἐν ταῖς Βιβλιοθήκαις τῶν ἱερῶν Μονῶν καὶ Σκητῶν τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους. Ἀθῆναι. Τ. Α 1975, Т. В 1976, Т. Г 1993; Shartau, B. Manuscripts of Byzantine Music in Denmark. – Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-age grec et latin. Vol. 48. Copenhaque, 1984, 15–104; Petrović, D. Оsmoglasnik u musičkoj tradicii južnih slovena. Beograd, 1982. 21 Floros, C. Universale Neumenkunde. B. 1. Kassel, 1979, 85. 22 Williams, E. Op. cit. 23 Floros, C. Das Kontakion. – Deutscher Vierteljahrschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte. Jg. 34, 1960, 84–106; Hintze, G. Das byzantinische Prokeimena Repertoire. Untersuchungen und kritische Edition (= Hamburger Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft. H. 9). Hamburg, 1973, 41; Thodberg, C. Der byzantinische Alleluiarionzyklus (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Vol. III, Subsidia). Copenhaque, 1966, 14; Touliatos-Banker, D. Op. cit.; Janakakis-Merakos, S. Simple and Kalophonic Settings of “Pasa pnoe”. – Report, read at the 17th International Byzantine Congress. Washington, D.C., 1986.

13

S tudies on G enre

24 Floros, C. Op. cit.; Hintze, G. Op. cit.; Strunk, О. Melody Constructions in Byzantine Chant. – In: Essays on Music in the Byzantine World. Ed. by K. Levy. NY, 1977, 191–201. 25 Werner, E. Hebräische Musik. – Musikwerk. H. 20, 1961, 11. 26 Ibidem. 27 Strunk, O. Op. cit. 28 See about these manuscripts Gastué, A. Introduction a la paléographie musicale Byzantinae. Catalogue des manuscrits de musique Byzantine de la bibliotheque Nationale de Paris. Paris, 1906. About manuscript Gr. 261 see also Strunk, O. The Antiphons of the Oktoechos. – In: Essays on Music . . ., 173–174. Strunk considers the manuscript as one of the earliest Sticheraria containing notated psalm verses of the time of St. John Koukouzeles (the systematic notation of the psalm verses is one of the characteristics of the new chant books, the Akolouthiai-Anthologies). He points out one more such source with notated psalms and doxologies to the troparia of Christmas and Theophany, manuscript Grottaferrata E. а. II from the same time. Strunk concludes that Koukouzeles has used material from an oral or written practice that existed up to his time. He does not specify what kind of psalm verses were notated in the two manuscripts cited by him. We could say now that the kekragarion was among these psalm verses in manuscript Paris Gr. 261. 29 One more year is written above this year, which is later: 7131 (= 1625). 30 According to Троелсгард, К. Развитието на дидактичната творба. Някои бележки върху „Исон, олигон, оксия“ от Йоан Гликис. – Българско музикознание, 1, 1996, 78–98. 31 Ibidem. 32 It is very likely that Theodul was the distinguished man of letters from the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 14th century, the author of chants, who has worked as a domestikos (choir conductor) in the imperial monastery Mangan in Constantinople. Someone Theodul has left a notated inscription in the form of the cross in manuscript Sinai Gr. 1227, a full Sticherarion from the 14th century. Theodul’s inscription is similar to the notated inscriptions of John Glykys and John Koukouzeles in their Didactic Poems. Theodul’s inscription reads (f. 267v): “The most insignificant hieromonachos. Theodul the sinful.” This is the earliest known author’s notated signature in neumes. Perhaps John Glykys and John Koukouzeles have followed this Theodul’s idea to put their notated signatures at the end of their pieces. About Theodul see Beck, H.-G. Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinische Reich. 2-te Aufl. München, 1977, 704–705; also Куюмджиева, С. Стихирарът на Йоан Кукузел. Формиране на нотирания възкресник. София, 2004, 73, 118. 33 Wagner, P. Einführung in die gregorianischen Melodien. Wiesbaden, 1962, 3er Teil, 177. 34 Nafplion is a town in the North-Eastern part of Peloponnese in Greece. 35 According to the term of Ed. Williams used in his op. cit. 36 Elena Toncheva came to the same conclusion, see Тончева, Е. Преписи на хирономическото певческо упражнение на Йоан Кукузел. – В: Проблеми на старата българска музика, София, 1975, 53–86. 37 About this see Stathis, G. An Analysis of the Sticheron Ton hlion kruyanta by Germanos, Bishop of New Patras (The Old “Synoptic” and the New “Analytical” Method of Byzantine Notation). – In: Studies in Eastern Chant. Vol. 4. NY, 1979, 177–227. 38 See also Raasted, J. Formulaism and Orality in Byzantine Chant. – In: Cantus Planus. Budapest, 1992, 231–241.

14

2 T H E A K AT H I S TO S O N C E A G A I N

The Akathistos – meaning standing, not sitting, when it is performed – is one of the most famous kontakion hymns of the Eastern Church.1 The Synaxarion (the book containing the lives of the saints) connects its origin with the miraculous liberation of Constantinople from siege: once in 626 under Heraclius I, and twice more in 677 under Constantine Pogonatos and in 718 under Leo III the Isaurian.2 It was believed that the Virgin herself had saved the city. Because of that the Akathistos hymn became a song of victory in honor of the Theotokos. Byzantine piety accorded it to the foremost place in Marian devotion, and it has held a unique place in Eastern Christian worship right up to the present. The Akathistos kontakion is the only one kontakion that escaped the liturgical reform of the ninth century, by which the size of kontakia was reduced from 24 or more stanzas to just 2: the prooemium (the introductory stanza) and the first stanza. The Akathistos developed an office of its own. The first notated (neumated) chants of the whole office, actually designated as belonging to the Akathistos office, are found in sources from the second half of the seventeenth century onwards. This is the age of the early Renaissance or the so-called National Revival on the Balkans, the time from which we have notated records of the entire Orthodox repertory throughout the course of the church year in Greek and Slavic. As is well known that during the Middle Ages the greater part of this repertory was transmitted orally. The early Renaissance is thus of great importance on the Balkans. It may provide us with a key for understanding many aspects of the entire development of Eastern Orthodox church chant, on the one hand, and on the other, the transition from an oral to a written notated practice from both the composer’s and performer’s point of view. The chants of the Akathistos office from the Renaissance onwards have the same unvarying order in the manuscript sources, in particular in the Anthologies. It is, however, difficult to say when exactly the whole Akathistos office was established. The Akathistos kontakion in Byzantine-Slavic chant has been studied by a number of scholars, such as Egon Wellesz,3 who investigated its earliest South Italian notated records from the thirteenth and the first half of the fourteenth centuries, Gabor Dévai,4 who discussed its prooemia according to five Byzantine manuscripts from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries preserved in Hungarian libraries, and DOI: 10.4324/9781003377238-3

15

S tudies on G enre

Antonina Filonov Gove,5 who compared the Byzantine kontakion with its translation in Slavic in the Old Russian kondakaria from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries.6 The present contribution concerns the presentation of the notated tradition of the Akathistos and its music as found in Balkan musical sources. The focus is on its prooemia with the introductory chant for the whole office. First of all I would like to recall some basic structural aspects of the Akathistos kontakion and its liturgical background in order to appreciate those qualities, which have ensured its preservation in its entirety down to the present day. Structurally the Akathistos consists of 24 stanzas, numbered even and odd, respectively long and short. Each long stanza bares the title “oikos” and the short one – “kontakion”.7 One of the peculiar features of the Akathistos is the addition to the long, odd-numbered stanzas, of a salutation (cheiretismos) to the Virgin. The hymn has 12 such salutations, known as Marian acclamations.8 The latter serve as an unvarying refrain after every odd stanza – “Haire” or “Hail, Unwedded Bride”. There is another refrain following the short stanzas or kontakia: “Alleluia”. The two refrains of the Akatistos may have been motivated by the dual themes of the hymn: the mystery of the Virgin birth and the mystery of the manifestation of God. The stanzas are preceded by an introductory prooemium (koukoulion) of independent metrical design with the first refrain “Hail”.9 This prooemium serves to link the hymn with the Gospel passage on which it is based.10 The Akathistos has two prooemia: “Tῇ ὑπερμάχῳ Στρατηγῷ” (“To the Invincible Leader”), a hymn of thanksgiving to the Virgin for the delivery of Constantinople from siege, marked in the sources as “kontakion”, and “Tὸ προσταχθὲν μυστικῶς” (“Receiving Secretly the Command”), a prelude to the story of the Incarnation, marked as “troparion”.11 It has been conjectured by P. F. Krypiakiewicz that the original prooemium was the second one, “Tὸ προσταχθὲν μυστικῶς”,12 which is found as an independent hymn for the same office, designated “apolytikion”, that is, troparion of the day.13 It was replaced by “Tῇ ὑπερμάχῳ Στρατηγῷ”, composed especially to celebrate the victory of the city of Constantinople over the enemy, in all probability in 532.14 From the liturgical point of view, it has been suggested that the Akathistos kontakion was originally associated with the feast of the Annunciation.15 It was included in the Lenten Triodion, a book containing services from Lent to Easter. Two main types of material were distinguished within this book: 1) the cycle of the Psalter and other scriptural readings, and 2) the cycle of liturgical hymnography of kanons, stichera and sessional hymns.16 The Akathistos belongs to the second, non-Biblical type of material in the Triodion, which as a whole was composed over a period extending from the sixth to the fifteenth centuries.17 The hymn is considered to belong to the oldest stratum of this material, originating from the period between the sixth and eighth century.18 At that time the Annunciation was still celebrated together with Christmas: perhaps the Akathistos was sung on December 26, the Synaxis of Theotokos.19 It has been suggested that probably during the reign of the Emperor Justinian I the Great the Annunciation 16

T he A kathistos O nce A gain

first began to be celebrated on March 25, and that no later than 718 the Akathistos was also appointed to be sung on that day. By the tenth century, to judge by the sources, its place in the liturgical calendar had still not been fixed. Patmos Cod. 266, the Typikon of Constantinople, representing the cathedral ritual of the tenth century, tells us that the Akathistos was sung either during the Vigil on Saturday in the middle of Lent, or during the Vigil of the following Saturday.20 Codex Paris Coislin 220, a Hirmologion from the twelfth century, assigns it to Friday night of the Fifth week of Lent.21 Codex Ashburnhamense 64, dated 1289, and the Blagoveschensky Kondakar from the first half of the twelfth century containing the notated Akathistos kontakion respectively in Greek and Slavic, assign it to Annunciation on March 25.22 The earliest extant notated manuscript sources of the Akathistos kontakion are from the second half of the thirteenth and the first half of the fourteenth century.23 They are notated in middle Byzantine notation. It was Egon Wellesz who pointed out the earliest (albeit quite short) fragment of the hymn in the above mentioned Cod. Coislin 220. After a group of stichera prosomoia for Lent and theotokia (from f. 238 onwards) the first two words of the first stanza of the Akathistos kontakion “Ἄγγελος πρωτοστάτης” (“A Captain of the Angels”) were notated in archaic neumes (f. 262r).24 Wellesz suggested that the scribe copied the notation from an original of the ninth or tenth century.25 He characterized the music of the Akathistos as very melismatic and stressed that it must have been singing in a melismatic style during the whole period from the ninth to the thirteenth century.26 Wellesz also found a close connection between the music of the Akathistos in all the sources studied by him.27 The Akathistos was designed to be sung as far as its refrains by a soloist. Because of this its early notated records can be found in the Psaltikon, the book containing chants for psalts (soloists).28 Constantin Floros found the piece in a source of the Asmatikon type, the book with chants for the choir(s): manuscript Lavra Г. 3 from the fifteenth century.29 He observed that only the prooemium and the first oikos of the Akathistos kontakion were notated (f. 59v–65v). Floros characterized the style of the Akathistos pieces in Lavra Г. 3 as very melismatic, that is, in the same style as the Akathistos in the sources investigated by Wellesz.30 I have been unable to trace such a melismatic Akathistos in the sources accessible to me in late Byzantine notation from the fourteenth and first half of the fifteenth centuries compiled according to the new redaction of Jerusalem Typikon.31 The first melismatic copies of the hymn in the context of the late Byzantine musical system, as far as I have been able to ascertain, are from the second half of the fifteenth century. Their number increases in the sixteenth century and from the seventeenth century onwards, especially from its second half, they become quite numerous.32 Gabor Dévai has discussed the two prooemia of the Akathistos, which he had found in manuscripts from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries: “Tῇ ὑπερμάχῳ Στρατηγῷ” by John Lampadarios Kladas, highly melismatic 17

S tudies on G enre

with “te-ri-re” passages or teretismata, and the anonymous “Tὸ προσταχθὲν μυστικῶς”.33 He concluded that these pieces must have been traditional, widely accepted and commonly used. The existence of “te-ri-re” passages is very typical of the style of the late Byzantine music and especially of its kalophonic or highly melismatic style. In manuscript Iviron 1120, dated July 1458 (the Treatise of the famous composer Manuel Chrysaphes), the Akathistos by John Kladas is accompanied by the following statement: “Akathistos composed by me, John Kladas, the Lampadarios, imitating the old Akathistos as closely as possible”.34 I have found the same inscription above the Akathistos ascribed to Kladas, in many manuscripts up to the beginning of the nineteenth century. The redaction by Kladas obviously became very popular. The question of which “old” Akathistos he had imitated remains open for now. Two other redactions of the same melismatic version of the Akathistos with the same prooemium “Tῇ ὑπερμάχῳ Στρατηγῷ” and teretismata were written down in the fifteenth century Mathematarion from the library of the “Ivan Dujčev” Center for Slavo-Byzantine studies in Sofia: D. Gr. 201. The redactions, similar in musical aspects to this one of Kladas, that is, using the same intonations, are ascribed respectively to Ksenos Korones and John Koukouzeles. These two redactions did not become widely known.35 In the sources from the post Byzantine period (after the fifteenth century) the stanzas (oikoi) of the Akathistos were included in the so-called Oikomataria or Mathemataria. In the latter book we find them among chants devoted to the Theotokos. In the main chant book from that period, the Anthology (Akolouthia), only the two prooemia were included (the first oikos was rarely included). In all the sources after the fifteenth century the whole Akathistos office is assigned to the Orthros (Matins) service on Saturday (actually during the night of Vigil) or Friday of the Fifth week of Lent.36 The same is prescribed in the modern Typikon where the chanting of the Akathistos kontakion comes after the third, sixth and ninth odes of the kanon.37 As it was already mentioned, the notated chants of the complete Akathistos office were written down in sources from the second half of the seventeenth century onwards. Three pieces prescribed for this office are notated in the Anthologies in the same order: the two prooemia, which have preserved their designations as “troparion” and “kontakion” (“Tὸ προσταχθὲν μυστικῶς” is almost always before “Tῇ ὑπερμάχῳ Στρατηγῷ”), preceded by the morning hymn “Θεὸς Κύριος” (“Lord is God”).38 They are followed by chants sung during the Passion week before Easter, opening with Alleluia. The Akathistos office chants are in the mode plagal 4, the same mode that was prescribed for “Tῇ ὑπερμάχῳ Στρατηγῷ” in the early middle Byzantine sources. The chants appear in different redactions.39 I shall discuss them quite briefly. “Theos Kyrios” is a well-known chant for the Orthros, whose text is based on psalm 117, verses 27a and 26a. Its notated tradition in all eight modes goes back to the thirteenth century. However, “Theos Kyrios” in mode plagal 4 prescribed for 18

T he A kathistos O nce A gain

the Akathistos office is found for the first time in the Anthologies from the second half of the seventeenth century.40 The chant was known to have evoked feelings of an ecstatic, “mystical pleasure” or “ἡδονή” and “spiritual illumination” in both its performers and its audience.41 Three versions of “Theos Kyrios” are displayed in manuscripts from the second half of the seventeenth century onwards: syllabic, syllabo-neumatic and melismatic. The first two are anonymous; the third one is exegetical (interpreted) from the end of the eighteenth century (after 1770) and/or the very beginning of the nineteenth century. The syllabic version of the chant is quite short and bares the following designation: “σύντομον” (“short”) or “μικρόν” (“quite short”). The syllabo-neumatic version could be defined as a “traditional” one, that is, its origin goes back to an earlier time: in some manuscripts it bares the rubrics “ἀρχαῖον” or “παλαιόν” (“old”).42 Its written transmission is very stable. The melismatic version has two exegetical redactions in Greek and one in Slavic. They are based on the “traditional” version: by Petros Lampadarios and an anonymous one, which I have found only in manuscripts originating from the monastery of Rila in Bulgaria. I called it “Rila” redaction. The redactions are very similar to each other and follow the basic intonation movement of the “traditional” version. The first prooemium “To prostahten mystikos”, which in the Akathistos office follows “Theos Kyrios”, is regularly found notated in manuscripts from the second half of the seventeenth century onwards. Like “Theos Kyrios” this chant has three versions: syllabic, syllabo-neumatic and melismatic. The earliest notated syllabic version of the first prooemium is known according to two manuscripts from Mount Athos, in which it does not vary: Vatopedi 1493, a Sticherarion from the fourteenth – fifteenth century (f. 187v) and Dionisiou 570, a Mathematarion from the fifteenth century (f. 128r).43 It is also found in Slavic in manuscript Rila 5/78 from the very beginning of the nineteenth century (f. 42r) with the attribution “another short”. In fact the notated chant “To prostahten mystikos” in this syllabic version may be found among the apolitikia or dismissal hymns.44 That is why its performance in the Akathistos office posed no problems: if one wants to have its notated version, it could be taken from the apolitikia chants and inserted in the Akathistos office. As in the case of “Theos Kyrios”, the syllabo-neumatic version of “To prostahten mystikos” is a “traditional” one. It has one redaction only, which is very stable in the sources. Comparison with the text given in the thirteenth century Lenten Triodion Cod. Vienna Suppl. Gr. 186 shows that the structure of the text has been preserved: where the dots were written down in the early text, martyriai (or clefs) appear in the later sources. The text consists of six verses divided into half verses with the refrain “Hail”. The two half verses are rounded off with the structural tones of the mode: d and b and the refrain establishes the final tone g. In musical respects the second verse repeats the first one (A); the third and the fourth are variants of the first two (A1); the fifth is identical to the refrain (R); and the sixth verse only is different from the others (B). The overall compositional 19

S tudies on G enre

structure is: AAA1A1RB+R. This structure is valid for both syllabic and syllaboneimatic versions.45 The melismatic version of “To prostahten mystikos” has two exegetical redactions in Greek – by Petros Lampadarios and in manuscripts from the Rila library, called “Rila” redaction. In some manuscripts from both Hilandar and Rila monasteries are included syllabic and melismatic versions in Slavic (see Appendix). The other prooemium “Ti upermaho Stratigo” also has three versions: syllabic, syllabo-neumatic and melismatic. Like “To prostahten mystikos” it consists of six verses with a refrain. Some sources give both refrains, “Hail” and “Alleluia”, others – only “Hail”.46 In musical aspect the second verse repeats the first one and the other four are alike. The overall compositional structure is: AABBBB+R. This structure is similar to the structure of the early thirteenth century version in the above mentioned Cod. Ashburnhamense 64, which reveals the picture AABA1B1B2+R.47 The syllabic version of “Ti upermaho Stratigo” appears in many redactions. The earliest one, like “To prostahten mystikos”, is known from the Mount Athos two manuscripts Vatopedi 1493 and Dionisiou 570. The chant is identical in both of them. There is a close similarity between this redaction and the melismatic ones by Kladas, Koukouzeles and Korones in terms of some intonation movements. In all probability the syllabic version of “Ti upermaho Stratigo” was transmitted orally: in spite of the Mount Athos sources we find it in the sources from the seventeenth century onwards. The syllabic redactions have designations, such as “ἐκκλησιαστικόν” (“church”) and “ἁγιορειτικόν” (from “Mount Athos”). Some chants are associated with the pieces ascribed to Balasios Hiereos and Petros Bereketes. The redaction designated as “church” in some sources is the same as the one ascribed to Balasios in others. The “agioreitikon” redaction is a little longer than the “church” redaction, as also is its “Hail” refrain. In manuscript Sinai 1480, an Anthology dated from 1625,48 the same redaction has the following inscription (f. 119r): “Kontakion, as it was sung in Byzantium”. The syllabo-neumatic version is of the kind that was defined as “traditional”. It is anonymous and very stable in its transmission. In many of the sources it bears the designation “ἀρχαῖον” (“old”). In some manuscripts it is determined as “πολίτικον” (from the city, that is, from Constantinople), a designation, which appears for the first time in the Anthologies of the fourteenth century.49 In many manuscripts the version is also prescribed to be sung “δίχορον” (“by the two choirs”). Its systematic notation is revealed in manuscripts from the beginning of the seventeenth century onwards.50 A close intonation similarity exists between this version and the late syllabic redactions of “Ti upermaho Stratigo”. The syllabic redactions represent a reduced melodic form of syllaboneumatic one. By the end of the eighteenth and the very beginning of the nineteenth century to the three redactions by John Kladas, John Koukouzeles and Ksenos Korones, three other redactions appeared – by Petros Lampadarios, the “Rila” redaction and 20

T he A kathistos O nce A gain

by Nanu (the latter signed himself as a “pupil of Petros Lampadarios”).51 The three redactions are very similar to each other and follow closely the “traditional” one. Unlike the earlier melismatic redactions these redactions do not have teretismata. As a whole they are shorter. By the end of the eightheenth century the three pieces of the Akathistos office appear in Slavic in musical manuscripts originating from the monasteries of Hilandar and Rila. They agree with the Greek copies in terms of their compositional structure and intonation fund (see Appendix). In conclusion we could summarize the results of this study. 1 In terms of its structure and the overall form, the Akathistos kontakion has not undergone change: the two prooemia (“kontakion” and “troparion”), the two refrains (“Hail” and “Alleluia”) and the 24 stanzas have been preserved through the centuries. 2 In terms of its liturgy, the assignment of the Akathistos kontakion has changed twice: first it was sung on December 26, probably up to the eighth century; later on it was removed from that day and performed on both March 25 and in the Vigil service on Friday during the Fifth week in Lent. The latter day has been preserved in the liturgical calendar to the present: all sources consulted after the fifteenth century prescribe the chanting of the Akathistos office on that day. 3 In terms of its notation, the Akathistos kontakion is revealed in manuscripts from the thirteenth century onwards: in the Psaltikon, Akolouthiai-Anthology and Oikomatarion. Up to the second half of the seventeenth century the melismatic version of “Ti upermaho Stratigo” was transmitted in the Psaltikon (the book for the soloists). Most often we find the redaction ascribed to John Kladas. The other prooemium, “To prostahten mystikos”, which served as an apolitikion, and the opening chant for the Akathistos office “Theos Kyrios”, began to be regularly notated in the Anthologies from the second half of the seventeenth century onwards. At that time, furthermore, two other versions of the Akathistos pieces appeared: syllabic and syllabo-neumatic. 4 The syllabic version of the Akathistos chants was usually transmitted orally up to the seventeenth century. Its different redactions show the variety of the syllabic kind of chanting. The redactions of “Ti upermaho Stratigo” with the designation “church” are the simplest and the most reduced. They might have been intended for singing in small churches.52 5 The syllabo-neumatic version of the Akathistos chants is anonymous. Only one redaction of it is found. Designations such as “old” in manuscripts from the second half of the seventeenth century onwards indicate that it enjoyed an oral existence before being written down. We have called it “traditional”. This version testifies to two important issues already established by the study of other genres (such as the kekragarion53): firstly, that the transmission of the syllabo-neumatic kind of chanting was very stable; and secondly, that 21

S tudies on G enre

chants sung in Constantinople in earlier times survived through the centuries and remained popular up to the nineteenth century (here I have in mind the “politikon” redaction of “Ti upermaho Stratigo”). 6 The Akathistos chants are ascribed to some of the greatest composers: John Kladas, John Koukouzeles and Ksenos Korones and from later time Balasios Hiereos, Petros Bereketes and Petros Lampadarios. The late melismatic redactions in both Greek and Slavic follow the syllabo-neumatic (“traditional”) version. They have preserved some characteristic features of the early extant copies of the Akathistos kontakion in terms of compositional structure, tones of support and melodic movement. 7 The notated Slavic “response” to the Akathistos chants appears by the end of the eighteenth century in manuscripts from the monasteries of Hilandar and Rila. It is in full agreement with the corresponding Greek originals. 8 The notation of various versions and redactions of the Akathistos chants is proof of the victory of written practice over the oral tradition on the Balkans. The oral tradition started losing grounds from the seventeenth century onwards, a process that ended with the adoption of the solmization system and the establishment of the New Method of teaching and learning the Byzantine music after 1814.

Appendix Versions and redactions of the three pieces of the Akathistos office in mode plagal 4 (according to manuscripts from the fifteenth to the nineteenth centuries). “Theos Kyrios” – “Бог Господ“ (“The Lord Is God”) 3 versions in Greek – syllabic, syllabo-neumatic and melismatic: I Syllabic: 1) “short” 2) “quite short” II Syllabo-neumatic: 1) “traditional” redaction (anonymous, identical in all sources) III Melismatic – exegetical redactions (interpreted, based on the “traditional” redaction): 1) by Petros Lampadarios 2) “Rila” redaction 1 version in Slavic – melismatic (only in Hilandar manuscript HM SMS 565 – close to the exegetical redaction of Petros Lampadarios) 22

T he A kathistos O nce A gain

“To prostahten mystikos” – “Повеленное тайно” (“Receiving Secretely”) 3 versions in Greek – syllabic, syllabo-neumatic and melismatic: I syllabic (among the apolitikia repertory) II syllabo-neumatic: 1) “traditional” redaction III Melismatic – exegetical redactions: 1) by Petros Lampadarios 2) “Rila” redaction 2 versions in Slavic – syllabic and melismatic: I syllabic – “Rila” redaction (found in manuscript Rila 5/78 only) II melismatic – exegetical redactions: 1) “Rila” redaction (close to the exegetical “Rila” redaction in Greek) 2) “Hilandar” redaction (close to the exegetical redaction of Petros Lampadarios) “Ti upermaho Stratigo” – “Возбранной воеводе” (“To the Invincible Leader”) 3 versions in Greek – syllabic, syllabo-neumatic and melismatic: I syllabic: 1) anonymous redaction in manuscripts Vatopedi 1493 and Dionisiou 570 (= “short”) 2) “church” (= Balasios Hiereos) 3) “agioreitikon” (from Mount Athos) 4) by Petros Bereketes II Syllabo-neumatic: 1) “traditional” redaction (by John Koukouzeles) III Melismatic: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

By John Kladas by John Koukouzeles by Ksenos Korones by Petros Lampadarios (exegetical) “Rila” redaction (exegetical) by Nanu, pupil of Petros Lampadarios (exegetical)54 23

S tudies on G enre

1 version in Slavic – melismatic: 1) melismatic (only in manuscript Hilandar 565 – close to the exegetical version of Petros Lampadarios in III.4 above).

Notes 1 About it see Kujumdzieva, S. The Akathistos Once Again. – In: Cantus Planus. Budapest, 1998, 369–390. 2 Wellesz, E. The Akathistos Hymn (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Transcripta. Vol. 9). Copenhagen, 1957, VIII. 3 Ibidem. See also Wellesz, E. The Akathistos. A Study of Byzantine Hymnography. – Dumbarton Oaks Papers. Vol. 9–10, 1956, 141–175. 4 Dévai, G. Akathistos Prooemia in Byzantine Musical Manuscripts in Hungary. – In: Studies in Eastern Chant. Vol. 1. Ed. by E. Welesz, M. Velimirović. NY, 1966, 1–8. 5 Filonov Gove, A. The Slavic Akathistos Hymn. A Comparative Study of a Byzantine Kontakion and Its Old Church Slavonic Translation. Ph.D., Harvard University. Cambridge, Mass., 1967. The Akathistos in the practice of the Latin church has also been studied. According to Michel Huglo an ancient Latin version is known after Cod. Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine 693 from the 11th or the beginning of the 12th century, see Welesz, E. A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography. Oxford, 1961, 196. 6 By the very beginning of the 14th century (around 1300) the Akathistos appeared as a theme in fresco decorations in different Orthodox churches and has consequently been studied by art historians, see Patterson Ševčenko, N. Icons in the Liturgy. – Dumbarton Oaks Papers. Vol. 45, 1991, 45–49. 7 The stanzas are linked by an alphabetic acrostic. The first twelve treat the Incarnation and the Infancy of Christ, starting with the Annunciation (first oikos) and ending with the Flight into Egypt (sixth oikos). It has been suggested that this is the oldest layer of the Akathistos. The other twelve stanzas, probably a later addition, alternate between the praise of God and his Mother, see New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. Washington, D.C., 1967, 228; Mother Mary, K. Ware. The Lenten Triodion. London-Boston, 1978, 54; Wellesz, E. The Akathistos Hymn . . ., XX. 8 They are arranged in six metrically and grammatically parallel pairs. The acclamations emphasize the homiletic derivation of the kontakarion genre. Such litanies of praise, modelled after Archangel Gabriel’s greeting at the Annunciation, were popular in the homilies of Eastern churchmen since Ephrem the Syrian (+ 373) and appear in Greek panegyrics beginning in the first half of the 5th century, see Filonov Gove, A. The Slavic Akathistos Hymn . . ., 12. 9 It stands outside the acrostic. 10 Filonov Gove, A. The Slavic Akathistos . . ., 11. 11 Wellesz, E. The Akathistos. A Study . . .; see Cod. Vindob. Suppl. Gr. 186, a Lenten Triodion from the 13th century. 12 Wellesz, E. A History . . ., 196; New Catholic Encyclopedia . . . Vol. 1, p. 228; Filonov Gove, A. The Slavic Akathistos Hymn . . ., 12. 13 Wellesz, E. The Akathistos Hymn . . ., XXI. 14 Ibidem; also Mary Mother, K. Ware. Op. cit., 55. 15 New Catholic Encyclopedia . . . Vol. 1, 228. 16 Mary Mother, K. Ware. Op. cit., 38. According to the authors Lent is an annual return to our Biblical roots or to the Old Testament. During Lent the scriptural readings are taken from the Old Testament to a far greater degree than at any other time of the year. 17 Mary Mother, K. Ware. Op. cit., 40.

24

T he A kathistos O nce A gain

18 Ibidem. It was composed together with troparia of the prophesy, said before the lesson at the Sixth hour, followed by the oldest kanon, the Great kanon of St. Andrew of Crete, and by a cycle of idiomela, ibidem, 40. 19 Wellesz, E. A History . . ., 275–277. 20 Ibidem, 191. 21 Ibidem, 275–277. 22 By the mid-9th century, when the kanon gained prominence, the form of the kontakion was reduced to a single stanza with its introductory prooemium. It was inserted between the 6th and the 7th ode of the kanon. The nine odes of the latter were never sung straight through: they were usually interrupted by prayers and hymns after every three odes, giving the kanon the appearance of a kathisma with a triadic division similar to the stasis. Only the Akathistos kontakion was preserved in its entirety, see Touliatos-Banker, D. The Byzantine Orthros. – Byzantina, 9, 1977, 323–385. 23 Wellesz, E. The Akathistos. A study . . . 24 Ibidem. 25 Wellesz, E. A History . . ., 276. 26 Ibidem. 27 In most of the early manuscripts only the text and music of the prooemium “Ti upermaho Stratigo” and the first oikos are notated. The exceptions are Cod. Ashburnhamense 64 and Cod. Criptensis E. B. VII, written between 1214 and 1230, in which the whole Akathistos was included, see Wellesz, E. A History . . ., 305. C. Høeg concluded from this that Greek usage prescribed that the prooemium and the first oikos of the Akathistos should be sung to two different though related melodies and assumed that the other oikoi were neither sung nor read in the services, see Filonov Gove, A. The Slavic Akathistos . . ., 176. It might be suggested, however, that the oikoi could have been sung to the same melody as the first oikos, or a similar one, so that their notation would not be necessary. 28 The Russian Kondakaria with the Akathistos represent rather a hybrid type. In addition, they contain a repertory from the Asmatikon, see Myers, G. The Blagoveschenski Kondakar: A Russian Musical Manuscript of the 12th Century. – Cyrillomethodianum. Vol. 11. Thessaloniki, 1987, 103–127. 29 Floros, C. Universale Neumenkunde. Vol. II. Kassel, 1970, S. 267. The source holds a special place in Byzantine codicological literature. It is the earliest known Asmatikon originating from the Balkans. All the other Asmatika are from Southern Italy. E. Wellesz believed that these books were written in the monastery St. Catherine on Mount Sinai and were brought from there to Southern Italy, see Wellesz, E. A History . . ., 269. Manuscript Lavra Г. 3 is notated in middle Byzantine notation. S. Eustradiates dates it to the 15th century, a time when this notation was generally out of use having been replaced by the late Byzantine notation after the liturgical reform about the end of the 13th century, see Floros, C. Universale Neumenkunde . . ., vol. II, 267. 30 It has been suggested that the translation of the Akathistos from Greek into Slavic was made along with the Hirmologion, that is, no later than the first half of the 10th century, see Filonov Gove, A. Op. cit., 87. In the above mentioned Blagoveschenski Kondakar “Ti upermaho Stratigo” (“Возбранной воеводе“) is notated only: space is left for neumes in the text of “To prostahten mystikos” (“Повеленное тайно”) but it was not notated, cfs. Filonov Gove, A. The Evidence for Metrical Adaptation in Early Slavic Translated Hymns. – In: Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Subsidia. Vol. VI. Copenhagen, 1978, 211–246. Examination of the palaeoslavonic kontakia reveals a structure similarity to the Byzantine one, see Myers, G. Op. cit. 31 I have in mind the following manuscripts: Sinai Gr. 1257, Athens 899, 2406 and 2458, Vatican Palat. Gr. 243 and Barb. Gr. 300, Vienna Theol. Gr. 185 and Phil. Gr. 194.

25

S tudies on G enre

32 I have studied musical manuscripts in Bulgarian libraries, in the libraries on Mount Athos, the Vienna National library, etc., see the study “Psalm 140: Versions and Redactions” in this book. 33 Dévai, G. Op. cit. 34 According to Conomos, D. The Treatise of Manuel Chrysaphes, the Lampadarios (= Corpus Scriptorum de re musica, 2 vols.). Vienna, 1985, 32–45. 35 This redaction of John Koukouzeles is revealed in one more manuscript, Ksyropotamou 287 from 1724, see Στάθης, Γ. Θ. Τὰ χειρόγραφα Βυζαντινῆς μουσικῆς – Ἅγιον Ὄρος. Κατάλογος περιγραφικὸς τῶν χειρογράφων κωδίκων Βυζαντινῆς μουσικῆς τῶν ἀποκειμένων ἐν ταῖς Βιβλιοθήκαις τῶν ἱερῶν Μονῶν καὶ Σκητῶν τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους. Ἀθῆναι. Τ. Α΄ 1975. 36 The Orthros, like most of the liturgical services in use in Byzantium, crystallized into its present form during the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries. Not much is known about the development of its liturgical features up to the 9th century, see Touliatos-Banker, D. Op. cit. 37 Никодим, M., Г. Попйонков. Типик. София, 1980, с. 439. It is assumed that the Akathistos kontakion was transferred after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, see Mary Mother, K. Ware. Op. cit., 54. 38 Prooemia of the Akathistos may also be found, though rarely, in Hirmologia. See for instance manuscripts Ksyropotamou 262, a Doxastarion-Hirmologion from the beginning of the 17th century, f. 206v, in Stathis, G. Op. cit. 39 I make a distinction between the terms “version” and “redaction”. The terms are discussed in my study on the versions and redactions of Psalm 140. By “version” I refer to a style of chanting (syllabic, melismatic, etc.); “redaction” refers to the realization of the given version, preserving its stylistic parameters (for example a syllabic version of a chant in its “agioreitikon” redaction). 40 In the Anthologies from the 14th century onwards redactions of this chant have been included, as for example “thessalonikeon”, “vatopedinon”, “kalougerikon”, etc., in both melismatic and syllabic styles, see Touliatos-Banker, D. Op. cit.; Тончева, Е. Новонамерен извор за средновековната музика от XIII в. – Българско музикознание, 3, 1984, 3–47. 41 Touliatos-Banker, D. Op. cit. Mode plagal 4 of “Theos Kyrios” was associated with the Akathistos office because as a rule this chant was followed by the apolitikion sung in the mode of “Theos Kyrios”. Thus, “To prostahten mystikos”, serving as an apolitikion, adopted mode plagal 4. 42 Manuscripts Rila 6/56, Dujčev Gr. 355. 43 I am very grateful to Christian Troelsgård for supplying me with photocopies of these manuscripts. 44 Troelsgård, C. Melodic Variations in the Original Manuscripts (Apolytikia and Exaposteilaria). – In: Cantus Planus. Budapest, 1998, 601–611. 45 The chant has the same structure in Russian manuscripts 10846 from 1676 originating from the Skit Mare in Galicia. This Skit was the center where the repertory of the socalled “Bolgarski Rospev” (“Bulgarian Chant”) held a central place, see Тончева, Е. Болгарский роспев. София, 1981. 46 See the mnuscripts Gr. 61 of the National library “St. Cyril and St. Methodius” in Sofia and D. Gr. 299 of the library of the “Ivan Dujčev” Center in Sofia. 47 E. Wellesz gives the following structure of this chant: AA1BA2CD, see Wellesz, E. A History . . ., 332. 48 I am grateful to C. Troelsgård for supplying me with a photocopy of this manuscript. 49 Touliatos-Banker, D. The Byzantine Amomos Chant of the 14th and 15th Century. Ph.D., The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 1979, 143. 50 It seems to be this version that was included in an earlier manuscript of the end of the 15th or the beginning of the 16th century, no. 1045 of the Panteleimonos monastery

26

T he A kathistos O nce A gain

on Mount Athos. It is anonymous and bares the inscription “dihoron” (“by the two choirs”). If it is the same version, regularly copied in manuscripts from the second half of the 17th century onwards, this record would have been the earliest yet identified, see Stathis, G. Op. cit. T. B, 1976. In my work in the Bodleian library in Oxford, I found the same redaction in manuscript Canonici Gr. 25 from 1729, f. 115v, ascribed to John Koukouzeles. 51 Manuscript Hilandar HM SMS 565. 52 It was also the opinion of the late Jorgen Raasted who expressed it in a private conversation with the author. 53 Куюмджиева, С. Воззвателните стихове в балканската православна музика (по ръкописи от XIV до началото на XIX в.). Дисертация. София, 1996. 54 Two more redactions in Greek of the melismatic version of “Ti upermaho Stratigo” are found in Rila 6/63, Hilandar gMS 104 and Ksyropotamou 277. They are in other modes: plagal 1 by Georgios Redestinos and plagal 3 (varis) by Anastasios Rapsаniodes, see Appendix.

 

27

3 T H E B Y Z A N T I N E-S L AV I C SANCTUS Notes on Its Liturgical Context

The Sanctus, a common chant of many liturgies and of the earliest ordinary chants, a record of the text of which we have at least from the fourth century, has provoked the interest of different scholars both musicologists and liturgists.1 As a point of departure for investigation here, I have taken up one of the basic aims of James McKinnon’s study “Compositional Planning in the Roman Mass Proper”, namely to uncover layers of compositional stability and instability within the chant, and thus to establish the chronology for its composition.2 Following this objective, I was mainly interested in the context in which the Sanctus appeared systematically in Byzantine-Slavic musical manuscripts. This context is the liturgy of St. Basil the Great in which the chant has found its principal place and constituted the heart of the Eucharistic kanon. Nowadays the liturgy of St. Basil is performed ten times throughout the year: as a movable cycle of the first five Sundays in Lent, on Holy Thursday and the Holy Saturday Easter vigil, and as a fixed cycle on the vigils of Christmas and Epiphany when their days do not fall on Sunday and Monday, and on the feast of St. Basil, January 1.3 We do not know exactly when these days were determined for the service of the liturgy of St. Basil, and where and why they were chosen for its celebration. Discussing questions like these, I shall apply the three stages of the methodology suggested by James McKinnon in his above-cited study: examining the text and music of the chant and linking them with datable events in liturgical and cultural history. Since the text of the Sanctus has been comparatively well investigated by Western and Eastern scholars, I shall concentrate on its music in the sources and on its place in the liturgy. Originally the liturgy of St. Basil was performed throughout the entire year without any restrictions regarding the days. Its order, along with that of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, was provided by the Byzantine rite for celebration of the Divine Liturgy. Both orders contain the sacrificial formularies with the Eucharistic kanon. The Sanctus was performed in the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as well but up to the nineteenth century we do not know its notated record in the context of this liturgy.4 The liturgy of St. Basil is older. According to the Pseudo-Proclus testimony, St. John Chrysostom, when revising the liturgy did not compose a new 28

DOI: 10.4324/9781003377238-4

T he B yzantine - S lavic S anctus

liturgical formula but only abbreviated the already existing one, that of St. Basil.5 Both liturgies were everyday full regular liturgies and they coexisted as such for many centuries sharing “a common history” as variant formularies of the same local Church.6 The differences between them lie chiefly in the spoken prayers.7 The earliest extant sources in which the texts of the two liturgies were written down are the Euchologia originating from the eighth to the twelfth centuries, like for instance Cod. Barb. Gr. 336 from the mid-eighth century and the Slavic Cod. Sinai 958 from the tenth century.8 These Euchologia represent the cathedral service of the Great Church “Hagia Sophia” in Constantinople, one of the two practices developing from the fifth to the fourteenth centuries (cathedral and monastic).9 The liturgy of St. Basil takes precedence in them: it is placed first. The liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is placed second and bares no title. Up to the twelfth century the liturgy of St. Basil maintained the first place among the liturgies written down in the sources.10 This suggests that it was the main regular everyday liturgy in Constantinople. There is no evidence to tell us something about the regulation of performance of each of the two liturgies. Perhaps the performance of one or the other was dependent on the place or the church and was a matter of choice of the priests. When did the two liturgies begin to be distinguished? We find an evidence for this in the “Questions and Responses” of Euthimios, the second abbot of one of the oldest monasteries on Mount Athos, Iviron, who served as hegumen there from 1005 to 1016.11 Answering question No. 6 Euthimius says: “. . . all now make use of the liturgy of Chrysostom, or in Lent that of Basil”. Another piece of evidence I found in manuscript Sinai 1096 from the twelfth – thirteenth century, a Typikon originating from the St. Sabas monastery in Jerusalem.12 We read the following rubric there (p. 12): “Αἱ δὲ ἅγιαι λειτουργίαι ἐν ταῖς κυριακαῖς τῆς μεγάλης Μ΄ καὶ ἐν ταῖς νηστείαις τῶν δεσποτικῶν ἑορτῶν, ὅτε δηλονότι ἔστι τοῦ ἁγίου Βασιλείου ἡ λειτουργία, τελοῦνται ὡσαύτως καὶ εἰς τὴν μνήμην αὐτοῦ, ἐν δὲ ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἡμέραις τοῦ ὅλου χρόνου ἡ λειτουργία τελεῖται τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου, ἡ δὲ προηγιασμένη ἐν τῇ μεγάλῃ Τεσσαρακοστῇ” (“The Holy Liturgy performed on Sundays during the Great Quadragesima and during Lent on the Lord’s feasts is namely the liturgy of St. Basil, a liturgy performed also on the day when the memory of St. Basil is celebrated. On all other days the liturgy of St. Chrysostom is performed, and during the Great Quadragesima the liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts is performed”). Hence, we may conclude that by the eleventh century the liturgy of St. Basil already existed as a liturgy for Lent in the monastic practices of Constantinople and Jerusalem. At that time the days of Holy Thursday and Holy Saturday Easter vigil are not mentioned and maybe they were missing in its performance: these days should have been added to its calendar at a later time, which would not have been later that the twelfth century when the new Jerusalem calendar starts establishing. In the latter the monastic and cathedral practices were joined and synthesized.13 We have every reason to believe that in the process of fusion of monastic and cathedral practices of Jerusalem and Conatsntinople the new 29

S tudies on G enre

order of celebration of the liturgy of St. Basil was determined. In this process the Christmas and Epiphany of the Lord’s feasts remained and the two days cited above were established. An argument in favor of this suggestion is that a new redaction of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom emerged by the eleventh century, as a result of fusion of the monastic practices of Jerusalem and Constantinople.14 This redaction gained priority and its text was placed first in the new Constantinopolitan redaction of the Euchology. In the mixed Typika of the Jerusalem-Constantinople type from the thirteenth century it also prevailed: it was written down more often than the one of St. Basil.15 Italian manuscripts assign the Sanctus to Christmas, Epiphany and Easter16 and it is suggested that the calendar practice in Byzantium was similar to that of Rome, which means that the Sanctus was performed on these days during the cathedral practice in the Byzantine-Slavic world as well: it was part of a regular liturgy. Judging by the Typikon of the Great Church “Hagia Sophia” in Constantinople, no differences were made between the two liturgies in cathedral practice up to the fourteenth century: in the full copies of this Typikon from the tenth and fourteenth centuries, respectively, manuscripts St. Cross 40 from the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and Auct. E. 5 from the Bodleian library in Oxford, the liturgy is written down without any specifications.17 Finally, the very service of vigil within which the liturgy of St. Basil was to be performed on Christmas, Epiphany, Holy Thursday and Holy Saturday, was a revised product of the old one, conditioned by the fusion of monastic and cathedral practices.18 Thus, in establishing the new liturgical order according to the revised Jerusalem Typikon in which some services obtained a new liturgical significance, the liturgy of St. Basil was superseded as a regular everyday liturgy and gradually relegated to fixed days. Why these days were chosen for its celebration? One of the reasons might be that this liturgy was meant to be the most solemn one. And if we look at the days specified for its performance, we shall see that almost all of them are among the major feasts in the above-mentioned tenthcentury Typikon of the Great Church. Each of them bears a special liturgical semantics: Christmas – the day of the Birth and the new Beginning; Epiphany – the coming of the Divine Being, the Incarnation of Logos when the Son of God appeared in the world as a man;19 Holy Thursday – the institution of the Eucharist;20 the Holy Saturday Easter vigil – the great festival of Salvation; the Sundays of Lent – each one represents the cardinal point when Christ completed His work and celebrated His triumph in the Resurrection;21 and the day of St. Basil the Great – the day of the Patron Saint. We can assume that the Sanctus with its old Biblical text played an important role in the new assignment of the liturgy of St. Basil. All the copies of the Jerusalem Typikon from the beginning of the fourteenth century to the present day assign the performance of this liturgy to these days. In the Anthology, the new class of chant book compiled according to the order of the revised Jerusalem Typikon by the end of the thirteenth century, the liturgy of St. Basil is already put in the second 30

T he B yzantine - S lavic S anctus

place as a specified liturgy after the regular one of St. John Chrysostom (see Appendix II – Liturgy). The music of the Sanctus started to be notated systematically in the Anthologies.22 In the chant books of the former time, the Asmatikon and the Psaltikon, representing the melismatic choral and soloistic repertory of the cathedral practice in Constantinople during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the Sanctus was not included. This could mean that at the time it was performed as a common chant of a regular everyday liturgy and there was no practical need to be notated.23 Up to the fourteenth century the Sanctus was sung by all the people taking part in the service, the clergy and the congregation.24 This is confirmed by the two mentioned Euchologia from the eighth and tenth centuries – Barberinus and Sinaiticus. In both of them it is pointed out that it must be sung by the people (“ὁ λαὸς”/“людие”). Also, these two manuscripts indicate the significance of the chant: in Barberinus it is called “Τὸν ἐπινίκιον ὕμνον” (“The Song of Victory”), in Sinaiticus – “Царское славословие” (“King’s Glorification”).25 The latter designation is an evidence that the Sanctus must also have been sung in a special Imperial liturgy, that is, in the presence of the Emperor or Tsar.26 It confirms the suggestion of Lorenzo Tardo about the inclusion of this chant in such a liturgy, which he made on the grounds of a record of melismatic chant in the Southern Italian manuscript Messina 161 from the thirteenth century.27 This record is one of the two of the music of the Sanctus linked to Byzantine music, which we know as existing up to the fourteenth century. The second one is also in a Southern Italian source from the same time with a melismatic repertory – manuscript Cryptensis Г. b. 37 (VI).28 The text of the Sanctus in it was written in Latin with Greek letters. In its turn, it confirms the conclusion of J. Gay that a number of feasts were commonly celebrated by the Latin and Greek clergy in Italy during the Middle Ages. In both sources the Sanctus is notated in mode plagal 4.29 Beginning with the early fourteenth century, the chant was written in a great number of the Anthologies. We find it always notated in the liturgy of St. Basil the Great. It is performed between the great prayer of Thanksgiving and the Transubstantiation.30 Up to the second half of the eighteenth century its melody remained basically the same but now assigned to mode 2 (see Appendix III – Music). According to Kenneth Levy it was to be performed by the two choirs in the church and represents an embellished version of the one sung by the congregation in former times.31 In the sources originating from the fourteenth century this melody is anonymous. In the fifteenth-century sources it is ascribed to John Glykys, a composer from the beginning of the fourteenth century. From the sixteenth century onwards, the same melody is also linked to the name of Nikephoros Ethikos, a contemporary of John Glykys. Finally, during the second half of the eighteenth century the music of the Sanctus started to be interpreted by many composers but this concerns another age and is a matter of another research. What we can sum up in conclusion? 31

S tudies on G enre

Originally, the Sanctus was part of the regular, everyday liturgy of both the St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom formularies. By the eleventh century the liturgy of St. Basil was moved to special days during the Great Quadragesima and Lent in the monastic practices of Jerusalem and Constantinople. The determination of the days for celebration of this liturgy was a gradual process. As late as the thirteenth century the present ten days were widely established. This establishment was a result of the final fusion between the monastic and cathedral practices. The Sanctus found its notated fixed place in the liturgy of St. Basil, systematically written down in the Anthologies from the beginning of the fourteenth century. Up to the present it remained one of the most solemn chants of the Eastern Church.

Appendix I Text The text of the Sanctus is composed of two Biblical passages, joined together by the sixth century along with the refrain “Hosanna”. The two passages were taken from: 1

The Old Testament – Isaiah VI, 3: Ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος Κύριος Σαβαώθ, πλήρης ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ τῆς δόξης σου.

Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth Pleni sunt caeli et terra Gloria tua.

Свят, свят, свят Господ Саваот Исполни небо и земля Слави Твоея. This text appeared for the first time in the Euchologion of Serapion of Thmuis by the mid-fourth century and then in the Liturgy of Apostolic Constitution by c. 380. It refers to the well-known vision of Isaiah in which he saw God sitting upon an exalted throne. 2

The New Testament – Matthew XXI, 9: εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου. Ὡσαννὰ ὁ ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις.

Benedictus qui venit In nomine Domini. Osanna in excelsis.

Благословен грядый во имя Госпoдне. Осанна в въшных.

32

T he B yzantine - S lavic S anctus

The text gives the words with the crowd greeting Jesus when He entered Jerusalem. Of all the materials from the New Testament only the Gospel of Matthew was known in the old Jewish times because it was the only text that had been translated into Greek from a lost Aramitic original (a language based on Semitic dialects in Syria and Mesopotamia). The two Biblical passages were mentioned for the first time by Caesarius of Arles and Isidore of Seville in the sixth century.

Appendix II Liturgy The Liturgy of St. Basil Monastic practice Cathedral practice

The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom Monastic practice Cathedral practice

1  Fourth through the eleventh centuries A regular everyday liturgy standing; on the first place in the Euchologia.

A regular everyday liturgy standing; on the second place in the Euchologia without a title.

2  Eleventh through the thirteenth centuries Relegated to Sundays and Lord’s feasts during the Great Quadragesima and Lent + St. Basil day.

A regular everyday liturgy.    

3  End of the thirteenth century to the present times Relegated to 10 determined days: Sundays during the Great Quadragesima (except Palm Sunday), St. Basil day, Christmas, Epiphany, Holy Thursday and Holy Saturday Easter vigil. It stands on the second place in the Anthologies.

33

A regular everyday liturgy.         It stands on the first place.

S tudies on G enre

Appendix III Music

Figure 3.1  Sanctus

1) 2) 3) 4)

MS Athens 2458, 1336 MS Barb. Gr. 300, fifteenth century MS E. D. Clarke 14, 1553 MS Gr. 61, eighteenth century (up to 1770)

Transcription from Eastern neumes into West European notation by Svetlana Kujumdzieva.

Notes 1 Gastoue, A. Le Sanctus et le Benedictus. – Revue du chant gregorien, 38, 1934, 163– 168; 39, 1935, 12–17, 35–39; Huglo, M. La tradition occidentale des melodies byzantines du Sanctus. – In: Der kultische Gesang der abendländischen Kirche. Aus Anlass des 75. Geburtstages von D. Johner. Ed. by F. Tack. Cologne, 1950, 40–46; Levy, K. The Byzantine Sanctus and Its Modal Tradition in East and West. – Anales Musicologiques, 6, 1958–1963, 7–67; Moran, N. The ordinary Chants in Byzantine Mass (= Hamburger Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft). 2 vols. Hamburg, 1975; Spinks, B. The Sanctus in the Eucharistic Prayer. Cambridge, 1991; Iversen, G. Splendor Patris. On Influence and Genre Definition. Victorine Proses Reflected in the Sanctus. – In: Cantus Planus. Budapest, 1992, 427–445; Taft, R. Liturgy in Byzantium and Beyond. Variorum, 1995; Kujumdzieva, S. The Byzantine-Slavic Sanctus: Its Liturgical and Musical Context. – Studia Musicologica, 39, 2–4. Budapest, 1998, 223–232.

34

T he B yzantine - S lavic S anctus

2 McKinnon, J. W. Compositional Planning in the Roman Mass Proper. – Studia Musicologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. T. 39, Fasc. 2/4, 1998, 241–245. 3 See about this liturgy Афанасьева, Т. И. Литургии Иоанна Златоуста и Василия Великаго в славянской традиции (по служебникам XI-XV века). Москва, 2015. 4 Sanctus chants for both liturgies, St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom, are always included in modern Greek Anthologies, cfs. Conomos, D. Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. Thessaloniki, 1974, 301. 5 Solovey, M. M. The Byzantine Divine Liturgy. History and Commentary. Washington, D.C., 1970, 49. 6 Taft, R. The Liturgy of the Great Church: An Initial Synthesis of Structure and Interpretation on the Eve of Iconoclasm. – In: Liturgy in Byzantium . . ., 45–75. 7 Levy, K. Op. cit. 8 Гошев, И. Старобългарската литургия (според български и византийски извори от IX-XI в.). – Годишник на Софийския университет, Богословски факултет. Т. 9. София, 1931–32, 1–77. 9 Taft, R. Mount Athos. A Late Chapter in the History of the Byzantine Rite. – Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 42, 1982, 179–194. 10 Brightman, F. E. Liturgies Eastern and Western. Oxford, 1896, 309–344; Fenwick, R. K. The Anaphoras of St. Basil and St. James (An investigation into their common origin). – Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 240. Roma, 1992, p.  24; Чифлянов, Б. Литургия. – В: Кирило-Методиевска енциклопедия. Т. 2. София, 1995, 543–545. 11 According to Taft, R. Mount Athos . . . 12 Дмитриевский, А. Описание литургических рукописей, хранящихся в библиотеках православный Востока. Т. 3, ч. 2. Санкт Петербург, 1917, 25. 13 Taft, R. Mount Athos . . . 14 Taft, R. The Byzantine Rite. Collegeville, Minnesota, 1992, 55. 15 Taft, R Mount Athos . . . 16 Levy, K. Byzantine Sanctus . . . 17 See also Conomos, D. Byzantine Trisagia . . ., 17. 18 Arranz, M. N. D. Uspensky. The Office of the All-Night Vigil in the Great Church and in the Russian Church. – St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 24, No 2, 1980, 83–115. 19 Jungmann, J. The Early Liturgy. Notre Dame, 1959, 149. 20 Duchesne, L. Christian Worship. Its Origin and Evolution. London, 1923, 234. 21 Jungmann, J. Op. cit., 21. 22 See also Levy, K. The Byzantine Sanctus . . . 23 About these books see Floros, C. Universale Neumenkunde. Bd. 2. Kassel, 1970, S. 259–273; Harris, S. The Communion Chants in Thirteenth-Century Byzantine Musical Manuscripts. – In: Studies in Eastern Chant. Vol. II. Ed. by M. Velimirović. London, 1971, 51–67; Strunk, O. Essays on Music in the Byzantine World. Ed. by K. Levy. NY, 1977, 157–164; Conomos, D. The Late Byzantine and Slavonic Communion Cycle: Liturgy and Music. Washington, D.C., 1985, 54–68. 24 Levy, K. The Byzantine Sanctus . . . 25 According to Гошев, И. Цит. съч. 26 K. Levy claims that in the 10th century the Sanctus was chanted by the assembled populace as the first acclamation of the coronation of an Emperor or an Empress. It was also chanted in the great palace receptions, cfs. Levy, K. The Byzantine Sanctus . . . 27 According to Moran, N. The Ordinary Chants . . . Vol. 1, 159. 28 Ibidem. Vol. 2, 175–180. 29 Ibidem. Vol. 1, 162–166. 30 See also Levy, K. Op. cit.; Moran. Op. cit. Vol. 1, 158. 31 Levy, K. Op. cit.

35

Part 2 STUDIES ON LITURGICAL BOOKS

4 THE TROPOLOGION Sources and Identifications

This study is based on sources up to the thirteenth century.1 At that time the Orthodox chant repertories and liturgy had achieved a comparatively stable written format in liturgical books. The focus is first on all manuscripts in Greek from the library of St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai.2 The Sinai Greek collection, which comprises two-thirds of the Sinai library, is possibly the most extensive of its kind in the world.3 To my knowledge, it could be compared with the Vatican library in Rome. Primacy in terms of early manuscripts, however, should be given to the Sinai collection: the latter contains an unusual number of early rolls and materials from the sixth – seventh century onwards. In this respect it is unique.4 The importance of the Sinai collection is that it provides materials of the earlier Christian tradition and shows its development in one of the largest and most important Christian centers at least until the ninth century – Jerusalem. Jerusalem, or the Holy City, acted as a crossroads for a number of liturgical traditions, and the Jerusalem liturgy provides an important key to a number of developments elsewhere.5 Also, the Sinai manuscripts outline the development in the three of the oldest Christian monastic foundations: that on Sinai, the St. Sabas monastery near Jerusalem, and the Studios monastery near Constantinople.6 Thus, the Sinai manuscripts present a homogeneous picture of the development of the earliest Christian liturgy and culture in the East, at least until the twelfth century.7 Working with some of the early Sinai sources in Greek, I have found ten manuscripts that bare the title Tropologion in their initial rubrics. A greater part of them was not known as Tropologia: in the available catalogues on Sinai manuscripts they are defined as other types of books – Menaia or Triodia according to their contemporary determinations.8 Three more manuscripts that bare the designation Tropologion should be added: two are from the Vatican Apostolic Library in Rome – Vat. Gr. 771 from the eleventh century and Vat. Gr. 2008 from 1102, and the papyrus from the Kastellion Khirbet Mird Monastery, P. Khirbet Mird P.A.M. 1–2 from the very beginning of the ninth century published by J. v. Haelst.9 Four other manuscripts from the newly Sinai findings of 1975, two of which are fragments, are defined as Tropologion in their descriptions.10 All of these manuscripts originate from the eighth – ninth through the twelfth centuries. They are of different types, which again, according to our present designations, are the following: ten DOI: 10.4324/9781003377238-6

39

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

of the type of the Menaion, two of the type of the Triodion, three of the type of the Oktoechos, and three remain unidentified.11 Study of the Tropologion is still in its infancy. It is considered the earliest known extant chant book from the early Christian world that was in use until about the twelfth century.12 It has been generally believed that the Tropologion has survived in Georgian translation only, known as Iadgari, which is translated as “memory” (memory for the saints, for instance).13 Eight extant Iadgari manuscripts from the tenth – eleventh century are well known. Seven of them are from the Sinai library and one is from Tbilisi.14 The study of these manuscripts shows that they have preserved layers of Jerusalem hymnography and liturgy from an earlier period that goes back to the fifth – sixth century.15 Working with the Catalogue of William Wright on the Syriac manuscripts kept at the library of the British Museum in London, I have come across some copies of the Tropologion in Syriac, which in this language is called Tropligin.16 The copies are from the ninth century onwards. They display a structure similar to that of the Georgian Iadgari. According to the research of Gabriele Winkler, the book of the Tropologion was known in the Armenian Church as well, under the name Šaraknoc.17 All the copies of the Tropologion in Greek, Syriac and Armenian clearly show that the book has not been preserved in Georgian only: the spread and the use of it were much greater than we had previously assumed and the Georgian Iadgari could be considered as one of its versions. Three issues become very important in terms of revealing the entire history of the Tropologion: the content of the repertory, its arrangement, and the liturgical calendar according to which the services were organized.18 The study of them unquestionably confirms the earlier stage of the compilation of the book, which might have been done in Jerusalem or in its outer lying region, outlines its uninterrupted development from Jerusalem to the Studios monastery and beyond in different languages, and places it among the most important primary sources that help us to situate the early context of the liturgy in the East and the items performed in it. I shall present the results of my study quite briefly. The essential part of the content of the Georgian Iadgari is compiled of the oldest known chant form of the ecclesiastical poetry – troparia, and later forms of chants that are based on the troparia: the stichera and kanons. The latter do not appear in earlier sources. Along with these genres in the Iadgari are also found hypakoi, prokeimena and makarismoi. All of the chants are designed for the resurrection services for Saturday Vespers and Sunday. Some of the troparia are found in common in the Iadgari and three of the earliest sources for the liturgy in Jerusalem: the Itinerary of the French or Spanish pilgrim Egeria, known also as Etheria and Sylvia, which describes the cathedral liturgy at the Anastasis Church in Jerusalem between 381 and 384;19 the Armenian Lectionary, which also describes the cathedral liturgy of Jerusalem but in its state from the beginning of the fifth century: it was translated from Greek into Armenian between 415 and 439;20 and the Georgian Lectionary, which transmits the liturgy of Jerusalem between the fifth and eighth centuries.21 The seventh and the eighth centuries 40

T he T ropologion

are characterized by a massive introduction of chants in the Jerusalem monastic tradition.22 An impressive body of repertory of Sunday and festal offices chants appeared. Monks such as Andrew of Crete, John of Damascus and Kosmas of Maiuma were involved in the creation of this repertory, which we find recorded in the Iadgari. The repertory in the book is arranged in several cycles.23 The most important of them are: firstly, the yearly cycle of both the fixed feasts for the twelve months throughout the liturgical year and the movable feasts for the periods of Lent, Easter, and Pentekost; secondly, the cycle of eight Sundays arranged in eight consecutive modes constituting an Oktoechos; and thirdly, the cycle of chants for the Resurrection, the Holy Virgin, classes of Saints, Martyrs, Repentance, the Deceased, etc., which are grouped together at the end of the book and used in the everyday services, known as Common. The chants for the fixed and movable feasts are interspersed in a single calendar sequence: the movable feasts for the time of Lent, Easter, and Pentekost are placed between February 2, the Hypapante, and April 23, the feast of St. George. The liturgical calendar in the Iadgari starts with the feast of the Annunciation of the Holy Virgin on March 25. Christmas, December 25, and further feasts according to the calendar follow it.24 The placement of the Annunciation at Christmastime represents a tradition of an old calendar when the Annunciation had not yet become a separate festival: there is evidence that the hymns for this feast were sung on December 26, the second day of Christmas when the Council of the Holy Virgin was celebrated. This old calendar goes back before 560. It is well known that after this year the Emperor Justinian I the Great reorganized the calendar: the Annunciation was separated from Christmas and was placed on March 25. Thus, the Iadgari represents a “mixed” practice: the Annunciation is placed along with Christmas but its celebration is prescribed for March 25.25 Let us now see how the three issues considered were transmitted from the Iadgari in Georgian into the Tropologion in Greek. Study of the contents of the book shows that the repertory of troparia, stichera, kanons, hypakoi, prokeimena, and makarismoi was preserved. This repertory, however, has increased dramatically: many new pieces entered the contents of the book. Also, a new cycle of exaposteilaria sung after the 9th ode of the kanon appeared. Along with the names of the old poet-composers of John of Damascus’ circle, are now read the names of the ninth – tenth-century writers: Theodore and Joseph the Studite, Theophanos Graptos, Joseph the Hymnographer, Emperor Leo VI the Wise the Philosopher, his son Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos and others. The arrangement of the repertory in the Tropologion in Greek shows innovations. The yearly cycle as a whole was preserved, but it was divided and rearranged into two separate cycles containing, respectively, fixed and movable feasts. The fixed cycle covers the feasts of all of the days for the twelve months of the liturgical year month by month. The available manuscripts contain from one to four full months. The earliest copies of such an arrangement are from the ninth 41

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

century and transmit the offices for March and April and for May and June. The movable cycle – as it is presented in the eleventh century manuscript Sinai 759 – covers the feasts from Palm Sunday to Sunday of All Saints. The weekly cycle is enriched: along with the resurrection cycle for eight Sundays, there is a new one for every day of the week, starting with Monday morning and concluding with Saturday morning. There is a change in the liturgical calendar as well. The church year starts not with Annunciation or Christmas but with September 1. This is indicated by an eleventh century Tropologion, Sinai 556, containing services for September and October. In the initial rubric above September 1 is read “ỉνδíκτου”, that is, the beginning of the official church administrative New Year. This date, in all probability, reflects the local liturgical calendar of Constantinople: early documents show that September 1 had been generally accepted as the beginning of the church year throughout the Byzantine Empire by the eighth century. It seems that the process of filling out each cycle with new chants was completed by about the twelfth century. It is almost certain that it was the Studios school of poet-composers that divided the content of the Tropologion and compiled separate collections of books, each one containing a major liturgical cycle – the names of the Studite monks are read in the sources. From the end of the eighth century onwards, the Studios monastery attained its first prominence and became one of the greatest centers of spiritual activity, with a flourishing scriptorium and an original creation of hymnography, replacing Jerusalem as such a center of the East.26 The newly formed collections of books seem to have been renamed according to the liturgical repertory included in them. The repertory for the fixed feasts of the annual cycle, starting with September 1 and concluding with August 31, was collected in a book called a “Menaion”;27 the repertory for the movable feasts, starting with the Sunday of the Publican and Pharisee and concluding with the Sunday of All Saints, was collected in a book called a “Triodion”;28 the repertory for the resurrection offices for Saturday evening and Sunday along with the common services was collected in the Oktoechos;29 and finally, the weekdays services were collected in the “New Oktoechos” according to Joseph Hymnographer, known also as the “great Oktoechos” or “Parakletike” (the “Book of Supplication”). All the extant manuscripts that bare such designations in their initial rubrics are not earlier than the tenth – eleventh century, that is, we do not have books with the designations “Menaion”, “Triodion”, and “Oktoechos” before that time. The most important entirely notated books containing chants for the evening and morning services were obviously compiled on the basis of those newly established collections. The chants of the stichera genre from the Menaion, Triodion, and Oktoechos were gathered in a book called Sticherarion.30 Among the earliest such notated manuscripts are several Sinai sources from the first quarter of the eleventh century on. The modal strophes of the kanons were collected in a book called Hirmologion: its earliest copies go back to the end of the tenth or early eleventh century.31 42

T he T ropologion

Studying the repertory in the book of the Tropologion, I am challenged to express my opinion about some of the most frequently discussed questions especially about the Oktoechos in the early Christian Eastern chant. 1

Some scholars ascribe the creation of the Oktoechos to Severos, Patriarch of the See of Antioch between 512 and 518.32 Others ascribe the Oktoechos to John of Damascus.33 In terms of the oktoechos as a modal system, judging by the studied sources, the eight-mode system did already exist at the time of Damascus. Recently, this has been confirmed by Christian Troelsgård in an assessment of the early hymnographic papyri: those having modal designations appear to go back to the sixth century and even before. To remind at least the Rylands Papyrus 466 from the seventh or eighth century, which transmits pieces in mode plagal 1 before the time of Damascus.34 In a bit later source, Sinai 212, a Gospel-Lectionary from the ninth century, the modes are written in a consecutive oktoechos order.35 Next to the designation of mode 1 in this source is read “authentikos” in an abbreviated form (“αὐθ’”), a designation, which speaks of very early date of this manuscript: such a designation we do not have encountered in the later sources from the East.36 In terms of the Oktoechos as a book, the facts are the following. By the time of Severos in the beginning of the sixth century the poetical chant texts that were in circulation in the early Christian Church were gathered and recorded in a book. Copies of it, though revised and corrected by Jacob bishop of Edessa according to an inscription in the oldest one of 675, are preserved in the Syriac translation alone.37 It was this collection, about which Anton Baumstark coined the term the “Oktoechos of Severos”.38 My study of Severos’ collection shows that it displays many principal similarities to the Iadgari. Like the latter it contains hymnic, i.e. non-biblical material; likewise, it starts with the Christmas season and the chants follow the annual cycle of the fixed and movable feasts in one single sequence; like the Iadgari also, Severos’ collection includes chants for the Resurrection, the Holy Virgin, Saints, Martyrs, Repentance, the Deceased, etc., or for the Common services. Hence, Severos’ collection appears to be the earliest known chant book with hymnody and might be considered as a kind of predecessor of the book of the Tropologion presented in the Georgian Iadgari. Unlike the latter, however, the earliest copy of the collection does not contain an Oktoechos yet, as it was rightly pointed out by Aelred Cody: there are no modal designations in it and no chant cycles arranged in the consecutive modal order.39 However, cycles in such an order appear in later copies of the same book with hymns by Severos since the ninth century onwards: obviously after the time of Damascus the collection of Severos was actualized according to some newly established compilations and probably the modal designations in these copies gave reasons to some scholars for considering it as an Oktoechos.40 We could call the book of Severos – quite provisionally – the Tropologion 1 or better, according to the suggestion of Charles Renoux, the Hymnal 1. 43

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

2

The emergence of a book with hymns could be considered as a companion book to the Psalter: psalmody and hymnody constitute the contents of the worship of every Church. If the hymn book was already available in the sixth century, we may conclude that the following liturgical books were in circulation in Jerusalem between sixth and eighth centuries: the Psalter with psalms, the Hymnal/Tropologion with hymns, and the Lectionary with a liturgical order that specified and regulated the performance of both. As Andrew Wade points out, the Lectionary in this period was not just a list of readings, nor a collection of periscopes: it was more like a liturgical Typikon, giving a brief account of the order of the services with indication of the readings, psalmody and hymnography appointed for each day. The hymnography was generally indicated only by incipits but these can be completed by the later manuscripts of the Tropologion which supply many of these hymns in extenso.41 3 John of Damascus might have revised an existing chant book with hymns (maybe a copy of Severos’ book? Being a Syrian by his birth, he should have known the Severos’ book). In all probability, it was John of Damascus who rearranged this book, editing the yearly and weekly cycles for the liturgical purposes of his time, filling them out with the new themes and genres of the stichera and kanons, arranging the resurrection repertory for eight Sundays and the one for the common services in a consecutive modal order. This rearranged book might be the book of the Tropologion as we know it according to its version in the Georgian Iadgari: it contains chants dispersed in a single order for the fixed and movable feasts and at the end are put cycles arranged in the eight modes. The latter cycles constitute the earliest known Oktoechos. It appeared as a section in the book of the Iadgari.42 We could call this book the Tropologion 2 or Hymnal 2. The same structure is revealed in some copies of the Syriac Tropligin and – according to Gabriele Winkler – in the Armenian Šaraknoc. The arrangement of the resurrection cycles, however, seems to have been in progress already at the time of Severos who describes a practice of performance of the Resurrection Gospels in a sequence as “recently introduced”.43 4 Finally, it was the Studios monastery where the book of the Tropologion 2 (Hymnal 2) was rearranged: the chant repertories were divided according to the fixed and movable feasts. We could call this rearranged book the Tropologion 3 or Hymnal 3. This is the so-called by Stig Froyshov the “new” Tropologion.44 In the beginning all of the volumes kept the old title the Tropologion. In the course of the ninth and tenth centuries the repertory increased and separate volumes appeared. In the tenth century it was still with the old title Tropologion, but successively, the books were renamed according to the repertory actually included. In the Sinai Greek sources from the thirteenth century onwards, the title Tropologion is not encountered any more: in all probability this title became 44

T he T ropologion

unclear as to defining the contents and fell out of use. It was replaced by the new ones: the Menaion, the Triodion, and the Oktoechos. Being fully aware in conclusion that many questions concerning the posed problems still remain unanswered and require further investigation, I shall conclude with the words of the pilgrim Egeria: “Beloved, I [was] sure it will interest you to know about . . . the services . . . in the holy places, and I [told] you [something] about them”.45 The judgment is yours.

Notes 1 See also Kujumdzieva, S. The Tropologion: Sources and Identifications. – Bulgarian Musicology, 3–4, 2012, 9–23. 2 I have worked with the microfilms of the Sinai manuscripts that are kept at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. during my stay there as a research fellow at the John W. Kluge Center. I am very grateful to the directors of the Center, the late Dr. Prosser Gifford and Dr. Carolyn Brown, that awarded me twice a fellowship and I could do a research work at the Library of Congress from October 2003 to August 2004 and from October 2009 to July 2010 in excellent conditions. 3 About the Sinai manuscripts see Benešević, V. Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum graecorum, qui in monasterio Sanctae Catherinae in Monte Sina asservantur. I. Mss described by Ouspenski. III.1. Codices Nr. 1224–2150 signati. Petrograd, 1911 and 1914; Gardthausen, V. E. Catalogus codicum graecorum sinaiticorum. Oxford, 1886; Clark, K. W. Checklist of Manuscripts in St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinai. Washington, D.C., 1952; Hannick, C. Studien zu den Anastasima in den sinaitischen Handschriften. Wien, 1969; Kamil, M. Catalogue of All Manuscripts in the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. Wiesbaden, 1970. Especially about the Sinai musical manuscripts see Μπαλαγεώργου, Δ., Φ. Κρητικοῦ. Τὰ χειρόγραφα βυζαντινῆς μουσικῆς Σινᾶ. Τ. Α ́. Αθῆναι, 2008. 4 There was a spectacular quickening of interest in the field of Orthodox music and liturgy after the Sinai manuscripts were made available at the Library of Congress in the beginning of the 1950’s. 5 About the role of Jerusalem in the early Christian world see Jeffery, P. The Earliest Oktoechoi: The Role of Jerusalem and Palestine in the beginning of modal Ordering. – In: The Study of Medieval Chant. Paths and Bridges, East and West. In Honor of Kenneth Levy. Ed. by P. Jeffery. Oxford, 2001, 147–211; Idem. The Earliest Chant Repertories Recovered: The Georgian Witnesses to Jerusalem Chant. – Journal of the American Musicological Society, 47, 1994, 1–39; Wegman, H. A. Christian Worship in East and West. NY, 1985; Baldovin, J. V. Liturgy in Ancient Jerusalem. Nottingham, 1989. 6 The Studios monastery was built before 454, the Sinai monastery a little bit after 542, and the Sabas – in 482. In all three monasteries the rules of the cenobitic or common monastic life, established initially by St. Pachomios and developed of his disciple St. Basil the Great were followed: the monks observed a personal rule of prayer in solitude on weekdays gathering for common worship only on weekends (Saturdays and Sundays) and on the eves of major feast days. The monasteries were multinational in their composition from the very beginning. Their impact on the religious world was unparalleled. In fact, they might be regarded as a kind of the earliest Theological Academies from which a rich body of theological, liturgical, as well as musical literature has spread. About the three monasteries see Atiya, A. S. The Arabic Manuscripts of Mount Sinai. A Handlist of the Arabic Manuscripts and Scrolls Microfilmed at the Library of the Monastery of St. Catherine, Mount Sinai. Baltimore, 1955, XVII–XX; Lingas, A.

45

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

Sunday Matins in the Byzantine Cathedral Rite: Music and Liturgy. Ph.D., The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 1996, p. 133; Tayler and Francis Group, London, published 2021; Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents. Publ. by Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 5 vols. Washington, D.C., 2000, electronic version: www.doaks.org/etexts.html. 7 I have studied approximately 90 manuscripts, of which two-thirds are hymnographic with modal designations but without notation, and one-third are notated manuscripts. Studying the musical manuscripts of the Sinai collection according to the available microfilms at the Checklist of Kenneth Willis Clark at the Library of Congress, I would say that the notated musical manuscripts in Greek alone account for about one-sixth of all the microfilmed manuscripts in Greek. The musical manuscripts from the new finds in 1975 at St. Catherine’s library could be studied as well. Hence, the Sinai collection in terms of its musical manuscripts in Greek seems to be one of the richest in the world. 8 In the cited Checklist of the Sinai manuscripts by K. Clark three manuscripts are given as Tropologia only: 759, 777, and 789. However, the careful study of the Sinai manuscripts according to this Checklist showed that other four manuscripts bear this title in their rubrics as well: 607, 556, 579 and 784, see Clark, K. Checklist . . .; also: Ἱερὰ Μονὴ καὶ Ἀρχιεπσικοπὴ Σινᾶ. Τὰ Νέα Εὑρήματα τοῦ Σινᾶ. Ed. By P. G. Nikolopoulos. Athens 1998; the same is published in English: New Finds of Sinai. Athens, 1999. 9 Haelst, J. van. Cinq textes provenant de Khirbet Mird. – Ancient Society, 22, 1991, 297–317. 10 Ἱερὰ Μονὴ καὶ Ἀρχιεπσικοπὴ Σινᾶ . . .; New Finds . . . 11 The manuscripts are the following: 1) of the type of the Menaion: Sinai 607, MГ 28, МГ 5, MГ 56, MГ 4, 556, 579, 191, M 160, and Vat. Gt. 2008; 2) of the type of the Triodion: Sinai 759 and Vat. Gr. 771; 3) of the type of the Oktoechos: Sinai 777, 784, and 789; unidentified are: M 18, M 99, and P. Khirbet Mird P.A.M. 1–2. 12 About the Tropologion see Метревели, Е. П., Ц. А. Чанкиева, Л. М. Хевсуриани. Древнейшей иадгари. Тбилиси, 1980, 922–930; Wade, A. The Oldest Iadgari. The Jerusalem Tropologion, V-VIII Century. – Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 50, 1984, 451–456; Jeffery, P. The Sunday Office of Seventh-Century Jerusalem in the Georgian Chant Books (Iadgari): A Preliminary Report. – Studia Liturgica, 21, 1991, 52–75; Idem: The Earliest Oktoechoi . . ., op. cit.; Renoux, C. Jerusalem dans le Caucase: Anton Baumstark verifie. – Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 265, 2001, 305–321. 13 The Georgian liturgical books are considered as translations of the early Greek liturgical books, which did not come to us. 14 The manuscripts are: Sinai 18, 20, 26, 34, 40, 41, 53 and Tbilisi H-2123. 15 See Renoux, C. Jerusalem dans . . ., 311. 16 Wright, W. Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838. Vol. 1, London, 1870. See manuscripts Add. 14,504, 14,505, 14,698, etc., 280–292; see also: Husmann, H. Die syrischen Handschriften des Sinai-Klosters, Herkunft und Schreiber. – Ostkirchlichen Studien, 24, 1975, 281–308. 17 Winkler, G. Der armenische Ritus: Bestandsaufnahme und neue Erkenntnisse sowie eine kürzere Notiz zur Liturgie der Georgier. – Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 251, 1996, 265–298; Idem: Das theologische Formelgut über den Schöpfer, das ὁμουσιος, die Inkarnation und Menschwordung in den georgischen Troparien des Iadgari im Spiegel der christlich-orientalischen Quellen. – Oriens Christianus, 84, 2000, 117–178; Idem: Anhang zur Untersuchung: “Über die Entwicklungsgeschichte des armenischen Symboliums” und seine Bedeutung für die Wirkungsgeschichte der antiochenischen Synoden von 324–325 und 341–345. – Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 271, 2004, 107–159. 18 These issues were posed by Peter Jeffery, see Jeffery, P. The Sundays . . .; idem. The Earliest Oktoechoi . . .

46

T he T ropologion

19 About Egeria see Music in Early Christian Literature. Ed. by J. McKinnon. Cambridge, 1987, 111; Senn, F. C. Christian Liturgy. Minneapolis, 1997, 114; Cody, A. The Early History of the Oktoechos . . ., 109; Bradshow, P. V. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. 2d ed. NY, 2002, 185; Baldovin, J. V. The Urban Character of Christian Worship (= Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 228), 1987; Idem: Liturgy in Ancient . . . 20 About the Armenian Lectionary see Leeb, H. Die Gesänge im Gemeindegottesdienst von Jerusalem (= Wiener Beiträge zur Theologie. B. XXVIII). Wien, 1970, 31; Bertoniere, G. The Historical Development of the Easter Vigil and Related Services in the Greek Church (= Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 193). Roma, 1972, 8; Winkler, G. Der armenische Ritus . . .; Baldovin, J. Liturgy . . ., 42 and next; Idem: The Urban Character . . ., 64; Jeffery, P. The Earliest . . ., 9; Idem: The Lost Chant Tradition . . ., 157. 21 About the Georgian Lectionary see Leeb, H. Op. cit.; Bertoniere, G. The Historical . . ., 10; Baldovin, J. Liturgy . . ., 43; Idem. Urban Character . . ., 47; Jeffery, P. The Lost . . ., 157; Момина, М. О произхождении греческой триоди. – Палестинский сборник, вып. 28. Ленинград, 1986, 112–121. 22 About this see also Lingas, A. Sunday Matins . . ., 131. 23 Метревели, Е. П., Ц. А. Чанкиева и Л. М. Хевсуриани. Древнейший иадгари . . .; Wade, A. The Oldest Iadgari . . .; Jeffery, P. The Earliest Oktoechoi . . .; Idem: The Sunday Office . . . 24 Ibidem. 25 Jeffery, P. The Earliest Oktoechoi . . .; Idem: The Sunday Office . . . The same structure I have noticed in the papyrus Vindob. Gr. 26.120 from the 6th – 7th century where the Annunciation is given before Christmas, see Troelsgård, C. Chant Papyri and the New Jerusalem Tropologion – Some Early Documents on the Formation of the Orthodox Chant Repertories. – A paper read at the International conference in Joensuu, Finland, 2011, organized by the International Society of Orthodox Church Music. 26 It is believed that Theodore the Studite, the first abbot during this flourishing time of the monastery, adopted the monastic rite of St. Sabas for his community. About this see: Taft, R. Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of the Byzantine Rite. – Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 42, 1988, 179–194. 27 R. Taft finds the systematization of the Menaion with hymnography for every day of the year in manuscripts from the 11th – 12th century, see Taft, R. Menaion. – In: Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Vol. 2. NY-Oxford, 1991, 1338. 28 The designation Triodion is read in the earliest Sinai manuscripts with such a repertory from the 11th–12th century: 734–735 and 736 from 1027/28. The initial rubrics in the latter say that works by Joseph and Theodore the Studite are gathered together in the book. 29 One of the earliest designations “Oktoechos” in the Sinai manuscripts is revealed in manuscript Sinai 795 from the end of the 12th century. 30 The earliest designation Sticherarion is read in manuscript Vatopedi 1488 from about 1050, see Follieri, E., O. Strunk. Triodium Athoum. Cod. Monasteri Vatopedi 1488 (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Vol. IX, Pars. Suppl.) Copenhagen, 1975. 31 About the Hirmologion see Raasted, J., ed. Hirmologium Sabaiticum (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Vol. VIII.1). Copenhagen, 1968; Velimirović, M. Byzantine Elements in Early Slavic Chant: the Hirmologion (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Vol. 4). Copenhagen, 1960; Hannick, C. Das altslavische Hirmologia: Edition und Kommentar. Freiburg im Brisgau, 2006. 32 G. Assemani believed that the manuscript Syriac 94 from between 1010 and 1030 was the “Oktoechos of Severos”, see Assemani, G. S. Bibliotheca orientalis ClementinoVaticana. Rome, 1719, 487, 613; A. Baumstark believed that the “Oktoechos of Severos” was manuscript Add. 17,134 from 675 and its later copies, see Baumstark, A. Festbrevier und Kirchenjahr der syrischen Jakobiten. – In: Studien zur Geschichte und

47

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

Kultur des Altertums. B. 3, 3–5. Paderborn, 1910, 45–46; the same was argued by Jeannin, J., J. Puyade. L’Oktoechos syrien. – Orientalia Christiana, 3, 1913, 82–104; Werner, E. The Sacred Bridge. Vol. 1. London-NY, 1959; vol. 2. NY, 1984; Wellesz, E. A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography. Oxford, 1962; Wolfram, G. Severus of Antioch. – In: The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Ed. by S. Sadie. Vol. 23, 2001, 176–177. 33 Cody, A. The Early History . . .; Velimirović, M. Christian Chant in Syria, Armenia, Egypt, and Ethiopia. – In: New Oxford History of Music. Vol. 2. Ed. by R. Crocker and D. Hiley. Oxford-NY, 1990, 6; idem: Byzantine Chant. – In: New Oxford . . ., 45; Jeffery, P. The Earliest Oktoechoi . . . 34 About this manuscript see Wellesz, E. Byzantine Music . . ., 147; Velimirović, M. Christian Chant . . .; Papathanasiou, I., N. Boukas. Early Diastematic Notation in Greek Christian Hymnographic Texts of Coptic Origin: A Reconsideration of the Source Material. – In: Byzantine Notations. Vol. III. Ed. by G. Wolfram. Louven-Paris-Dudley, 2004, 11. 35 About this manuscript see Husmann, H. Die syrischen Handschriften des SinaiKlosters, Herkunft und Schreiber. – Ostkirchlichen Studien, 24, 1975, 281–308; Cody, A. Op. cit. 36 The same designation in mode 4 is read in one of the newly discovered Sinai manuscripts from the 9th – 10th century, M 167, see Ἱερὰ Μονὴ καὶ Ἀρχιεπσικοπὴ Σινᾶ . . ., illustration 144. 37 Manuscript Add. 17,134, see Wright, W. Catalogue of . . ., 330–339. 38 Baumstark, A. Festbrevier und Kirchenjahr . . . 39 Cody, A. Op. cit. 40 See: Wright, W. Catalogue of . . .: manuscripts Add. 14,514, 14, 713, 14,714, etc. 41 Wade, A. Multi-lingual, pluri-ethnic Orthodox monasticism in Palestine and on Sinai, in the light of the liturgical sources with particular reference to the liturgical manuscript Sinai Arabic 232 (13th century). Lodz. Read at Academia.edu. in October 2022, 3–7. 42 Both cycles are pointed out by P. Jeffery in: The Sunday . . . 43 According to The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity. Ed. by K. Parry, D. J. Melling, D. Brady, S. Griffith, J. F. Healey. Oxford, Massachusetts, 2000: Heothina, 230. 44 Frøyshov, S. S. Greek Hymnody. – In: Canterbury Dictionary of Hymnology. Ed. by I. R. Watson, E. Hornby. Norwich, 2013, 1–63. 45 The citation is after Jeffery, P. The Sunday Office . . ., 71.

 

48

5 T H E T R O P O L O G I O N VAT I C A N U S G R A E C U S 771

The Tropologion is considered the earliest known chant book that has preserved layers of Jerusalem hymnography and liturgy from the fifth – sixth century and was in use until about the twelfth century.1 The study of this book is still in its infancy. The extent copies of it in Greek are written between the eighth – ninth and the twelfth century. They bare the title “Tropologion” either in their initial rubrics or in their inscriptions left by the copyists. Most of them are preserved at the library of St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai. Two of them – Vat. Gr. 771 and Vat. Gr. 2008 – are from the Vatican Apostolic library in Rome.2 Both are with notation. Here I am going to present Vat. Gr. 771.3 In all probability Vat. Gr. 771 was written by the end of the eleventh century by one of the abbots of the Grottaferrata monastery, Nilus the Second, who died in 1135.4 It is well known that the Grottaferrata monastery retained the Byzantine rite. The abbot Nilus the Second left two inscriptions in the Vatican manuscript. In both of them he calls the book Tropologion. The first insciption is on the bottom of folio 118v. It refers to the Great kanon by Andrew of Crete. We read: “Ζήτει εἰς τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ τροπολογíου” (“Look for it in the beginning of the Tropologion”). The second inscription is on the bottom of folio 288v. It refers to the photagogikon, which is performed after the ninth ode of the kanon. Nilus writes: “Ζήτει τò φωταγωγικòν εἰς τò τέλος τοῦ τροπολογíου” (“Look for the photagogikon at the end of the Tropologion”).5 The beginning of the manuscript is not preserved and we do not know how it was defined in its initial rubrics. According to Nilus’ inscriptions we could suggest that the manuscript was defined as a Tropologion there as well. Vat. Gr. 771 contains a repertory of the Triodion-Pentekostarion, that is, for the movable feasts of the year. It counts 298 folia. The first rubric preserved, which one reads on the top of folio 1r, prescribes chants for Sunday Vespers. I identified the chants for the third week of Lent. Chants for weekdays from Monday through Friday for the fourth week of Lent follow. Most of them have a theta notation. All are stichera idiomela.6 The notated stichera are given for both weekdays and Sundays. They follow up to Good Friday. This first part of the manuscript ends on folio 8r. The sign theta is written at the end of the phrases. It is written either independently or with the sign double vareia put right or left of the theta. On DOI: 10.4324/9781003377238-7

49

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

folio 8v a new large rubric introduces the beginning of Sunday of Prodigal Son and specifies that the latter is “Κυριακὴ πρò τῆς Ἀπόκρεω, τοῦ Ἀσώτου” (“before Meetfare Sunday”). This part of the manuscript, let say the second one, contains the repertory for the Preparatory season of Lent. It starts with a kanon by Joseph the Hymnographer. Chants for Meetfare and Cheesefare weeks follow. They are of the genres of kanons (all of them are triodia), stichera and kathismata. The kanons are attributed to Clement [the Studite], Theodore the Studite and Joseph. Many of the stichera and kathismata are attributed to Theodore alone. On folio 32v a new rubric announces the beginning of Lent: “Τεσσαρακοστῆς τέσσαρα”. It contains the same genres – kathismata, stichera and kanons. The kanons are both triodia and full – with nine or eight odes. They are for the days from Monday through Saturday and are attributed to the same three authors: Clement, Theodore and Joseph. Kanons only are written down for Sundays. The first Sunday of Lent is designated as “first” and “Orthodox”. Rest of the Lenten Sundays are counted from the second to sixth without any other designation (such as Sunday of St. Gregory of Palama, of the Cross, of St. John, etc. as they are marked today). The Great kanon by Andrew of Crete, which the first Nilus’ inscription refers to, is in mode plagal 2. It is indicated for the fifth Sunday in Lent. According to Gabriel Bertoniere this indication makes the Vatican manuscript unique because it appears to be among the earliest one that says where this kanon has to be performed.7 Many of the stichera and kathismata for weekdays are attributed to Theodore alone again. Two kanons by the “old” Sabaite masters, Kosmas the Monk and Andrew of Crete, are included for the sixth or Palm Sunday. Combined kanons by Joseph, Kosmas, Andrew and Theodore are given for weekdays of the Great week and Easter. A combined full kanon by Marko the Monk with odes first to fifth and by Kosmas and Andrew with odes sixth to ninth is included for Great Saturday. A work of Tarasios the Patriarch is prescribed for the same day. Kanons by John the Monk, Andrew and Michael are included for Easter. Combined triodia kanons by Joseph and Theodore the Studite are written down for the weekdays of the Holy Bright week. Kanons by John the Monk, George, Andrew, Joseph, Theodore and Theophanos are included for the New Sunday (Sunday of St. Thomas) and next Sundays after Easter. The manuscript ends with a double kanon by Theodore for Saturday before Pentekost. Vat. Gr. 771 is among the most important manuscripts that are representative of the early written tradition for the repertory of movable feasts throughout the year. They are collected in the book of the Triodion-Pentekostarion. The manuscript is important, firstly, in terms of the Preparatory season of Lent. It is comparable with the earliest Triodion in Greek preserved in two Sinai manuscripts from the tenth century that are identified as belonging to the same book and in all probability were written in Jerusalem – 734 and 735.8 In both manuscripts, the Vatican and the Sinai, three weeks from the Preparatory season starting with the Sunday of Prodigal Son are given. These manuscripts are among the earliest ones containing a repertory for this Sunday.9 The first Sunday of the Preparatory season – this of the Publican and Pharisee, which, as was established, was formed at latest, is missing 50

T he T ropologion V aticanus G raecus 7 7 1

in these manuscripts.10 The earliest dated Triodion, Sinai Gr. 736 from 1027/28, starts with the Sunday of Publican and Pharisee: the initial rubric of this manuscript says that it is the beginning of the Triodion and attributes the entire book to Joseph and Theodore the Studite.11 Secondly, the Vatican manuscript is important because it gives evidence about the synthesis between the Sabaites and Studites in compilation of the repertory of the Triodion as a separate book. Michael Skaballanovich and Anton Baumstark indicate that both Theodore the Studite and his associates from the Studios monastery and the monks from Italo-Greek monasteries imitate genres and structures that were established by the Sabaite monks; the Studites edit their books in order to achieve as closely as possible what Kosmas and John have done.12 This is proved especially by the combined kanons for the Great week by the poet-composers of the two schools: the Studites have inserted their odes among the odes in the kanons by Kosmas and Andrew. The manuscript evidences that the works of the Sabaites have been preserved for the greatest feasts, such as Palm Sunday (by Andrew, Kosmas and John), Great week (by Kosmas and Andrew), Easter and the New Sunday (by John and Andrew), etc. Days between these feasts are complemented with works by the Studites, such as photagogika. The latter are performed along with the eleven Gospel stichera (the eothina). It is well known that the authorship of the former is attributed to Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos, and the authorship of the latter – to his father, Emperor Leo VI the Wise. The Studites have written their works for many of the Sundays and weekdays for Lent, Easter and post-Easter time. Thirdly, the Vatican manuscript is important as an example of how a given repertory in a local practice (in our case this one of the Grottaferrata monastery) was accepted and established.13 At the time when the manuscript was written various cycles of kanons existed and their use and place in the services has not been strictly determined. In the Vatican manuscript we find the earliest four cycles of triodia kanons for weekdays of Lent: one by Theodore, one by Clement and two by Joseph with or without an acrostic of his name in the troparia of the ninth ode of the kanons. Fourthly, the manuscript is important with the theta notation. The notated stichera are included in the initial part of the manuscript and follow in full consequence of both weekdays and Sundays for four weeks – from third Sunday Vespers of Lent to Good Friday Vespers. After the notated stichera idiomela the feast days of Lent are repeated with kathismata, stichera prosomoia and kanons; the stichera idiomela are not included. The first stichera idiomela complementing the stichera prosomoia and kanons are for Lazarus Saturday (f. 132r), then for Palm Sunday (139r) and so on according to the feast days of the calendar. The study of these stichera idiomela shows that they are different from the notated ones for the same feast days in the first part of the manuscript. Besides, here they are of various kinds. For Vespers, for instance, they are indicated as stichera on “Κύριε, ἐκέκραξα“; stichera in stichoi complement them; stichera in stichoi complement also the morning or the Orthros stichera. It remains a question of why notated stichera idiomela are placed at the beginning of the manuscript and separately from kathismata, stichera prosomoia and kanons. In terms of this arrangement the 51

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

manuscript is unique: it does not have any other analogue. It could be speculated whether the notated stichera idiomela were included for the first two weeks of the Preparatory season of Lent on the initial pages of the manuscript that are missing. It should be stressed that in the eleventh century when the manuscript was written, the repertory has not been strictly established yet: any copyist could put as much items as he wanted according to his/her taste, education or practice preferred. At the same time the stichera idiomela were included in the notated full Sticheraria consisting of Menaion, Triodion-Pentekostarion and the Oktoechos.14 It is very likely that the stichera in Vat. Gr. 771 were notated at the Grottaferrata monastery where the manuscript was written. The manuscript is one of the earliest witnesses to the liturgical practice in this monastery.15 Thus, it could be concluded that the theta notation was in use at Grottaferrata in the eleventh century. The prototype of the manuscript, however, could have been written somewhere in Constantinople or in its region. It might be linked with the school of the Studios monastery: it gives an idea about the Triodion that was compiled by Theodore the Studite.16 The authors included prove this – many of them have worked at the Studios monastery. The stichera and photagogika attributed to the two emperors involved in hymnography, Leo VI the Wise and Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos, are another prove: it is established that the imperial works were written down and notated in manuscripts that are linked to the capital or to its region. It is well known that the Studios monastery had an imperial status. Further, some of hymnographers whose works are included in the manuscript may be associated with Constantinople. Michael, for instance, the author of the Easter kanon, could be identified as Michael Sinkellos, a homilist, grammarian, close to the prominent hymnographers Theodore Graptos and Theophanos Graptos, abbot of the Hora monastery in Constantinople, where he died and was sanctified;17 Sergios, the author of stichera, could be identified as Sergios the Confessor, born in Constantinople and died after 829;18 Tarasios the Patriarch, whose name is written above the work for Great Saturday, could be this Tarasios, who was the patriarch of Constantinople from 784 to 806;19 close to him, finally, could be George, the author of kanons for Bright week: George, who died after 810, was sinkellos of Tarasios.20 Тheta signs are placed on last syllables of some of the final words of the phrases both polysyllabic, like διò, γυμνóς, πίστις, θαῦμα, ἡμᾶς, Θεòς, and monosyllabic, like μὲν, δὲ, etc. All of these words are important in semantic meaning requiring explanation or interpretation, which is stressed by the notation. Most of them are differentiated by dots on their both sides. The word διò (meaning because, that is why, because of that) is among the most often notated words. The same word with a neume sign above was pointed out by Jorgen Raasted in one of the earliest known hymnographic manuscripts, Garrett 24 from the Firestone library at Princeton University. The manuscript is a fragment of palimpsest of four bifolia from the second half of the eighth or the very beginning of the ninth century: the year 800 is accepted as terminus post quem when the manuscript was written.21 Having in mind that the theta signs are put in manuscripts stemming from different geographical places and that they are put on similar places in them in the same 52

T he T ropologion V aticanus G raecus 7 7 1

genre of stichera (the idiomela) speaks that it could have been some center, where the theta notation has been worked out, developed and systematized. It is likely that this notation has spread from such a center.22 Such center could have been the St. Sabas monastery near Jerusalem where some of the greatest hymnographers before the ninth century have worked. This is an argument in favor of Oliver Strunk’s assumption that the paleobyzantine Coislin notation, which contains the theta sign in its notational fund, originates from Jerusalem.23 Study of Vat. Gr. 771 allows us to summarize the following about it. The manuscript shows a synthesis of the two greatest Eastern hymnographic schools between the seventh and twelfth centuries, this of St. Sabas monastery and this of the Studios monastery. The synthesis is revealed in the combined repertory of authors of both schools and displays a continuation of the work of Sabaites by the Studites. There is a continuous enrichment of previously created. The strongest direct links between Italy and Byzantium are established twice, from the sixth – eighth and the late ninth – mid-eleventh centuries, when the Southern Italy was a province of Byzantium.24 Works of Sabaites, as it was said, are preserved for the greatest feasts; works of Studites are for rest of the feasts. There are some works of the Studites for great feasts but they are combined with those of Sabaites. The order of the services is strictly preserved. Each service, however, could contain pieces by different authors, which speaks of some freedom in the choice of repertory for a given feast. There is a freedom, also, in terms of what and how to be notated. In all probability it was a writer’s choice: the writer could decide what to include in a given manuscript. Some principles concerning especially the theta notation, however, are revealed. For instance, words in chants for great feasts that are important in meaning are notated most. Obviously, this method of notation became the norm and it was this method that was perceived not only in Byzantium but also in the newly baptized Slavic countries in a very early time. The Vatican manuscript raises the question also of when and where the repertory of the Eastern Church started to be notated: in Jerusalem and respectively in the school of Sabaites in the eighth century, or later on – by the end of the tenth or the first quarter of the eleventh century when the work of Studites has already flourished. Judging by the earliest manuscripts like the Princeton Garrett 24 and the Menaia and Triodia in which separate chants or parts thereof are notated, such as Sinai manuscripts 569, 581, 613, 736, etc., last assumption seems more likely: the notated books (of the type of the Sticherarion and Hirmologion) were compiled later and they could be linked with the formative liturgical and hymnographic work of the Studites. And finally, looking at the Vatican manuscript as a whole, we could say that it reveals a liturgical and hymnographic practice during the time before the establishment of the neo-Sabaitic synthesis. Without doubt, this practice was adopted in the newly baptized Slavic countries in the East. Due to the freedom of this practice, probably motivated by the presence of various redactions of the Studite Typikon (such as of Alexios the Studite or of Evergetis, etc.), these countries were able to make their choice, selection and adoption of it to their own needs and requirements. It could be stressed in conclusion that creative 53

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

rethinking, not mechanical implementation, outlines the contribution of Slavic Orthodox countries to further development of Orthodox music. It was this contribution that flows in the formation of a tradition regarding the acquisition of books, repertory, authors and overall musical culture of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Notes 1 There is already a rich literature about this book, see (selectively): Метревели, Е. П., Ц. А. Чанкиева, Л. М. Хевсуриани. Древнейшей иадгари. Тбилиси, 1980 (Metreveli, E. P., C. A. Čankieva, L. M. Hevsuriani. Udzvelesi Iadgari. Tbilisi, 1980); Jeffery, P. The Sunday Office of Seventh Century Jerusalem in the Georgian Chant Books (A Preliminary Report). – Studia Liturgica, 21, 1991, 52–75; idem. The Earliest Oktoechoi: The Role of Jerusalem and Palestine in the Beginning of Modal Ordering. – In: The Study of Medieval Chant: Paths and Bridges: East and West. In Honor of Kenneth Levy. Ed. by P. Jeffery. Cambridge, 2001, 147–211; Renoux, C. Jerusalem dans le Caucase: Anton Baumstark verified. – Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 265. Roma, 2001, 311; Frøyshov, S. S. Greek Hymnody. – In: The Canterbury Dictionary of Hymnology. Ed. by J. R. Watson, E. Hornby. Norwich, 2013; Куюмджиева, С. Триодът Vaticanus Graecus 771. – В: Пение мало Георгию. Сборник в чест на 65-годишнината на проф. дфн Георги Попов. София, 2010, 521–536; Куюмджиева, С. Ранните осмогласници. Извори, богослужение и певчески репертоар (по ръкописи до ХІІІ в.). София, 2013, с. 118–129; Kujumdzieva, S. The Tropologion Vaticanus Graecus 771. – In: Cantus Planus. Venice, 2020, 567–583. 2 I had a rare chance to work twice as a fellow with the Vatican manuscripts on microform, kept at The Vatican Film Library (VFL) in the main University library, The Pius XII Memorial Library, in St. Louis University in St. Louis, MO, USA – in 2003–2004 and 2012. My deepest gratitude goes to the whole staff of the VFL and especially to Dr. Gregory Pass and Dr. Susan L’Engle. I have worked with Vat. Gr. 771 on microform at this library. About manuscripts in VFL see: Guide to Microfilms of Vatican Library Manuscript Codices Available for Study in the Vatican Film Library at St. Louis University. Compiled by B. J. Chanell, L. J. Daly, and T. G. Tolles, St. Louis, 1993. Under the direction of C. J. Ermatinger. About my work with the musical manuscripts at the VFL, see: Куюмджиева, С. Бележки и коментари за някои ранни химнографски ръкописи от Ватикана. – В: Богослужебните книги – познати и непознати. София, 2008, 43–155. 3 It comprises 298 folia and measures 24,7 to 17,3, see: Devreese, R. Codices Vaticani graeci. T. 3. Codices 604–866. Vaticana, 1950, 286–287. 4 According to G. Bertoniere the manuscript was written at Grottaferrata monastery: it displays characteristics that are typical for the scriptorium there, see: Bertoniere, G. The Sundays of Lent in the Triodion: The Sundays without a Commemroation (= Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 253). Roma, 1997, 95, 158. S. Parenti links the manuscript with the Grottaferrata monastery as well. It was he who suggested that the manuscript was written by the last quarter of the 11th or the beginning of the 12th century by the abbot Nilus the Second, see: Parenti, S. La celebrazione delle ore del Venerdì Santo nell’Eucologio G. в. X di Grottaferrata. – Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, 44, 1990, 81–126; idem. Mesedi – Μεσώδιον. – Orientalia Christiana Analecta: Crossroads of Cultures. Studies in Liturgy and Patristics in Honor of Gabriele Winkler, 260. Roma, 2000, 543–556. 5 The inscriptions are published by М. Моmina and N. Тrunte but on wrong folia, see Triodion und Pentekostarion nach slavischen Handschriften des 11. – 14. Jahrhunderts. Ed. by M. Momina, N. Trunte. Paderborn – München – Wien – Zürich, 2004, 44.

54

T he T ropologion V aticanus G raecus 7 7 1

6 The notation is announced by J. Raasted, see Raasted, J. A Primitive Palaeobyzantine Musical Notation. – Classica and Medieavalia, 23, 1962, 203. Тhe manuscript is not included in the description of the Vatican musical manuscripts by D. Touliatos-Banker, see Touliatos-Banker, D. Checklist of Byzantine Musical Manuscripts in the Vatican Library. – Manuscripta, 31, 1987, № 1, 22–28. G. Bertoniere writes that the idiomela stichera are grouped together in the beginning of the manuscript but he does not mention the theta notation, see Bertoniere, G. The Sundays . . ., 65. 7 Bertoniere, G. The Sundays . . ., p. 89. The incipit of the kanon is “Πóθεν ἄρξομαι”. According to Bertoniere, there is no unity in manuscripts in terms of the kanon for fifth Sunday. 8 Ibidem, 24, 30, 159. See also Husmann, H. Ein Syro-Melkitisches Tropologion mit altbyzantinischen Notation Sinai Syr. 261 (= Götinger Orientforschungen. Bd. 9). Wiesbaden, 1975, S. 55; Follieri, E., O. Strunk (eds). Triodium Athoum. Cod. Monasteri Vatopedi 1488 (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Vol. IX. Pars Principalis et Pars Suppletoria). Copenhagen, 1975, 33. 9 In the Sinai manuscript this Sunday is designated as “Sunday of Prodigal Son”. The designation “Sunday of Prodigal Son before Meetfare Sunday”, what we read in Vat. Gr. 771, is revealed in another early Vatican manuscript, Vat. Gr. 1067, a Gospel-Lectionary from the 9th century. 10 According to M. Momina the older is a Triodion the less preparatory Sundays it contains, see Момина, M. О произхождении греческий триоди. – Палестинский сборник. Вып. 28. Москва, 1986, 112–113. 11 The inscription with the year of writing of this manuscript is on folio 307v. The name of the writer is mentioned: “the sinful Joseph”. There are notated stichera idiomela in the archaic Coislin notation on folio 131r and 243v. I identified these stichera for August 6, the Transfiguration. They could have been written later but it remains a question. H. Husmann considers this manuscript but he does not mention the notated chants in it, see Husmann, H. Ein Syro-Melkitische . . ., 57. 12 Скабалланович, М. Толковый Типикон. Вып. 1. Киев, 1910, с. 395–396; Baumstark, A. Denkmäler der Entstehungsgeschichte des byzantinischen Ritus. – Oriens Christianus, 3-e Serie, II, 1927, 22–23. 13 According to G. Bertoniere the kanon for the fourth Sunday of Lent, “Λόγε Θεοῦ”, has been used at the Grottaferrata monastery because it is revealed in four manuscripts, the origin of which is linked to this monastery. One of these manuscripts is Vat. Gr. 771, see Bertoniere, G. The Sundays . . ., 88. 14 The comparison is according to manuscript Тhеоl. Gr. 136, a Sticherarion from the beginning of the 12th century kept at the Vienna National Library, see Wolfram, G. (ed). Sticherarium Antiquum Vindobonense (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Vol. X. Pars Principalis et Pars Suppletoria). Wien, 1987. 15 Bertoniere, G. The Sundays . . ., 158. 16 Triodion und Pentekostarion . . ., 278. 17 Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. vol. 2, 1369–1370. The same Easter kanon in mode 1, which in Vat. Gr. 771 is ascribed to Michael, is revealed in manuscript Saba 83, a Hirmologion from the 11th – 12th century in archaic Coislin notation that is converted about the 14th century into middle Byzantine notation. In the latter manuscript the kanon is included in St. Apostel Luka’s akolouthia, see Raasted, J. (ed.). Hirmologium Sabbaiticum Codex Monasterii S. Sabbae 83 (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Vol. 8/1. Pars Suppletoria). Copenhagen, 1968, 54. 18 The data about him are insufficient, see Оxford Dictionary of Byzantium. vol. 3, 1880. 19 Ibidem, 2011. 20 Ibidem. vol. 2, 839. 21 Raasted, J. The Princeton Heirmologion Palimpsest. – Cahiers de l’Institut du MoyenAge Grec et Latin, 62, 1992, 219–232; Jeffery, P. A Window of the Formation of the

55

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

Medieval Chant Repertories: The Greek Palimpsest Fragments in Princeton University MS Garrett 24. – In: Cantus Planus. Vol. 2. Budapest, 2003, 14. 22 Raasted, J. A Primitive Palaeobyzantine . . ., 302–310; Кожухаров, С. Палеографски проблеми на тита нотацията в средновековните ръкописи от XII-XIII век. – В: Славянска палеография и дипломатика. T. 1. София, 1980, 228–247. 23 Strunk, О. The Notation of the Chartres Fragment. – In: Essays on Music in the Byzantine World. Ed. by K. Levy. New York, 1977, 108. 24 Nardini, L. Alience in Disguise: Byzantine and Gallican Chants in the Latin Liturgy. – Plainsong and Medieval Music, 16, 2007, 163.

 

56

6 T H E T R O P O L O G I O N VAT I C A N U S G R A E C U S 2008

Vat. Gr. 2008, housed at the Vatican Apostolic Library, is a manuscript that is not very well known. Study shows that it is unique in many aspects.1 A preserved inscription dates it from 1102 and defined it as Tropologion.2 The book of the Tropologion according to the recent studies was the universal hymnographic book of the Eastern Church with a great dissemination until the twelfth century. It was in use in Palestine, Byzantium, Syria, Georgia, Armenia and very likely in Bulgaria as well.3 The so-called “global Tropologion” by Simeon Frøyshov contains a repertory for the entire church year with immovable and movable feasts in an uninterrupted order according to the church calendar at the time followed by chants in eight-mode succession and common services.4 The book of the Tropologion usually begins with Christmas on December 25. The movable cycle is included between the Hypapante on February 2 (the Presentation of Christ in the Temple) and the feast of St. George on April 23. With the increasing of the feasts during the ninth and tenth centuries the book started dividing into separate parts of immovable and movable feasts and of the eight-mode succession. This is the beginning of the compilation of the main modern hymnographic books. Within the tenth and the twelfth centuries the designation Tropologion was eventually replaced with the new designations, namely, Menaion, Triodion and Oktoechos. After the twelfth century the designation Tropologion is encountered not any more. Hence, the Tropologion precedes the compilation of the modern hymnographic books. Vat. Gr. 2008 probably originates from St. John Theristis monastery in Calabria, Southern Italy, known also as Magna Graecia. It contains 186 folia.5 The beginning and the end of the manuscript are missing. The first surviving page is quite damaged. The first legible rubric appears on f. 2v and is for January 9, the feast for St. Polyeuktus, followed by services on feast days for every day of the month. Hence, the preserved portion of the manuscript on f. 1r is identified for January 8. The greater part of it contains services for fixed feasts, covering all the days for almost four months – from January 8 to April 30 inclusively, i.e. it corresponds to a contemporary Office Menaion and could be classified as a Tropologion of the Menaion type or a Menaion Tropologion (1r–171v and 178r–179r). The beginnings of the days in this Menaion part are written not only in the rubrics, but also on margins.6 The services for every day contain kathismata DOI: 10.4324/9781003377238-8

57

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

on “Lord is God”, stichera and kanons. The stichera are prosomoia. The stichera idiomela are included for some great feasts like the Hypapante on February 2, the 40 Martyrs on March 9 and the Annunciation on March 25. They are written before the stichera prosomoia. Almost all the kanons have authors. For the days in January the kanons are by Joseph the Hymnographer and Theophanos Graptos. Most of those in February are by Theophanos;7 for the major feast of Hypapante the kanons are by the “old masters” – Kosmas the Monk and “another kanon for the same feast” by Andrew of Crete. Some local feasts are included. For instance, for February 24 after the traditional chants for the day commemorating the First and Second Findings of the Head of St. John the Baptist, a service dedicated to St. John Theristis, the monastery’s patron to whom the manuscript is dedicated, is included (f. 74r): “Ὁσ[ίου] π[ατ]ρ[ὸ]ς ἡμῶν Ἰωάν[νου] τοῦ Θεριστοῦ”. There are two kanons for this service. The first one is in mode plagal 2. The rubric reads: “ποίημα Λέοντ[ος] Στυλοῦ” (“a work by Leontos Stilis”). The second kanon is in mode plagal 4 and is introduced by the following rubric (f. 74v): “ἕτερος κανὼν τοῦ ὁσίου, ποίημα Βαρθολομαίου Ρώμης” (“another kanon for the Venerable One, work by Vartolomeios Romis”).8 I could not find any information about Leontos Stilis and Vartolomeios Romis. Probably they were local South Italian hymnographers. The kanons for March are primarily by Joseph; for the major feast of the Forty Martyrs, a kanon by John is given, while for the Annunciation, kanons by Theophanes and “another” kanon by Andrew are provided.9 All kanons for April are by Joseph with the exception of that for St. George’s Day on April 23, which is attributed to Andrew. The inscription is after this part. It is a dedication inscription, giving information about the type of the manuscript – Tropologion, the writer making the dedication – Leontos the Hieromonk, the place of the dedication – the monastery St. John Theristis and the year written in letters, 661010 (f. 171v): “Ἀφιερώθη τὸ παρὸν τροπολόγιον παρὰ Λεοντίου ἱερομονάζοντος. Εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ ὁσίου π[ατ]ρ[ὸ] ς ἡμῶ[ν] Ἰω[άννου] τοῦ Θεριστοῦ. Ὑπὲρ συγχωρήσεως τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τῶν ἐμῶν γονέων καὶ ἐμοῦ αὐτoῦ. Ἐν ἔτει ςχι΄ ἰνδι[κτιῶνος] ι”. The inscription is written again by a different hand in slightly larger script. The text is the same. The year only, however, is calculated according to the Byzantine manner using the number 5508, and is written in numerals – 1102. This is assumed to be the year when the manuscript was completed. After the inscription an appendix of two short parts follows. The first one is written by a hand with smaller script in paler ink (172r–176v). According to Lake and Lake the hand that has written this part was a contemporary of the first and the main hand because it has left notes on places where the first hand has written and the color of the ink of the second hand that was used for decoration is identical to that of the first one.11 There is no indication of the genres of the chants included. The chants are identified as kontakia and oikoi. The designation “kontakion” is written only for January 1, St. Basil’s Day. The rubric says: “ἕτερον κοντ[άκιον] τοῦ ἁγίου Βασ[ι]λ[είου]” (“Another kontakion for St. Basil”). There are kontakia and oikoi for three months – from December 27 through February 24. The last 58

T he T ropologion V aticanus G raecus 2 0 0 8

kontakion and oikos is for St. John Theristis.12 It is attributed to Stilis and this is the only author to whom a kontakion is attributed in this part of the manuscript. It should be the same Leontos Stilis, whose name is revealed as an author of the kanon for the monastery’s patron. The study of the kontakia shows that some of them that are for greater feasts like those for St. Stephen, St. Basil, Theophany and Hypapante, are the same as those that are traditionally included in the Synaxarion and in some of the notated manuscripts containing such chants like the Psaltikon, the book with the repertory for the soloists performed in the big cathedrals.13 The second short part follows (177r–186v). The first hand returns here. The rubric reads that this is the beginning of the stichera idiomela. The latter are from January 1 to April 23.14 The final sticheron from this cycle breaks off unfinished, since the end of the manuscript is missing. It is very likely that the stichera idiomela continued until the end of April, so as to correspond with the services given in the first part of the Menaion. In this part numerous neume signs and neume combinations are revealed. Most of them are seen in chants designed for great feasts. The signs are of an archaic kind and belong to the three systems of the palaeobyzantine notation – theta, Coislin and Chartres.15 Such a mixture of different types of notation is rare. It is found in one of the oldest notated sources in Greek, like Lavra Г. 67 and Vatopedi 1488, both written up to 1050, notated in Coislin and Chartres notation.16 A mixture of notations is also found in some early Slavic sources, like the Russian Ilija’s book from the twelfth century, notated in theta and znamennaja notation, and Bulgarian Dragan’s Menaion of the second half of the thirteenth century, notated in theta and a kind of enigmatic archaic palaeobyzantine notation.17 The notated stichera for January in the Vatican manuscript are utmost – 15; they are followed by those for February – five, March – four, and April – one. The most commonly written neume sign of the great hyronomic signs is theta. The latter signifies an ornamental melodic formula. The theta sign is written independently in many places. It is put above both polysyllabic and monosyllabic words. In the case of polysyllabic words, it is most frequently written above the final syllable of a given phrase. Very often it is put above a series of separate words, which express important meanings and represent separate poetic phrases.18 Besides appearing independently, the sign is also written in a “developed” form, i.e. accompanied by other signs, such as diple, two diple placed one above the other, a diple with a kratema above it, bareia, a double bareia, apostrophos, duo apostrophoi, piasma, ksiron klasma, petaste, a ligature of bareia and oksia and so on. Whole words that express important meanings of the kind of nomina sacra, such as Son, God, Virgin, etc. are notated with some of these signs.19 The stichera idiomela that are written down before the stichera prosomoia in the former part (for Hypapante, the 40 Martyrs and the Annunciation), are not included here. That means that the repertory has been complemented from different parts of the manuscript during its use in worship. Study of the stichera idiomela shows – like the kontakia and oikoi – that they are regularly included in the notated Sticheraria from the end of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh century.20 59

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

13 days of January and February have all the genres: kathismata, stichera prosomoia, kanons, kontakia with oikoi and stichera idiomela. As it was said in the beginning, the manuscript is unique in some aspects: firstly, it is the only Tropologion that contains repertory for four months – to date, all other known Tropologia that were written between the ninth and thirteenth centuries contain repertory for up to three months at most;21 secondly, it is one of the two Tropologia with notation (the other is Vat. Gr. 771); and thirdly, the manuscript reveals archaic features in terms of its notation, which mixes in a unique way the three basic notational systems used during the palaeobyzantine period: theta, Coislin and Chartres. In the first Menaion part of the manuscript an original kanon, devoted to the saints murdered for their Christian faith, is included (f. 22r–23r).22 This kanon is the only one such kanon revealed in the book of the Tropologion. Like the whole manuscript, this kanon remains not very well known and I shall present it briefly. It is in mode 4 and is attributed to one of the greatest hymnographers from the ninth century, Joseph the Hymnographer. Joseph’s name is read both in the beginning of the kanon and in the acrostic in its ninth ode. The rubric above the kanon reads: “Ὁ κανὼν τῶν ἁγίων μαρτύρ[ων] τῶν ἐν Βουλγαρίᾳ διὰ Χριστὸν αἱρεθέντων Πέτρου, Μανουὴλ καὶ τῶν σὺν αὐτοῖς” (“Kanon for the holy martyrs who perished for Christ in Bulgaria. Peter, Manuil and all the rest”). The two saints mentioned by name, Peter and Manuil, are of the group of 377 saints from the dioceses of Adrianople and Debelt (Deultum) murdered for their Christian faith in 813/814 by the pagans in the last year of the reign of the Bulgarian Khan Krum, who himself captured about 40,000 people of the population of South-Eastern Thrace because of their Christian faith and deported them to Trans-Danubian Bulgaria (today Bessarabia).23 Among the killed Christians were many bishops, some of them Bulgarians. Khan Krum reigned 50 years before the official Christianization of Bulgaria in 863/864. His actions against the Christians did not end with him – they were continued by his successor Khan Omurtag. The kanon for the killed martyrs is included in the service of St. Clement of Ancyra and St. Agatangel on January 23. In the contemporary church calendar, the memory of these martyrs is ascribed for January 22, when the memories of St. Apostle Timothy and St. Anastasius the Persian are celebrated.24 The hirmos of the kanon for the killed Christians reads: “Τῷ ὁδηγήσαντ[ι] πάλ[αι] [τὸν Ἰσραὴλ]”.25 The same hirmos is revealed in the printed Menaia from 1888 onwards in the following kanons, all in the same mode 4: September 6, Archangel Michael by Joseph; November 3, St. George, anonymous; April 22, St. Theodore Sykeot by Joseph; and May 20, St. Thalelay by Joseph.26 The names of the saints murdered for their Christian faith are mentioned in the Synaxarion of the Ecumenical patriarchate from the tenth century. They are also read in the famous Menologion of Emperor Basil II from the last quarter of the tenth century (Vat. Gr. 1613).27 The saints Manuil, George, Peter, Leon, Sionij, Gavriil, Ioan are mentioned in the calendar of the Byzantine poet Christophoros Mytilinaeus of the eleventh century.28 It was the book of the Verse Prologue where the names of the killed Christians in 813/814 are revealed most often. The Verse Prologue was among the book that 60

T he T ropologion V aticanus G raecus 2 0 0 8

were translated from Greek into Slavic: the Stanislav’s Prologue from 1330, for instance, is such a book.29 If we have to generalize about Vat. Gr. 2008 as a whole, in addition to the unique characteristics mentioned above, I would also emphasize the following phenomena that it bears witness to: 1

2

3

4 5

6

7

Distribution of the Tropologion into the center of the Italian Magna Graecia: it was used there under the name Tropologion. The manuscript bears evidence of the established practice of notation of stichera idiomela. Such stichera were notated in both Greek and Slavic.30 The Vatican manuscript is proof that stichera idiomela were also notated in the earliest hymnographic books, such as the Tropologion. Preservation of archaic characteristics with respect to the composition and overall structure of the book: cycles of kontakia and oikoi and stichera idiomela grouped according to genre and theme have been written out separately, albeit in the appendix following the book’s basic repertory, yet supplementing it to a certain degree. Grouping by genre and theme predominated in manuscripts until approximately the thirteenth century, after which time liturgicalcyclic groupings were established everywhere.31 Evidence of the synthesis between the Sabaite and Studite schools in the compilation of the repertory of the Menaion as an independent hymnographic book.32 An especially eloquent example of this can be found in the kanons included in the traditional Menaion section by poet-composers from both the Sabaite and Studite schools, which indicates the continuation of Sabaite tradition by the Studites in a constant enrichment of works created in an earlier era. The works of Sabaites, like John the Monk, Kosmas the Monk and Andrew of Crete, are kept for the major feasts. Integrating a given repertory and making it meaningful within local practice, such as the monastery of St. John Theristis in Southern Italy. Bearing witness to the Jerusalem tradition in the chant practice of Southern Italy: in the notated stichera idiomela, neumatic signs of all classes laid out in the so-called Hagiopolites treatise, which origin is linked with Jerusalem, can be found: “tones”, “halftones”, “spirits” and “mele” (melismata). Freedom of choice of repertory for a given feast, which provides evidence of an enrichment of the traditional repertory through the addition of nontraditional works from authors who were most likely local, such as Leontos Stilis and Vartolomeios Romis. It is clear that the enrichment of a given local practice was fully permitted during this early period – an enrichment that can also be observed in the early Old Slavic, respectively, Old Bulgarian chant practice by Old Bulgarian authors. Freedom of choice of notation – the presence of various notational systems that existed at the time. Most likely the writer decided what, how and how much to notate. At the same time, certain systematization can be observed with respect to notation: individual words (both monosyllabic and polysyllabic) 61

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

8

that express meaningful and/or interpretive (explanatory) emphasis. In this respect we could speak of the establishment of a notational tradition, which also crossed over into Slavic-language Old Bulgarian hymnographic manuscripts from quite early on. Various stages of use of theta notation, from writing an individual sign theta to its combination (its analytic expansion) with a series of other signs within the framework of a single manuscript that speaks of originality of its use.

In the Old Bulgarian literature and in the Old Slavic Orthodox one as a whole (first of all Russian and Serbian), a book designated as Tropologion is not known but it does not mean that such a book did not exist or that it was not known in the early Old Bulgarian epoch, especially during the time when the Glagolitic alphabet was in use. Unfortunately, the extant Bulgarian Glagolitic manuscripts are quite scarce, and most of them have been preserved as fragments. The lack of a book with the designation Tropologion in the Old Bulgarian literature provides grounds for assuming that the earliest Old Slavic (Old Bulgarian) extant books reflect a later stage of development of liturgical books, as the Tropologion preceded the emergence of the Menaion, Triodion and Oktoechos, the hymnographic books that display much of its repertory. This was a stage when the designation Tropologion became superfluous and started to be replaced by these new designations. As they were modern and prestigious at the time, they were obviously accepted into the newly-written Cyrillic literature created in Bulgaria, and from there they spread to the other baptized Slavic countries to the north and west. We find these designations everywhere in Russia, Serbia and Wallachia and Moldavia. Vat. Gr. 2008 in conclusion could be an evidence (though indirect) that the Tropologion was the book, which the Holy brothers Cyril and Methodius used in their worship. The Greek scholar Joannis Tarnanidis assumes the same studying one of the newly found Sinai manuscripts in 1975 – a fragment of two folia of the Menaion type from the eleventh – twelfth century, kept at the library of St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai, Sinai 4/N.33 The manuscript is in Glagolitic shrift without Cyrillic inclusions. According to Tarnanidis the manuscript was among the books that were translated by the Slavic Apostles Cyril and Methodius and that they carried with them during their mission in Great Moravia, because – as he wrote – with such “a kind of Tropologion (k. S.K.) or small Menaion, the two brothers could have conducted the services for the various saint’s days”.34 Tarnanidis pointed out two special cases when such a book was used: the day of St. Peter and the day of St. Demetrius of Thessaloniki. His conclusion is that the Sinai fragment “bears the clear characteristics of the Ohrid school,” and that “one might suppose that it is Clement’s [Clement of Ohrid] adaptation and supplementation of the original book in accordance with the new requirements of the ecclesiastical rite, which in the course of the time came to prevail completely”.35 We know of Clement’s Vita written by Theophilact of Ohrid that Clement added what was missing to the Triodion: from the New Sunday (the Sunday of St. Thomas) to Pentekost, that is, Clement added the Pentekostarion to the already existent Lenten 62

T he T ropologion V aticanus G raecus 2 0 0 8

Triodion.36 Finally, I shall add to this that in the Italian Orthodox Magna Graecia, where the manuscript Vat. Gr. 2008 was written, as a peripheral region regarding Constantinople in the Byzantine Empire, an older practice has been preserved for a longer time.37 A kind of the Studite practice was in use – the revised newSabaitic Typikon has never accepted there. The problem remains open.

Notes 1 See also Kujumdzieva, S. The Hymnographic Book of Tropologion. London-New York, 2018, 96–97. 2 Lake and Lake determine the type of the manuscript as a Menologion, see Lake, K., S. Lake. Dated Greek Minuscule Manuscripts to the Year 1200, eds. Boston, Mass., 10 volms, 1934–1945. Vol. 8: Manuscripts in Rome Part II. Boston, Mass., 1937, 9, 301. I. Schiro determined it as a Sticherarion with a fragment with kontakia, see Schiro, I. Analecta hymnica graeca e codicibus eruta Italiae inferioris. 13 vols. Rome, 1966– 1983: vol. V Canones Ianuuarii, 1971, p. VII. In the inventory list of the microfilms of Моnumenta Musicae Byzantinae of the Institute of Greek and Latin at the University of Copenhagen, Vat. Gr. 2008 is given as a Menaion from 1101–1102, see Inventory of Microfilms and Photographs in the Collection of Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Compiled by C. Troelsgård. Copenhagen, 1992: Manuscripts from Vaticana. Manuscript is not included in the description of the Vatican manuscripts by D. TouliatosBanker, cfs. Touliatos-Banker, D. Checklist of Byzantine Musical Manuscripts in the Vatican Library. – Manuscripta, 31, 1987, N 1, 22–28. 3 Kujumdzieva, S. The Hymnographic Book . . . 4 Frøyshov, S. S. Greek Hymnody. – In: Canterbury Dictionary of Hymnology. Ed. by I. R. Watson, E. Hornby. Norwich, 2013, 1–63. 5 See the following descriptions: Devreese, R. Codices Vaticani graeci. Codices 604– 866. T. 3. Vaticana, 1950, 286–287; Giannelli, C. Codices Vaticani graeci. Codices 1485–1683. Rome, 1950; Canart, P. Codices Vaticani graeci. Codices 1745–1962. Part 1. Vaticana, 1970; Codices olim Basiliani seu Collegii S. Basilii de Urbe, nunc. Vat. Gr. 1963–2123. Inventarium et index rerum confecta annis 1697–1699 [Sala Cons. Mss.44]; Codices Vaticani Graeci 1963–2053, seu pars codicum olim Collegii S. Basilii de Urbe Inventarium post annum 1786 confectum [Sala Cons. Mss. 326]; Inventarium codicum Graecorum Bibliothecae Vaticanae a 1501 ad 2402 auspice Leone XIII P.O.M., I.B.card. Pitra, S.R.E. Bibliothecario confectum a I. Cozza Lizi Abate s. Mariae Cryptaeferratae, Scriptore Bibl. Vaticanae [Sala Cons. Mss. 324]; Olivier, J.-M. Repertoire des bibliotheques et des catalogues de manuscrits grecs de Marcel Richard, 3d ed. Corpus Christianorum. Turnhout, 1995 (no. 848, 849, 850). 6 The months are separated by a plaited decoration. The beginnings of the days are written not only in the rubrics, but also on margins. The first legible rubric appears on f. 2v and is for January 9. Since the initial sheets up to January 8 are lost, it is difficult to say whether this part has started with January 1 or with December: it is known that the early Tropologia of the type of the Georgian Iadgari has started with Christmas, see Wade, A. The Oldest Jadgari. The Jerusalem Tropologion, V-VIII Century. – Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 50. Roma, 1984, 451–456; Kujmdzieva, S. The Hymnographic Book . . . 7 Exception are those for 17, 19, 20, 26 and 27: the name of Joseph in the 9th ode of them is read in acrostic. 8 Before that, for January 17, the Feast of St. Anthony the Great, a second kanon is given, which is marked as “other” (“ἕτερος”): “kanon paraklitikos for the Venerable One”. In the kanon for January 21, the feast of St. Neophyte the Great Martyr, the ninth ode

63

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

contains an acrostic with the name of Joseph (18r-v). For April 3, there are two commemorations – the Venerable Abbot Nikita and the Venerable Joseph the Hymnographer; however, Joseph is celebrated on April 4. For April 13, the Roman Pope Martin is commemorated with a kanon by Joseph; the feast of Pope Martin of Rome is celebrated on April 14. 9 The kanons by Joseph prevail for March (from f. 83r onwards). Joseph’s name is read in acrostic in the kanons for this month on 2, 4, 7, 10, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26 and 28. 10 The inscription is published in Lake, K., S. Lake. Dated Greek . . ., vol. VIII, pl. 550. The published text is without accents: in the original they are written down. 11 Ibidem, 9. 12 Dates for the following saints are given: December 27 (Stephen) and 29 (Nikion); January 1 (Basil), 5 (for the Eve before Theophany), 10 (Gregory of Nissa), 11 (Theodosius the Great), 12 (Theodore), 14 (Abaddon and killed in Sinai and Raita), 17 (Anthonius), 18 (Athanasius), 20 (Euthimius), 21 (Zosime), 22 (Anasthasius of Persia), 23 (Clement of Ankyra and St. Agatangel), 25 (Gregory the Theologian), 27 (John Chrysostom), 28 (Ephrem the Syrian) and 31 (Cyricus and Jоan); February 1 (Trifon), 2 (Hypapante), 5 (Agatha), 6 (Theodor), 11 (Vlasios), 14 (Auxentius), 20 (Leo of Catania) and 24 (John Prodromos and Teristis). 13 Such are for instance the Synaxarion Оttob. Gr. 393 from the 13th century and the two Psaltikons Ashburnhamense 64 from the 13th century and Vat. Gr. 345 from the 13th – 14th century. 14 The rubric reads: „η̃χ[ος] α΄ στιχ[ηρὰ] ι̉διόμελα α̉ρχόμενα α̉πо̀ μη[νός] ι̉αννουαρίου. Μη[νὶ] ι̉αννουαρίω α΄ του̃ οσ[ίου] Βασ[ι]λ[είου]”. 15 Jorgen Raasted was the first to notice the notation in this manuscript. He represented Vat. Gr. 2008 among the manuscripts in theta notation that was put on folia 177r-186v. Raasted determined the manuscript to be of the “old-fashioned type” because the Tropologia to which the Vatican manuscript belonged were of the old Jerusalem tradition, or the tradition of the Holy city, the Ἁγιοπολίτης, see Raasted, J. The Hagiopolites in 15th Century Italy. A Note on Manuscript Terminology. – Bolletino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, 46, 1992, 195–196. In this article, Raasted focuses on the designation Hagiopolites, which he found in the descriptions of several Southern Italian manuscripts dating from 1457–1458 during an expedition to the Southern Italian monasteries of Маgna Graecia. The report of this expedition was published in 1960 in Studi e Testi. In this report, the attribution Hagiopolites is also cited in a manuscript from the monastery of St. John Theristis, where the Vat. Gr. 2008 originates from. According to Raasted, Tropologia were so called in order to differentiate these books from the Menaia, Triodia, Pentekostaria and so on, which soon came to replace them. Mariana Dimitrova, based on Raasted’s information, also represented the manuscript as one in theta notation, see Димитрова, М. Богослужебната книга миней като музикален извор: гръцки и славянски нотирани минеи от ХІ – ХІІІ в. – В: Пети достоит. Сборник в памет на Стефан Кожухаров. София, 2003, 601–620. These are the only references to notation in this manuscript. As it was said, the manuscript is not included in the Checklist of the notated manuscripts in the Vatican, published by D. TouliatosBanker, 22–28. 16 Strunk, O. Essays on Music in the Byzantine World. Ed. by K. Levy. NY, 1977. 17 Palikarova Verdeil, R. La musique Byzantine chez les Bulgares et les Russes (du IXe au XIVe siècle) (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Subsidia, vol. III). Copenhagen, 1953; Raasted, J. Musical Notation and Quasi Notation . . ., 17; Петров, С., Х. Кодов. Старобългарски музикални паметнци. София, 1973, 149–157; Тончева, Е. Музиката в България през ІХ-Х век. – В: Кирило-Методиевска енциклопедия. Т. ІІ. София, 1995, 770.

64

T he T ropologion V aticanus G raecus 2 0 0 8

18 Such words are διό, ἄλλῳ, ἰδού, χαῖρε, χορός, πατρός, καί, νύν, etc. 19 Besides the theta notation, the signs of the neume fund of Coislin and Chartres notation are revealed. Such are thematismos, kouphisma, kylisma, katabasma, psephiston, tromikon, etc. 20 The comparison is with the manuscript Тheol. Gr. 136, a Sticherarion from the beginning of the 12th century from the Vienna National Library. More about this manuscript see Wolfram, G., ed. Sticherarium Antiquum Vindobonense (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Pars Principalis, vol. 10). Wien, 1987, 155–222. 21 About this see Kujumdzieva, S. The Hymnographic Book . . . 22 For the first time the kanon was presented in: Follieri, E., I. Dujćev. Un’ acolutia inedita per i martiri di Bulgaria dell’anno 813. – Byzantion, 33, 1964, fasc. 1, 71–107; Kujumdzieva, S. The Tropologion Vaticanus Graecus 2008. – In: Psaltike. Neue Studien zur byzantinischen Musik. Festschrift für Gerda Wolfram. Wien, 2011, 187–205; see also Гюзелев, В. Студийският манастир и българите през средновековието. – В: Зборник радова Византолошког института, ХХХІХ. Београд, 2001/2002, 53–67. 23 See about this Ангелов, Б. Старобългарски текстове. – Известия на Архивния институт при БАН, 1, 1957, 267–303. 24 On January 22 is commemorated the memory of the following martyrs: Manuil, the great archbishop of the Adrianople eparchy who was cut in two because of his Christian faith; George, archbishop of the Debelt eparchy; Peter, archbishop of the same eparchy slayed along with George. The region of the Debelt eparchy was one of the earliest Christianized territories in eastern Bulgarian lands (the region is near to the town of Burgas on Black See). Episcopal chairs existed there since the 2d century. The local Christian community has its first martyr by the middle of the 3d century – Aelius Publius Yulius. Debelt became one of the distinguished archbishop’s centers after the 4th century. Many monastic and ecclesiastical complexes were founded there between the 5th and 7th centuries. Up to the 15th century they played an important role in the development of the Christian culture in the East. 25 The incipit is given in Follieri, H. Initia Hymnorum ecclesiae Graecae. – Studi e testi, 214, vol. IV, 1963, 360. It is cited there according to the following sources: MR I 67, II 27, IV 352, V 129 (Menaion for the entire year in 6 volumes, Rome, 1888–1901); MV I 38, III 15, VIII 78, IX 69 (Menaion in 12 volumes, Venice, 1895); NC 206; Anth I une, III m (Anthologion, 1738); PAS II 180 (Pitra, Analecta, І-ІV, 1876–1884); EE 106 (Eustradiates, Hirmologion, 1932); GIB 35; BBG n.s. 6 (1952) 41; Bes 2 (1897) 367; Eph 36 (1937) 292, 37 (1938) 271, 471, 38 (1939) 99, 169, 414, 39 (1940) 127, 47 (1948) 223, 48 (1949) 63, 49 (1950) 221, 51 (1952) 30; NS 30 (1935) 148, 277, 280, 32 (1937) 90, 91, 43 (1948) 272]. 26 Respectively vol. А for September-October; vol. B for November-December; vol. D for March-April; and vol. E for May-June, see Μηναῖα τοῦ ὅλου ἐνιαυτοῦ. Ρώμη. T. A, 1888, 67; T. B, 1889, 27; T. D, 1898, 352; T. E, 1899, 129. The entire hirmos is in vol. D (ІV): “Τῷ ὁδηγήσαντι πάλαι τὸν Ἰσραὴλ φεύγοντα ἐκ τῆς δουλείας τοῦ Φαραώ, καὶ ἐν ἐρήμῳ ἐκθρέψαντι, μελῴδημα ἐπινίκιον ᾄσωμεν ὥς λυτρωτῇ ἡμῶν Θεῷ, ὅτι δεδόξασται”. 27 The names are also read in the following manuscripts: Barb. Gr. 500 from the 11th – 12th century (f. 49v), Vat. Gr. 1515 from 1382 (f. 123r-v), Barb. Gr. 408 from the 15th – 16th century (f. 251v-253r), etc. 28 The text is preserved in manuscripts Palat. Gr. 383 from the Vatican Apostolic Library and Paris Gr. 3041 from the National Library in Paris. 29 This Prologue is considered as a not very well translation of the Menologion of Basil II, see about this Ангелов, Б. Ст. Старобългарски текстове. – Известия на Архивния институт при БАН, 1, 1957, 267–303. A memory for Bulgarian saints is revealed for instance in manuscript 895 from the National library Sts. Cyril and Methodius in

65

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

Sofia, a Menaion for December – February from the beginning of the 14th century, Serbian redaction. The service for January 22 is dedicated to the Bulgarian saints Manuil, George and “all the killed Bulgarians”, see Стоянов, М., Х. Кодов. Опис на славянските ръкописи в Софийската народна библиотека. Т. ІІІ. София, 1964, 65. Also, they are mentioned in manuscript Pogodin 520 from the State Public library in Sankt Petersburg, a Menaion with Verse Prologue for January from the end of the 14th – the beginning of the 15th century, Bulgarian redaction. Memories for the Bulgarian saints Manuil, George, Peter and others (f. 183v-184v) are included on January 22, see Иванова, К. Български, сръбски и молдо-влахийски кирилски ръкописи в сбирката на М. П. Погодин. София, 1981, 105–110. 30 Кожухаров, С. Нотни начертания в Орбелския триод. – Български език, 4, 1974, 324–344; idem. Палеографски проблеми на тита-нотацията в средновековните ръкописи от ХІІ-ХІІІ век. – Славянска палеография и дипломатика. Т. 1, София, 1980, 228–247; Йовчева, М. Композиция на неделните служби в Солунския октоих. – Palaeobulgarica, 4, 1997, 37–72; idem. Новооткрити химнографски произведения на Климент Охридски в октоиха. – Palaeobulgarica, 3, 1999, 3–25. 31 R. Taft also discusses the preservation of an older practice in the Italian Magna Graecia, which was a peripheral region with respect to the capital, Constantinople, within the Byzantine Empire. The Studite tradition was preserved in this region – there is any manuscript written according to the revised neo-Sabaitic Typikon, see Taft, R. Anton Baumstark’s Comparative Liturgy Revisited. – In: Comparative Liturgy Fifty Years after Anton Baumstark (1872–1948) (= Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 265). Roma, 2001, 191–232. The genre order is the older one in the Western liturgical practice as well. After J. Mckinnon the festal system was formatted according to the genres and not to the feasts, see McKinnon, J. The Emergence of Gregorian Chant in the Carolingian Era. – In: Antiquity and the Middle Ages. From Ancient Greece to the 15th Century. Ed. by J. McKinnon. New Jersey, 1991, 88–119. 32 As it was mentioned, M. Skaballanović and A. Baumstark also point out that Theodore the Studite and his brethren at the Studite Monastery, along with the monks from the Italian-Greek monasteries, “imitated” genres and structures established by the Sabaite hymnographers; they edited their books with an eye to coming as close as possible to what the Sabaites like Kosmas had achieved, see Скабалланович, М. Толковый Типикон, вып. І. Киев, 1910, 395–396; Baumstark, А. Denkmäler der Entstehungsgeschichte des byzantinischen Ritus. – Oriens Christianus, 3e Série, II, 1927, 1–32. 33 Tarnanidis, J. C. The Slavonic Manuscripts Discovered in 1975 at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai. Thessaloniki, 1998, 102–103. 34 Ibidem, 102. 35 Ibidem. 36 More about this, see Попов, Г. Химнографското наследство на св. Климент Охридски. – В: Кирило-Методиевска енциклопедия. Т. 3. София, 2003, 42–45. 37 Taft, R. Anton Baumstark’s Comparative Liturgy Revisited . . .

 

66

7 T H E N O TAT E D R E P E RTO RY I N T H E E A R LY O K TO E C H O I REVISITED

This study was provoked by research into the early full Slavic Oktoechos, which contains services for resurrectional and daily worship. The research clearly showed that the Slavic Oktoechos was the work of disciples of the holy brothers Cyril and Methodius, with the active participation of one of the most prominent of them, St. Clement of Ohrid.1 The formation of the Slavic Oktoechos was accomplished when the disciples of the Slavic Apostles were expelled from Western Europe and came to Bulgaria. However, the copies of the oldest Slavic Oktoechoi that were written in Old Bulgarian, the earliest Slavic language, were systematically preserved from the thirteenth century onwards.2 What the composition and structure of this very important liturgical book was up to that time is a question that needs to be investigated. The early sources in Greek preserved up to the thirteenth century could shed light in this aspect, since without doubt they were the models for the Old Bulgarian men of letters.3 The present contribution is based on notated manuscripts up to the thirteenth century, the time when, on the one hand, liturgical manuscripts achieved relative stability of composition and structure, and on the other, the revised Jerusalem or neo-Sabaitic Typikon was established in the Balkan Orthodox countries. Monastic and cathedral practices were brought together for the first time in this Typikon, that is, they were presented in synthesis.4 In connection with the present topic, I will outline briefly what kind of notation was used in the sources during this early period. As it is well known, Orthodox music developed neumatic notation over the course of thousands of years. The Balkan Orthodox countries use this kind of notation even today in their musical liturgical books. Western European linear notation entered the practice of these countries only in the middle of the nineteenth century and was used in parallel with neumatic notation. Up to the beginning of the nineteenth century neumatic notation does not show the exact pitch of the tone: it indicates the direction of the melodic movement only – ascending or descending without any specification of their precise intervallic meaning. Between the ninth and the nineteenth centuries neumatic notation went through various stages of development in the Balkan Orthodox countries. The compilation of the early notated books that were used in the churches of both East and DOI: 10.4324/9781003377238-9

67

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

West may be seen as linked, firstly, with the rapid growth of the liturgical chant repertory during the eighth and ninth centuries; secondly, with the ornamentation of the extant, simpler syllabic patterns and the appearance of some melismatic chants; and thirdly, with the need to preserve the chants that were performed more rarely during the ecclesiastical year in written format: until then the usual way of transmission was oral. In the East the initiative in this respect belongs to the two great liturgical and spiritual centres, Jerusalem and Constantinople. The various stages of development of neumatic notation in the Balkan Orthodox countries from the ninth century onwards is revealing. In general, this development represents a continuous specification of the intervallic, dynamic and rhythmic meanings of the neumatic signs. Two kinds of notation are evident at the very beginning of the appearance of the notated books: one is ekphonetic or recitative notation for solemn pronunciation of the Holy Scriptures,5 and the other is that of chanting proper, known as melodic. The texts of the Gospels, Epistles and Prophetic writings were intoned in a solemn way. The notation of the melodic neumatic notation probably has some relation to ekphonetic notation and also, to both the prosodic signs and cheironomy – the gestures of the hands and fingers used by the so-called domestikoi (conductors) to indicate the flow and performance of the melodies. The earliest completely notated manuscripts with melodic notation are from the end of the tenth or the beginning of the eleventh century. In some of them a few chants only were notated, and also, many syllables remained unnotated. It is suggested that the latter were sung as a repetition of what preceded them with notation. In the later manuscripts all the syllables are already provided with neumatic signs. The number of neumated and unneumated syllables is one of the criteria for determining the time of writing of the manuscripts: the more unneumated syllables there are, the older the manuscripts and vice versa – the fewer unneumated syllables, the newer are the manuscripts. Supplying each syllable or vowel with neumatic notation in musical manuscripts is a process that ends somewhere near the end of the twelfth century. The oldest melodic notation that was in use from the end of the tenth until the end of the twelfth century is the palaeobyzantine.6 Two basic neume systems belong to this notation. They were named after two manuscripts from the Paris National library in which they were revealed for the first time: Coislin (manuscript Coislin 220, a Hirmologion from the twelfth century) and Chartres (manuscript Chartres 1754, a fragment of a Sticherarion from the tenth – eleventh century).7 The difference between the two systems is in the fund of their neumatic signs: the Chartres has more cheironomic signs, stenographic symbols of melodic formulas that are called in the musical theoretical treatises melodemata, theseis and chant positions. The origin of Coislin is related to Palestine, and especially to the monastery of St. Sabas; the origin of Chartres is related to Constantinople and Mount Athos but it was known on Mount Sinai as well, and especially at the monastery of St. Catherine.8 The two systems existed at the same time and were used both in different manuscripts and in the same manuscript (see below). The notated books, as with notated books in general during the Middle Ages, were designed 68

T he N otated R epertory in the E arly

to serve as a mnemonic means for the domestikoi and soloists (known as psaltai in the Church and kraktai in the Imperial Palace): the neumatic signs remind them how to perform the melodies. In principle the singers had to know the melodies by heart, especially those that were performed often during the ecclesiastical year. The domestikos (the conductor) had to be seen by all the singers. He showed the melody through the gestures of his hands and fingers, demonstrating ascending or descending movement, different kinds of accent, pauses, ornamentation, the entry of the soloist or the choir, repetition in some places, etc.9 The two notational systems have several stages of development. According to the studies of Constantin Floros, Coislin has six stages and Chartres four.10 Both of them are adiastematic, that is, they do not show the exact interval meaning of the signs. Chartres goes out of use a century earlier than Coislin – after the mid-eleventh century. Some “quasi” notations of stenographic type are used along with the Coislin and Chartres. Such notations do not have a developed system of neumatic signs, making use of only a small number of signs. The most common among these notations is theta notation.11 Its basic sign resembles the Greek uncial letter theta (Θ), whence its designation comes. Theta notation was widely disseminated in all Orthodox countries. Eventually the sign turns out to be a part of a whole “family” of theta signs, whose number reaches five (thema/thematismos, thema haplun, thematismos eso, thematismos exo and tes ke apotes). The theta signs are found in the repertory of neumes of both palaeobyzantine notational systems, Coislin and Chartres. They present a stenographic equivalent of melodic formulas with ornamental character transmitted orally. The performance of these formulas was left to the singers. The latter could freely choose from the existing melodies they heard – how to perform them and respectively what and how much of them to record. Studies show that the theta-formulas are performed in meaningful places in the text: they emphasize words, syllables and entire phrases that are important. Most often the signs are placed above the nomina sacra (“Lord”, “Son”, “God”, “Holy”, “Virgin”, etc.) or above words or phrases that had to retain the attention of the listeners for what follows, such as prepositions, conjunctions, pronouns, etc. (“from here”, “because”, “since”, “us”, etc.). Theta notation is the most frequently used in the Old Bulgarian manuscripts,12 and also appears in the Old Slavic Oktoechoi.13 The last stage of Coislin notation is considered a basis for the next notational stage, the middle Byzantine. The earliest dated manuscript of this stage is from 1177 – Sinai Gr. 1218 from the library of St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai (discussed further below).14 Middle Byzantine notation, called also “round” notation because of the form of some of its signs (notably petaste and apostrophos/ double apostrophos), is already entirely diastematic: from the end of the twelfth century we are able to reconstruct Balkan Orthodox music written in neumes. It is established that manuscripts in middle Byzantine notation transmit the same melodies as the palaeobyzantine manuscripts notated in Coislin and Chartres, or to speak more precisely, they transmit almost the same melodies because there is nothing absolutely identical in the way the manuscripts were produced. Middle Byzantine notation reaches such a degree of perfection in terms of the intervallic 69

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

meaning of its signs, which Western notations do not have at that time (although by the end of the twelfth century the choral linear notation that already shows the exact pitch of the tone begins to be used in the West and to replace neumatic notation). Oliver Strunk has systematized the notated manuscripts up to the thirteenth century in his fundamental edition Specimina Notationum Antiquiorum.15 As he noted there, up to the mid-tenth century there is no notated manuscript (he means entirely notated): the earliest notated manuscripts are linked to the circle of Emperor Leo VІ the Wise the Philosopher, that is, they originate in or relate to the scriptoria in or around Constantinople, including those from the newly established monasteries on Mount Athos from the second half of the tenth century. It was a very dynamic time – a time of changes resulting from the use of various Forlagen in terms of achieving a greater precision of diastematic accuracy in neumatic notation. Strunk determines two turning points in the development of neumatic notation: the first is a little before the mid-eleventh century, and the second by the last quarter of the twelfth century. The first turning point he links with the establishment of what he calls the “standard abridged version” of the two basic and oldest notated books, compiled according to order of genre – the Sticherarion containing the stichera as its main genre, and the Hirmologion with the collected hirmoi of the kanons. Both of them appear by 1050. Strunk specifies that up to the middle of the eleventh century almost every copy of these two books is different (sui generis), adapted to regional liturgical needs; later on some standardization is achieved with a relatively accurate reproduction of the prototype used.16 As Strunk also notes, the differences in the copies are attributable to the various church orders or Typika that were in use at that time. The Typika had various redactions. There was no strict regulation as to which one of them was to be used: it depended on both the degree of their adoption and the praxis in a given region. From the ninth century on, copies based on the liturgical rules of the Studios monastery were disseminated. The rules were formulated by Theodore the Studite in his Hypotyposes but were codified in written format after 842, that is, more than sixteen years after his death. Theodore accepted the worship of St. Sabas the Sanctified, replacing the 24-hour worship rule of the “sleepless monks” (“’Ακοίμητοι”) that had been practised at the monastery since its foundation in the fifth century (in 462). Aleksei Dmitrievsky systematized the copies of the Hypotyposes into two basic redactions that were disseminated in the early period: a shorter one considered as earlier, and a larger one considered as later.17 The two redactions testify as to how the same Typikon could have been adapted differently in various monasteries. The acceptance of one of the redactions of the Studite Typikon affects the compilation of the notated books.18 The second turning point in the development of the notation is linked by Strunk with the appearance of diastematic notation. The latter causes some changes both in the melodies and in their notation. The problems of notation from the period in question are too many and are subject to separate consideration. Here I shall focus on the notated Oktoechoi in 70

T he N otated R epertory in the E arly

Greek. At that time they were a section of one of the main notated books to be transmitted from the earliest times to the present – the Sticherarion. The Oktoechoi are included in its last section. All the notated Oktoechoi contain repertory for resurrectional worship for Saturday Vespers and Sunday. An entirely notated Oktoechos as a section of a liturgical book other than the Sticherarion is not known before the fourteenth century, and neither is such an Oktoechos is known as a separate notated book.19 The Sticheraria are full when they comprise the Menaion, Triodion (or Triodion-Pentekostarion), Pentekostarion and Oktoechos; very often the Sticheraria were also made up of two sections – Triodion (or Triodion-Pentekostarion) and Oktoechos. The full Sticherarion in terms of its composition reproduces to the greatest degree one of the earliest universal hymnographic liturgical books to be transmitted up to the twelfth century in various languages in the Eastern Orthodox world – Greek, Georgian, Syriac, Armenian and very likely Old Bulgarian, known respectively as Tropologion, Iadgari, Tropligin and Šaraknoc.20 The book contains the repertory for the entire ecclesiastical year but unlike the Sticherarion is made up of an uninterrupted liturgical order according to the Church calendar following fixed, movable and further fixed feasts, ending with the sequence of chants for the Resurrection in eight modes and common services. After the thirteenth century copies of this book are not known. In the Old Bulgarian literature and in Old Slavic literature as a whole, no notated Sticherarion compiled of three or two sections is known – all its sections exist as separate books: either as a Menaion, or as a Triodion (Triodion-Pentekostarion or Pentekostarion), or as an Oktoechos. They are most commonly notated in theta notation. Notated Sticheraria comprising Menaion or Triodion/Triodion-Pentekostarion in Greek could be called Menaion Sticherarion and Triodion Sticherarion. The lack of the full notated Sticherarion in Slavic could certainly be considered as one of the specifications in the adoption of the Byzantine liturgical model by the Slavs: the process of the compilation of such Sticheraria in Slavic must have been interrupted early and did not lead to the completion of the book in the way it was compiled in Greek in Byzantium by the eleventh century.21 We have to keep in mind, however, that the performance of the notated music in Slavic Orthodox countries in other languages than Greek, such as Bulgarian in Bulgaria, could have been promoted by the available notated books in Greek: there are various sources in Bulgaria from the earliest period that are written in Greek or are bilingual (Greek-Bulgarian), such as the Preslav ceramic plate from the end of the ninth or the very beginning of the tenth century, containing evening and morning prokeimena in archaic palaeobyzantine notation.22 It was no problem for mediaeval singers to perform the notated melodies in the books in Greek with Bulgarian text adapted to them. This was possible on account of the fact that until the end of the tenth century by the latest, a full set of hymnographic liturgical books with texts in Bulgarian already existed: they were prepared for services in the church. The presence of theta notation in various Old Bulgarian hymnographic books indicates that palaeobyzantine notation of which theta notation belongs, was known in Bulgarian lands.23 Theta notation also indicates that oral practice was very strong: such a practice suggests the use of the 71

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

widely-disseminated technique of contrafacta, that is, the adaptation of different texts to already-existent melodies that were known to the singers.24 The study of the repertory of the notated Oktoechoi here is based on ten Sticheraria in Greek. All of them were written up to the thirteenth century on parchment and all of them but one are in palaeobyzantine notation. In all of them also are included the rare stichera designated as “apocrypha” (“ἀπόκρυφα”), which appear in the earliest notated manuscripts: after the twelfth century these stichera went out of use. The greater part of them are ascribed to Emperor Leo VI the Wise. The following manuscripts are from the eleventh century: Lavra Г. 67 in mixed notation – Coislin and Chartres (the library of the Great Lavra of St. Athanasius on Mount Athos, written about 102525), Vatopedi 1488, also in mixed notation – Coislin and Chartres (the library of the Vatopedi monastery on Mount Athos, written by 105026), Saba 610 in Coislin notation (the library of the Greek Patriarchate in Jerusalem27), Ochrid 53 also in Coislin notation (National museum in Ochrid28); the manuscript Sinai Gr. 1243 in Coislin notation is of the eleventh – twelfth century (the library of St. Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai: all of the following Sinai manuscripts are from the same library29); the manuscripts Theol. Gr. 136 from the first half of the twelfth century in Coislin notation (the Austrian National Library in Vienna30), Sinai Gr. 1214 in mixed notation Coislin and Chartres, Sinai Gr. 1242 and 1241 in Coislin notation and Sinai Gr. 1218 from 1177 in middle Byzantine notation.31 Five of the all Sticheraria are full, compiled of Menaion, Triodion-Pentekostarion and Oktoechos (Saba 610, Ochrid 53, Theol. Gr. 136, Sinai Gr. 1214 and Sinai Gr. 1218), and five are without Menaion, compiled of Triodion-Pentekostarion and Oktoechos (Lavra Г. 67, Vatopedi 1488, Sinai Gr. 1242, Sinai Gr. 1243 and Sinai Gr. 1241). No system was found in the compilation of the Sticheraria – there are full Sticheraria among both earlier and later ones. Four genre cycles are notated in the Oktoechoi of these manuscripts:32 stichera anatolika (in Greek “ἀνατολικὰ”; in Slavic “восточни”), stichera alphabetika (in Greek “κατ’ ἀλφάβητον”; in Slavic “азбучни”) with theotokia, anabathmoi (in Greek “οἱ ἀναβαθμοὶ”; in Slavic “степенни антифони”) and stichera eothina (in Greek “ἑωθηνὰ”; in Slavic “евангелски”).33 The number of the chants in these cycles is fixed for the separate resurrectional services: for Saturday Vespers, Sunday Orthros and Vespers. There is no systematic order in terms of the sequence of the chants: they are arranged individually in each manuscript. The cycles follow three orders: the systematic or liturgical order (Lavra Г. 67), the cyclic by genre (Saba 610, Ochrid 53, Sinai Gr. 1214, Sinai Gr. 1242, Sinai Gr. 1241 and Sinai Gr. 1218) and a mixed order – some of them are in liturgical order and the other by genre (Vatopedi 1488 and Sinai Gr. 1243). There is no unity in terms of the introductory cycle in the Oktoechoi: five manuscripts start with the stichera anatolika (Lavra Г. 67, Vatopedi 1488, Sinai Gr. 1243, Theol. Gr. 136 and Sinai Gr. 1218), four with the eothina (Saba 610, Sinai Gr. 1214, Sinai Gr. 1242 and Sinai Gr. 1241) and one with the anabathmoi (Ochrid 53). The study of the Oktoechos in the early hymnographic sources up to the fourteenth century reveals that the stichera anastasima (“ἀναστάσιμα”) and aposticha/ 72

T he N otated R epertory in the E arly

stichera on the stichoi (“εἰς τὸν στίχον”), designated respectively for Vespers and Orthros, the katismata, kanons, hypakoe, the makarismoi and almost all the chants for the common services remain unnotated. Of the common services some of the stichera nekrosima only (designated in Greek as “ἀναπαύσιμα” and “κοιμηθέντας”; in Slavic respectively “усопших” and “заупокойни”) are notated in the earliest sources containing an Oktoechos (Lavra Г. 67 and Vatopedi 1488). So far there is no answer to the question of why these four resurrectional cycles were notated in the early Oktoechoi and why only they were transmitted as such in manuscripts up to the fourteenth century. It is accepted that on account of the observance of some of the basic principles in mediaeval manuscript production – economy of space and expensive material – those chants that were performed more rarely during the liturgical year were notated. The more frequently performed chants were not notated: it was not necessary since the singers memorized them and performed their melodies by heart.34 However, such is not the case with the stichera anatolika and alphabetika: they were performed along with the stichera anastasima and aposticha for a long time. The question is why the stichera anatolika and alphabetika were notated but the stichera anastasima and aposticha were not. What do the sources and the liturgical documents of the time tell us? The stichera anatolika and alphabetika go back to the time of St. John of Damascus according to their attributions: both of them are ascribed specifically to him.35 The stichera anastasima and aposticha are also ascribed to St. John of Damascus in various manuscripts, which means that they are as old as the stichera anatolika and alphabetika. The four cycles are designed for the resurrectional services on Saturday evening – Sunday morning and evening, in so far as three of the stichera anatolika have indications for the latter service in each mode. In the earliest unnotated manuscripts of the type of the Oktoechoi from the ninth and tenth centuries, however, only the cycles of the stichera anastasima and aposticha are included.36 The unnotated texts of the anatolika and alphabetika entered a little later into these manuscripts, by the eleventh century. At the same time they appear notated in the Sticheraria.37 The other two notated cycles that are also included in the earliest Oktoechos section of the Sticheraria, the anabathmoi and the eothina, suggest that they were newly compiled because are attributed respectively to Theodore the Studite and to Emperor Leo VІ the Wise. These cycles, to which the cycle of the exaposteilaria should be added as well (often their text incipit is given only), ascribed to Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos, appeared systematically in the manuscripts in the eleventh century such as the stichera anatolika and alphabetika.38 The availability of the notated and unnotated repertory could be linked with a particular liturgical practice and its adoption and development in certain places at a given time according to the performance of the hymnographic texts. It is known that in the ninth century the Studios monastery in Constantinople replaced Jerusalem as liturgical leader up to this time.39 Studies show that the Studite Hypotyposes of Theodore the Studite is based on Jerusalem practice, and more specifically, on that of St. Sabas the Sanctified.40 It has been suggested, however, that Theodore accepted the liturgical rules of St. Sabas with some modifications: the 73

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

main source for his Hypothyposes were not these rules but the rules of Dorotheos of Gaza in his Didaskalia (the rules are found in “Directions on Spiritual Training”).41 The structure of psalm and refrains (in our case the Vespers Psalm 140 and the Orthros Psalms 148–150 with some resurrectional troparia/stichera added), which we find in the earliest Oktoechoi, go back to the time before the division of the stichera into various kinds – the time when all of them were called “troparia”. In the early copies of the Hypothyposes of Theodore the Studite, announced by Aleksey Dmitrievsky and later commented on by Aleksey Pentkovsky, the stichera anatolika and alphabetika are not mentioned.42 Such stichera are not mentioned in the Studite-Aleksios Typikon that is based on the earliest copies of the Hypothyposes from the second half of the tenth century either. These stichera are not included in manuscripts related to these Typika.43 The Studite-Aleksios Typikon prescribes the stichera anastasima after Psalm 140 for Vespers and Psalms 148–150 for Orthros. It is well known that this Typikon, defined by Robert Taft as “the first developed Typikon”, was compiled for the monastery of the Dormition of the Virgin, founded near Constantinople in 1034 by Patriarch Alexios, a former Studite monk (Patriarch from 1025 to 1043). Alexios used the rules of the Studite Hypotyposes, some of which he edited. His redaction is larger than the copies of the Hypotyposes and shows deviations from the latter in many cases.44 As Robert Taft emphasized one of the main goals of this redaction was to regulate the contradiction between the three liturgical cycles – the Menaion, Triodion-Pentekostarion and the Oktoechos – arising from the movable date of Easter when the material of the three cycles had to be combined in the same service.45 The Evergetis Typikon, the other close redaction to the Studite Hypotyposes, prescribes already the stichera anatolika and alphabetika. Of the former are cited only two of the four stichera that present the full set of the anatolika for Saturday Vespers: “ . . . καὶ δύο ἀνατολικὰ ἐκ τῶν κατὰ ἀλφάβητον . . . ”.46 It is known that the Evergetis Typikon was written by Timotheos for the Monastery of the Virgin Mary Evergetis founded near Constantinople by Paulos in 1049: Timotheos was his successor in the monastery.47 Though the Evergetis Typikon was written very soon after the Studite-Alexios Typikon, it reveals a strong neo-Palestine influence. The cathedral “sung” office of the Great Church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, for instance, is worked out in it according to a Palestinian model of unknown origin. The Studite practice of serving one evening service, however, is preserved: the Evergetis monks did not accept the Jerusalem custom of serving Little Vespers before the evening meal and Great Vespers after it, as Nikon of the Black Mountain announces in his Taktikon.48 None of the sources related to the redactions of the Studite Hypotyposes show such a practice.49 The inclusion of Great Vespers in the manuscripts, as is known, took place by the end of the thirteenth century with the establishment of the new-Sabaitic synthesis. The Sabaitic influence, however, could already be seen in the monasteries of the Studite type in and around Constantinople in the eleventh century when, as R. Taft points out, the Sabaitic liturgical material “infiltrated” their services for the second time (after the ninth century).50 The interaction between monastic and cathedral practice in the region 74

T he N otated R epertory in the E arly

of Constantinople is seen in the Evergetis Typikon and is clearly documented in two musical manuscripts of the eleventh century: the above-cited Sticherarion Vatopedi 1488 and Grottaferrata β. 35, a notated Euchologion written by c. 1100.51 Gradually monastic practice took precedence over cathedral practice. The process is described for the first time by Nikon of the Black Mountain: he was the first to use the word “Typikon” for the newly revised monastic services.52 Thus, as early as the eleventh century, various liturgical practices were in use in Constantinople and the surrounding areas. They can be characterized as being essentially two: the more rigorous one of the Studite monks, already transmitted in the ninth century with incorporated Palestinian elements (it is not specified whether from the practice of St. Sabas or of Dorotheos of Gaza), and one with Palestinian-Studite (Constantinopolitan) modifications documented in manuscripts from the eleventh century on. The stichera anatolika and alphabetika as separate cycles and designated as such are not included in manuscripts of the first kind: we do not find them in the early copies of the unnotated Oktoechoi up to the eleventh century. There are in these copies, however, various stichera aposticha, some of which are identified as anatolika and under this designation they are included in manuscripts from the eleventh century onwards. The stichera anatolika and alphabetika are found in manuscripts of the second kind: they are included as full, complete cycles, already bearing their current designations. The aposticha for Sunday morning are reduced: eventually they are eliminated from this service and in later manuscripts we do not find them. This means that the eleventh century may be considered as a turning point for the formation of the contemporary repertory of the Oktoechos and in particular of the stichera anatolika and alphabetika in Byzantium.53 The second form, with the Palestinian-Studite (Constantinopolitan) modifications, was fully developed in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and established itself universally as a single liturgical practice in the Eastern Orthodox world during the fourteenth century, synthesizing the monastic and cathedral practices and displacing all the redactions of the Studite Typikon that were in use up to that time. This form establishes also the practice of two evening services separated by the evening meal – the shorter one before it and a longer one afterwards, with corresponding liturgical repertories for them.54 It is obvious from what has been said so far that the four cycles included in the earliest notated Oktoechoi in the Sticheraria (the stichera anatolika and alphabetika with theotokia, the anabathmoi and the eothina) were notated in all probability because they were new (newly recorded, newly established, newly compiled or newly revised) for the liturgical practice of the Constantinopolitan region between the ninth and the eleventh century, and in particular, for the Studios monastery, which became a centre for reforms in hymnography. An argument for this is found in the Southern Italian Typikon of San Salvatore in Messina (manuscript Messina 115) written between May 1131 and July 1132. The sequence of the stichera anatolika and alphabetika in it is recorded in great detail.55 A special introductory chapter (No 4) prescribes the chanting of these stichera for the feasts of the Lord and the Virgin along with the stichera anastasima. The latter are called “old” 75

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

(“ἀρχαῖα”) or “from the old [settings]” (“ἐκ τῶν ἀρχαῖων”) and thus they are distinguished from the stichera anatolika (f. 12r): “ . . . ἑσπερινὸν τῶν σαββάτων, εἰς τὸ Κύριε ἐκέκραξα ἰστῶμεν στίχους η´, καὶ λέγομεν στιχηρὰ γ´ἀναστάσιμα ἐκ τῶν ἀρχαῖων, δευτεροῦντες τὸ α´. Καὶ γίνονται δ´. Τὰ ἀνατολικὰ δ´. Καὶ εἰς τὸ Δόξα καὶ νῦν, ἐκ τῶν θεοτοκ[ίων] τῶν ἀρχαῖων, τὸ α´ . . . Καὶ τῇ κυριακῇ, εἰς τοῦς αἴνους, ἰστῶμεν στίχους η´, καὶ ψάλλομεν τὰ ἀρχαῖα στιχηρὰ ἀναστάσιμα δ´, καὶ τὰ ἀνατολικὰ τὰ δ´ . . . ”.56 The number of the stichera for the separate services is different in the Messina Typikon. Three “old” stichera anastasima and two anatolika, for instance, are prescribed for Saturday Vespers.57 For the same service are regularly prescribed an apostichon and the stichera alphabetika after it. It seems that the stichera anatolika and alphabetika began to be included in manuscripts written in places where the synthesis between the Palestinian and the Constantinopolitan (Studite) practice had taken place. The two cycles of stichera followed Palestinian practice. If the manuscript Lavra Г. 67 was written at latest by 1025, as Strunk dates it, it means that the Palestinian elements which it displays may have been already existed in Athonite practice at that time. The entire sequence in its Oktoechos suggests that the established practice by St. Athanasius the Athonite in the Great Lavra, was probably based not only on copies of the Hypotyposes of Theodore the Studite, but also directly on Palestinian liturgical practice; that is, a new synthesis between the Studite (Constantinopolitan) and the Palestine practice was carried out on Mount Athos and this must have happened before the establishment of both the Studite-Aleksios and the Evergetis redaction of the Studite Typikon.58 One of the prototypes of the manuscript Lavra Г. 67 could have been of Palestinian origin. The chants in Coislin notation are an argument for this: the origin of this notation, as has been said, is linked to Jerusalem, though this remains an open question; or to the cycle of the notated stichera nekrosima that brings it closer to the Georgian Iadgari, which is also representative for the liturgy in Jerusalem: such stichera are included in the Iadgari as a separate part.59 The question is without doubt very complicated since various practices according to the different redactions of the Studite Typikon were in use and each of them could have been taken for the compilation of the liturgical books. In any case, however, the availability of the stichera anatolika and alphabetika, as well as the morning aposticha (as noted, the latter were gradually modified and eliminated from the morning service) could be a criterion for determining the liturgical practice used in the preparation of some manuscripts of the type of the Oktoechos. It could be concluded that in the early notated Oktoechoi in the Sticheraria, on the one hand, a traditional repertory (to name it conditionally) was included that came to Constantinople from Jerusalem as a “second wave” (through the stichera anatolika and alphabetika after the stichera anastasima, which are documented earlier), and on the other hand, an innovative repertory compiled by some of the most distinguished authors at the time, such as Theodore the Studite and the two Emperors Leo VI the Wise and Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (through the anabathmoi, stichera eothina and exaposteilaria). The inclusion of the traditional and innovative repertory in the Oktoechos gives an idea of the dynamics in the 76

T he N otated R epertory in the E arly

development of its repertory and thus its ability to update itself: to “synthesize” pieces from various practices in its composition, contaminating them in the course of the services. Amongst the places where this process probably happened very early were the new monasteries on Mount Athos founded from the second half of the tenth century on: the synthesized Palestinian and Studite (Constantinopolitan) practices were worked out there from the very beginning of their foundation monasteries until the fourteenth century.60 This could be one of the explanations as to why, in some of the earliest notated manuscripts written there, such as Lavra Г. 67 and Vatopedi 1488, there were included the stichera anatolika and alphabetika as separate cycles and notated in two kinds of notation (Coislin and Chartres) that were used respectively in Jerusalem and Constantinople. Such actualizations that are conformed to a particular practice and determined by various, mostly liturgical reasons, are valid for the entire history of Orthodox music.61 The diversity in the transmission of the repertory of the two notated books, the Sticherarion and Hirmologion, could be explained by the action of two different liturgical forms dating back to the middle of the eleventh century. The gradual imposition of one form on the other led to the unification of their repertory within certain frames and to the emergence of the said “standard abridged version” after the mid-eleventh century. In this sense the diversity in the transmission of the repertory of the various copies of the Oktoechoi in the Sticheraria may also be explained. Considering the relation of the notated repertory in the early Oktoechoi to the Typika at the time, the Hypotyposes, the Studite-Alexios and the Evergetis, we may conclude the following. In the early copies of the Hypotyposes when the Studite monastery was established, replacing Jerusalem in liturgical matters, the stichera anastasima along with the aposticha were recorded. A great number of the latter were included for Vespers and Orthros. The Studite-Alexios Typikon apparently clearly adhered to the early copies of the Hypotyposes since the same resurrectional eight-mode cycles (in composition, not in contents) are included in it. The Evergetis Typikon is based on synthesized Palestinian and Constantinopolitan practice. It codified a resurrectional repertory that is new for written (notated) practice: the stichera anatolika and alphabetika with theotokia that were used in Palestine, and the anabathmoi, eothina and exaposteilaria (for a long time only the text of the latter is transmitted) by some of the most distinguished authors who worked in Constantinople and the surrounding regions, such as Theodore the Studite and Emperors Leo VI the Wise and Constantinos VII Porphyrogenitus. The various morning aposticha in the unnotated manuscripts up to the eleventh century were transformed into stichera anatolika and were designated as such in manuscripts from the same century. This means that the stichera anatolika were not exactly accepted from Jerusalem but were to some degree reconsidered.62 The Evergetis Typikon appeared very soon after the Studite-Alexios one. Its compilation obviously was conditioned by the need for the legitimization of a previously transmitted liturgical practice that was different from this one of the Studite-Alexios Typikon; that is, the Evergetis Typikon was compiled to codify 77

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

a liturgical practice that had already been transmitted, especially in terms of the resurrectional material. According to the Oktoechoi studied, this practice was disseminated in the largest Athonite monasteries such as the Great Lavra and Vatopedi, Constantinople and the monasteries in Southern Italy (Magna Graecia).63 Its codification determined its uniform written (notated) fixation in terms of composition and structure, which is already evident in the manuscripts after the twelfth century. The study of the early Slavic Oktoechoi that are preserved from the thirteenth century onwards shows that most of them contain stichera anatolika.64 This means that the Slavic men of letters had for their prototypes the updated contents of the book: they knew the different redactions of the Typika of Jerusalem, Constantinople and Mount Athos, and especially the widely disseminated Evergetis redaction of the Studite Typikon from the second half of the twelfth century onwards. This is proved by the study of one of the earliest compiled Typika in Slavic that from Hilandar, considered to have been written for the organization of the ecclesiastical life in Hilandar monastery by St. Sava Nemanić after the proclamation of St. Sava as the first Serbian archbishop in 1219. It is established that the Hilandar Typikon was based on that from Evergetis.65 If we take a brief look at the notated repertory in the Oktoechoi in Sticheraria in Greek of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries we shall see how it gradually increases: the resurrectional stichera anastasima along with the aposticha, dogmatika, the makarismoi66 and triadika are notated. Cycles of the rest of the repertory for the resurrectional and daily services in the unnotated Oktoechoi are also found notated in the period up to the fourteenth century. They are included in other types of books: the hirmoi of the kanons are gathered together in the Hirmologia, the kontakia and oikoi are included in various books: Kondakaria, Euchologia, the two cathedral books, Psaltikons and Asmatikons;67 the hypakoe is also included in the two cathedral books; separate kathismata are notated in some of the Sticheraria from the thirteenth century onwards, etc.68 The repertory of the common services and the odes of the kanons remains as a whole outside the notated repertory in the Oktoechoi related to Balkan Orthodox music.69 It could be said in the end that the notation in the early hymnographic books directs and promotes the singers in what they were not particularly familiar with, on the one hand; and on the other, the notation could be considered as an indicator of the importance of some texts. It highlights some syllables, words and the whole phrases as particularly significant in the given piece and also the piece in its entirety. The availability of various kinds of notation in the earliest manuscripts (Coislin, Chartres and theta), either differentiated or mixed, speaks to the use of different prototypes, which could in turn reflect different liturgical practices. In fact, there is no answer to the question for now as to why different kinds of notation were in use even in the same manuscript at this time until the end of the twelfth century – whether these notations represent different liturgical practices, different musical stylistics (syllabic, syllabo-neumatic or melismatic), reflecting differently used prototypes, or all these together.70 78

T he N otated R epertory in the E arly

The study of the notated chants in the early Oktoechoi in the Sticheraria, finally, prove the conclusion of Anton Baumstark that worship is a living activity in a process of continuous development.71 The liturgical manuscripts were subject to constant rewriting and editing, the purpose of which was not so much to reproduce the material included, but to update it, to align it with what came forward as relevant and significant for the given time. Thus, they represent a “living” practice, in a constant process of actualization – ever-changing and evolving “as it moves from generation to generation or from one ecclesiastical tradition to another”.72 Without doubt, a great deal of music that was chanted has been lost in this process: the notated chants have recorded only one possible version of their actual performance. The answer to the question as to why just this version was recorded, and whether it was the best or the most necessary for the given time, remains a challenge for every researcher. Incipits of the First Chants of the Basic Resurrectional Cycles in the Oktoechos, Mode 173 •

Stichera anatolika: Εὐφράνθητε οὐρανοὶ/Веселитеся небеса (first anatolikon for Saturday Vespers). • Stichera alphabetika: Ἀγαλλιάσθω ἡ κτίσις/Да радуется твар (first alphabetikon for Saturday Vespers). • Stichera theotokia: Ἰδοὺ πεπλήρωται ἡ τοῦ Ἡσαΐου πρόῤῥησις/Се исполнися Исаино Проречение (first theotokion after the alphabetikon for Saturday Vespers). • Anabathmoi: Ἐν τῷ θλίβεσθαί με/Внегда скорбети ми (first anabathmos for Sunday Orthros). • Stichera eothina: Εἰς τὸ ὄρος τοῖς μαθηταῖς/На гору учеником (first eothinon for Sunday Orthros). • Аanastasima: Τὰς ἑσπερινὰς ἡμῶν εὐχὰς/Вечерния нашя молитвы (first anastasimon for Saturday Vespers). • Stichera aposticha: Τῷ πάθει σου Χριστὲ/Страстию Твоею, Христе (first apostichon for Saturday Vespers). Notated Resurrectional Cycles in the Oktoechos According to the Redactions of the Studite Typikon (A Thesis Statement) •

•

Hypotyposes (H1, H2, H3?) – end of the 9th century. The anatolika, alphabetika, anabothmoi and eothina/exaposteilaria are not notated: the unnotated anastasima and aposticha for Vespers and Orthros are included in manuscripts only. Athonite – first half of the 11th century. Studite and Palestinian practice. Elaboration of the notated cycles of stichera anatolika and alphabetika, anabathmoi and eothina (exaposteilaria). The palaeobyzantine notation in its Coislin, Chartres and theta varieties is testified. 79

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

•

•

•

Studite-Alexios – 1034. There are no notated stichera anatolika and alphabetika; only unnotated stichera anastasima and aposticha for Vespers and the Orthros are included. Some of the aposticha are identified later as stichera anatolika. Evergetis – mid-11th century. Notated stichera anatolika (two of four) and alphabetika, anabathmoi, eothina (exaposteilaria). There is a newSabaitic influence: the monastic and cathedral practices are interpenetrated. Palaeobyzantine notation in its Coislin, Chartres and theta varieties is used. Southern Italian (from Messina) – 1131–1132. The stichera anatolika and alphabetika, anabathmoi, eothina (exaposteilaria) are notated. The stichera anastasima are called “old” in terms of the stichera anatolika. Palaeobyzantine notation in its Coislin, Chartres and theta varieties is used.

Notes 1 In the main Old Bulgarian hymnographic books – Menaion, Triodion-Pentekostarion and Oktoechos – were found original works of Old Bulgarian authors, such as Clement of Ohrid, Constantin of Preslav and Naum of Preslav and Ohrid. Their names are visible in the acrostics of the eighth and ninth odes of the kanons. The works are for the great feasts of the Church, such as Christmas, Theophany, Great Lent, the Dormition of the Mother of God, the Entry of the Mother of God in the Temple, and also for certain saints, such as St. John Chrysostom, the Apostle Andrew, St. Euthymius the Great, etc., see Кожухаров, C. Песенното творчество на старобългарския книжовник Наум Охридски. – Литературна история, 12, 1984, 3–19; Попов, Г. Из текстологическата проблематика на славянския триод (Новооткрити творби на Константин Преславски). – В: Славянска палеография и дипломатика. Т. 1. София, 1980, 72–86; Попов, Г. Новооткрити химнографски произведения на Климент Охридски и Константин Преславски. – Български език, 1, 1982, 3–32; Попов, Г. Химнографското наследство на св. Климент Охридски. – В: Кирило-Методиевски студии, 13. София, 2000, 42–45; Попов, Г. Акростих в гимнографическом творчестве учеников Кирилла и Мефодия. – B: Древнерусская литургическая поэзия. ХІІІ Международный съезд славистов (Любляна, 15–21 август 2003). Тематический блок № 14. Доклады. София, 2003, 30–56; Иванова-Константинова, К. Два неизвестни азбучни акростиха с глаголическа подредба на буквите в среднобългарски празничен миней. – В: Константин-Кирил Философ. Доклади от симпозиума, посветен на 1100 годишнината от смъртта му. София, 1971, 341–365; Добрев, И. Климентовото химнографско творчество и Октоихът. – В: 1080 години от смъртта на св. Наум Охридски. София, 1993, 107–123; Йовчева, М. Солунският Октоих в контекста на южнославянските октоиси до ХІV в. (= Кирило-Методиевски студии, 16). София, 2004; Йовчева, М. Древнеславянский Октоих: реконструкция его состава и структуры. – В: Liturgische Hymnen nach byzantinischen Ritus bei den Slaven in ältester Zeit. Beiträge einer internationalen Tagung. Bonn, 7.-10. Juni 2005. Herausg. von H. Rothе, D. Christians. Paderborn, 2007, 50–73; Крашенинникова, О. Древнеславянский Октоих св. Климента архиепископа Охридского. По древнерусским и южнославянским спискам ХІІІ – ХV веков. Москва, 2006. 2 Bulgaria was the first Slavic country in the East to accept Christianity in 864/865. The Old Bulgarian language was the first Slavic language used in the worship of the Eastern Church as a sacred language.

80

T he N otated R epertory in the E arly

3 The Sinai manuscript collection of the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai is unique in this respect and it has no parallel. It is still not very well investigated as a whole, see Clark, К. Checklist of Manuscripts in St. Catherine’s Monastery Mount Sinai. Washington, D.C., 1952; Getov, D., M. Yovcheva. The Unedited Oktoechos Canons for Prophets and Martyrs in the Byzantine and Slavic Tradition. – Byzantinoslavica, LXVI, 2008, 1–2, 139–166. 4 “Synthesis” is a term employed by Robert Taft, see Taft, R. The Byzantine Rite. Collegeville, 1992; Taft, R. The Liturgy in Byzantium and Beyond. Variorum, 1995; see also Mary Mother, Arch. K. Ware. The Festal Menaion. London, 1969. 5 Ekphonesis in Old Bulgarian is called “възглашение”; in Latin, “lectio solemnis”. 6 All terms are according to Мonumenta Мusicae Вyzantinae, the series of volumes founded in 1931 by C. Høeg, H. Tillyard and E. Wellesz, see www.igl.ku.dk/MMB. 7 Strunk, O. Specimina Notationum Antiquiorum (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Vol. VII). Copenhagen, 1965, 2–8; Strunk, O. Essays on Music in the Byzantine World. Ed. by K. Levy. NY, 1977, 68–111, 231–239; Floros, C. Einführung in die Neumenkunde. Heinrichshofen, 1980, S. 42–44. The fragment in Chartres notation actually belongs to one of the earliest notated manuscripts – Lavra Г. 67 (for more on this see further in the main text). 8 Strunk, O. Essays on Music . . ., 108. Strunk points out that literary activity on Mount Athos starts with the foundation of the Great Lavra of St. Athanasius the Athonite after 963; the early Chartres manuscripts were probably not written there, though the earliest information about them relates to Mount Athos because there precisely was the influence of the great cities, such as Constantinople and Thessaloniki, see Strunk, O. Essays on Music . . ., 110. Concerning the early Coislin and Chartres manuscripts see also Levy, K., C. Troelsgård. Byzantine Chant. – In: The New Grove of Music and Musicians. Ed. by S. Sadie. 2d ed. vol. 4. New York, 2001, 734–756. 9 The singers started to be painted systematically on church walls and in manuscripts from the 14th century onwards. Their iconography regularly includes their hands showing something with their fingers. It is suggested that they show some neumatic signs. Further on this, see Бакалова, E. Образите на Йоан Кукузел и византийската традиция на представяне на певци. – Музикални хоризонти, 18–19, 1981, 169–243; Moran, N. Singers in Late Byzantine and Slavonic Painting. Leiden, 1986. 10 See Floros, C. Universale Neumenkunde, 3 Bde. Kassel, 1970. B. 1, S. 26–35; Floros, C. Einführung . . ., 56–57. 11 See about it Raasted, J. A Primitive Palaeobyzantine Musical Notation. – Classica and Medieavalia, 23, 1962, 302–310. 12 Кожухаров, C. Палеографски проблеми на тита нотацията в среднобългарските ръкописи от 12–13 век. – B: Славянска палеография и дипломатика. София, 1980, 228–246. 13 Ibidem. See also Йовчева, M. Солунският Октоих . . ., 26. 14 From the same year is the latest dated manuscript in palaeobyzantine notation. Two sources are cited as borderline in this respect: the Vatican Menaion-Oktoechos Regin. Gr. 54 and the Hirmologion Iviron 470, cfs. Strunk, O. Specimina . . ., 15. 15 Ibidem, 15. 16 Ibidem, 15. 17 The title of the Hypotyposes reads: “ ̉Υποτύπωσις καταστάσεως τη̃ς μονης των Στουδίου”. In the Forward it is said that the text is a codification of an oral transmission from the time of the abbot Theodore the Studite. The Hypotyposes was recorded before the second half of the 10th century by an unknown monastic community, and adopted in “many of the best monasteries”. Аleksei Dmitrievsky gathered together the known copies of the Hypotyposes in two redactions and marked them with H1 according to manuscript Vaticanus Graecus 2029 of the late 9th or the early 10th century according

81

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

to the description of A. Mai and J. Cozza-Luzi, and H2 according to manuscript Vatopedi 322 (956) of the 13th – 14th century. He found the latter to be larger, with some additions as compared with the copies of H1. The first redaction is known according to various South Italian manuscripts. The second redaction according to Dmitrievsky is not later than the first half of the 11th century. All of the other redactions of the Studite Typikon are compared with these two redactions, cfs. Дмитриевский, A. Описание литургических рукописей, хранящихся в библиотеках Востока. Т. І. Типика. Киев, 1895, 2d ed. Hildesheim, 1965, ХІІ–ХХХІ; Thomas, J., A. C. Hero, eds. Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents. Vol. 1. Washington, D.C., 2000: part 4. Stoudios: Rule of the Monastery of St. John Stoudios in Constantinople. Xth Century; part 13. Ath. Typikon: Typikon of Athanasius the Athonite for the Lavra Monastery; part 20. Black Mountain: Regulations of Nikon of the Black Mountain, c. 1055–1060, 84; Пентковский, A. M. Типикон патриарха Алексия Студита в Византии и на Руси. Москва, 2001, 141–142. According to Аleksei Pentkovsky, the study of the two redactions shows that each represents an independent revision of the earliest copies of the Hypotyposes. The latter was the model of the Diatyposes of Athanasius the Athonite for the rules of the Great Lavra on Mount Athos. The study shows that Athanasius had written his rules by 963 and in about 1020 they were revised; he used different copies of the two redactions of the Hypotyposes of Theodore as determined by Dmitrievsky and also one more, possibly a third that did not come down to us (H3?). In many cases the Diatyposes is closer to the redaction H1, cfs. Krausmüller, D. The Monastic Communities of Stoudios and St. Mamas in the Second Half of the Tenth Century. – In: The Theotokos Evergetis and Eleventh-Century Monasticism. Ed. by M. Mullett and A. Kirby. Hollywood, 1994, 67–85; Thomas, J., A. C. Hero, eds. Byzantine Monastic . . ., 194 and next. 18 Strunk, O. Specimina . . ., 16. Concerning the Typika, see Taft, R. Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of Byzantine Rite. – Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 42, 1982, 179–194. 19 For more on this and additional bibliography, see Куюмджиева, C. Стихирарът на Йоан Кукузел. Формиране на нотирания възкресник. София, 2004, 50–51. Irina Lozovaja considers a Slavic Oktoechos-Parakletikon of the 12th – 13th century – Тип. 80, the only known notated Slavic manuscript of this kind, see Лозовая, И. E. Древнерусский нотированный Параклитик конца ХІІ – начала ХІІІ века: предварительные заметки к изучению певческой книги. – B: Герменевтика древнерусской литературы. Сб. 6. Ч. 2. Москва, 1993, 407–432; Лозовая, И. E. Древнерусский нотированный Параклит в кругу Ирмологиев ХІІ века – первой половине ХV в.: мелодические варианты и версии в роспеве канонов. – B: Гимнология. Вып. 1, кн. 1. Москва, 2000, 217–239; Лозовая, И. E. О системе пения седмичных канонов Октоиха в ранней литургической традиции. – B: Гимнология. Вып. 4. Москва, 2003, 52–68. There are many unnotated Oktoechoi in Greek at this time, see Куюмджиева, C. Ранните осмогласници. Извори, богослужение и певчески репертоар. София, 2013, 115–175. 20 Concerning this, see Kujumdzieva, S. The Hymnographic Book of Tropologion: Sources, Liturgy and Chant Repertory. London-NY, 2018. It is suggested that such book was compiled in Old Bulgarian as well, see Куюмджиева, C. Имало ли е старобългарски трополог? – В: Старобългарска литература, 51, 2015, 11–38; Куюмджиева, C. Химнографското творчество на св. Климент Охридски в контекста на ранните ръкописи на гръцки език до XIII в. – B: Св. Климент Охридски в културата на Европа. София, 2018, 108–126; Kujumdzieva, S. The Hymnographic Book . . ., 123– 134; Христова-Шомова, И. Драготин миней. Български ръкопис от началото на XII в. София, 2018, 26–31. 21 The process started first in Bulgaria, where books in Slavic were compiled in the earliest period and where their distribution to other Slavic Orthodox countries began. A

82

T he N otated R epertory in the E arly

notated Sticherarion comprising a Triodion-Pentekostarion is known in Russian history: manuscript Hilandar 307 of the 12th century. It is notated in Russian znamenny notation, considered an analogue of the palaeobyzantine Coislin notation, see Tillyard, H. J. W. The Hymns of the Pentecostarium (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae, vol. 7). Copenhagen, 1960; Strunk, O. Essays on Music . . ., 220–230. 22 See concerning this Palikarova Verdeil, R. La musique Byzantine chez les Bulgares et les Russes (du IXe au XIVe siècle (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae, Subsidia, vol. III). Copenhagen, 1953; Петров, C., Х. Кодов. Старобългарски музикални паметници. София, 1973, 87–89; Тончева, E. Преславскаaта керамична плочка с прокименов репертоар от ІХ-Х в. като старобългарски музикален паметник. – Музикални хоризонти, 4, 1985, 15–43. 23 We have to bear in mind that the services in terms of their solemnity were different in the churches – whether in monasteries or in cathedrals in big cities. The performance of the services depended on both how many high dignitaries participated and what their rank was, concerning this see Thomas, J., A. C. Hero, eds. Byzantine Monastic Foundation . . ., 412–413. 24 The other technique is called contrapsita – the adaptation of a text to different melodies. 25 Strunk, O. Specimina . . ., 6 and next. Оliver Strunk does not deny the possibility that this manuscript was written by the end of the 10th century. He compares it with some of the earliest notated manuscripts, such as Lavra В. 32, Hirmologion, and Lavra Г. 12, Triodion-Pentekostarion (both of them are kept at the library of the Great Lavra on Mount Athos). The three manuscripts, according to Strunk, are not earlier than 950: see Strunk, O. Essays on Music . . ., 231. Constantin Floros dates the manuscript from the beginning of the 11th century, see Floros, C. Universale Neumenkunde . . . В. 1, 53. I worked with the microfilm of the manuscript at the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. during my stay as a fellow at the International Center John W. Kluge in 2003–2004 and 2009–2010, and have a microfilm copy of the whole manuscript. 26 Strunk, O. Specimina . . ., 6; Follieri, E., O. Strunk, eds. Triodium Athoum. Cod. Monasteri Vatopedi 1488 (= Monumenta Musica Byzantinae, vol. IX). Copenhagen, 1975. I have worked with the microfilm of this manuscript also at the Library of Congress. 27 I have worked with the microfilm of this manuscript at the Library of Congress. 28 Wolfram, G. Der Codex Ochrid 53. Ein Sticherarion aus dem Einflussbereich Konstantinopels. – In: Palaeobyzantine Notations. Ed. by G. Wolfram. Vol. ІII (= Eastern Christian Studies, 4). Leuven-Paris-Dudley, MA, 2004, 227–243. 29 Concerning the Sinai manuscripts see Clark, K. Checklist of Manuscripts .  .  .; Μπαλαγεωργου, Δ., Φ. Κρητικου. Τὰ χειρόγραφα βυζαντινῆς μουσικῆς Σινᾶ. Τ. Α´. Αθῆναι, 2008. I have worked with the microfilms of the Sinai manuscripts at the Library of Congress. All of them are also available at the library of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in Sofia. 30 Wolfram, G., ed. Sticherarium Antiquum Vindobonense (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Pars Suppletoria, vol. 10). Wien, 1987. 31 This is the earliest dated manuscript in middle Byzantine notation. From the same year is the latest manuscript in palaeobyzantine notation, cf. the description on the website of Мonumenta Musicae Byzantinae: www.igl.ku.dk/MMB. 32 In both sources in Chartres notation there is included a repertory that is found in each Sticherarion notated in both Coislin and middle Byzantine notation, cf. Floros, C. Einführung . . ., 55–62. 33 The stichera anatolika are included in all of the cited manuscripts; the anabathmoi are not included in Sinai Gr. 1242 (the end of the manuscript, however, is not preserved) and Theol. Gr. 136; the stichera eothina are missing in Lavra Г. 67, Vatopedi 1488, Ochrid 53, Sinai Gr. 1243 and Theol. Gr. 136. In the latter manuscript are included the stichera anatolika only.

83

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

34 Concerning this see Strunk, O. Essays on Music .  .  ., 297–330. The way in which these memorized chants were performed is another big question and deserves special attention. 35 In later manuscripts the stichera anatolika have different attributions. They are ascribed to John of Damascus, but also to the Patriarch Sophronios of Jerusalem. The designation “anatolika” is linked with the name Anatolios but it is not clear which one: the Constantinopolitan patriarch Anatolios of the 5th century, the Studite abbot Anatolios of the 9th century or Anatolios of Thessaloniki of the 10th century. According to Michael Skaballanovich these stichera are by an unknown author: the designation “anatolikon” was first encountered in the Eastern Jerusalem Typika, that is, Skaballanovich links the designation with an Eastern origin, cf. Скабалланович, M. Толковый типикон, 2-е изд. Москва, 1995, 118. Concerning the authorial attributions of all the chants included in the Oktoechoi see Йовчева, M. Солунският Октоих . . ., 89–108 and the cited literature there. 36 See the Sinai Greek manuscripts 1593, 779 and 824 in Куюмджиева, C. Ранните осмогласници . . . The stichera anatolika and alphabetika with theotokia started appearing in the unnotated Oktoechoi from the 11th century on. See the Sinai Greek manuscripts 781–782 (only the anatolika are included), 790, 792, 787, D. Gr. 93, D. Gr. 223 and D. Gr. 360 (last three manuscripts are from the library of the Center for SlavoByzantine studies “Ivan Dujčev”, Sofia). The stichera anastasima as a compact group are included in manuscripts of the type of the Greek Tropologion, such as the Sinai Greek manuscripts 784 and 789: in both of them the stichera anatolika and alphabetika are not included. 37 М. Skaballanovich suggests that the stichera alphabetika have a later origin, see Скабалланович, M. Толковый типикон . . ., 76–177. 38 The exaposteilaria are older from the time of the Emperor Constantine VII. In all probability he reworked them and that is why they were ascribed to him in manuscripts from the 10th century on. The exaposteilaria are already found in the old Jerusalem Horologion: they set Psalm 43:3 and were performed at Orthros after the prayer to the Virgin Mary. Concerning the exaposteilaria, see Troelsgård, C. The exaposteilaria anastasima with Round Notation in Manuscript Athos, Iviron 953. – In: Studi di musica bizantina in onore di Giovani Marzi. Ed. by A. Doda. Cremona, 1995, 15–28; Паренти, C. Върху историята на ексапостилария. – B: Пению мало Георгию. Сборник в чест на 65-годишнината на проф. дфн Г. Попов. София, 2010, 285–296 and the cited literature there. Concerning the resurrectional stichera eothina and the eleven exaposteilaria see Frǿyshov, S. S. R. The Resurrection Office of First-Millennium Jerusalem Liturgy and its Adoption by Close Peripheries, Part II: The Gospel Reading and the Post-Gospel Section. – In: Sion, mère des églises: melanges liturgiques offerts au Père Charles Athanase Renoux. Ed. by M. D. Findikyan, D. Galadza, A. Lossky. Münster, 2016, 109–149. 39 Concerning the Studios monastery at that time see Гюзелев, B. Студийският манастир и българите през средновековието (VІІІ-ХІVв.). – B: Зборник радова Византолошког института, ХХХІХ. Београд, 2001/2002, 51–67. 40 А. Dmitrievsky cites the rules of St. Sabas the Sanctified according to two Sinai manuscripts: 1096 of the 12th – 13th century, and 531 of the 15th century, see Дмитриевский, A. Описание литургических рукописей . . . R. Taft points out that the first synthesis between the Studite and the Sabaite practices was in the 9th century at the time of Theodore the Studite: the Studite worship actually presents an earlier synthesis between the Sabaitic and Constantinopolitan elements, that is, elements of the monastic and cathedral worship. There is information, for instance, that Theodore asked Patriarch Thomas I of Jerusalem to send monks to introduce Sabaitic chanting in his monastery. In the 11th century the opposite process is observed: the Palestinian monks began to

84

T he N otated R epertory in the E arly

rework the earlier Studite synthesis, adapting it to the needs of worship in their monastery, and especially to the midnight service (the agrypnia) and to the order of the daily morning service in terms of the psalmody, see Taft, R. The Synaxarion of Evergetis in the History of Byzantine Liturgy. – In: The Theotokos Evergetis and Eleventh-Century Monasticism . . ., 274–293; Thomas, J. The Imprint of Sabaitic Monasticism on Byzantine Monastic Typika. – Orientalia Liturgica Analecta: The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to the Present, 98, 2001, 73–83 (76). 41 Patrich, J. Sabas, Leader of Palestinian Monasticism. Washington, D.C., 1995, 330. Dorotheos founded a monastery near Gaza by 540. He compiled for his monastery liturgical rules known as Didaskalia or “Directions on Spiritual Training”. Theodore the Studite cited these rules very often. A copy of them is known still from the 9th century. It is suggested that this copy in concise form was made by some of the followers of Theodore the Studite. The Didaskalia of Dorotheos was translated into Syriac, Arabic, Georgian and Slavic, see about this Baldwin, B. Dorotheos of Gaza. – In: Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. by A. Kazhdan. vol. 1. New York-Oxford, 1991, 654. The preferences of Theodore could be related to the practice that he knew – either to the sleepless monks who were at the Studios monastery when he went there, or the practice of the Sakkudion monastery near the Mount Olympus where he was abbot. 42 Пентковский, A. M. Типикон патриарха Алексия . . ., 132–135. About this see also Желтов, M. Стихиры воскресного октоиха в древнем тропологии. – Христианское чтение, 3, 2018, 94–111. 43 Пентковский, A. M. Типикон патриарха .  .  ., 140; Крашенинникова, O. Древнеславянский Октоих . . ., 349; Куюмджиева, C. Ранните осмогласници . . . 44 This concerns the copies in the two systematized redactions of the Hypotyposes, such as H1 and H2: see the footnote 17 above. In 1034 Alexios recorded the existing liturgical practice and this is the oldest detailed record of the Studite Typikon. The study shows that the Studite-Alexios Typikon is closer to the copies of the Hypotyposes of redaction H2. Along with the transmission of the copies of the two redactions there must have been one more redaction of the Hypotyposes (H3?) that was more concise. The earliest copy of such a redaction is found in Slavic in the Typografsky Ustav of the 11th – 12th century, the oldest of the five known notated Old Russian Kondakaria of the 11th – 13th centuries. The redaction in the Typografsky Ustav contains indications for the main liturgical feasts only, see Уханова, E. B. Древнейшая русская редакция Студийского устава: происхождение и особенности богослужения по Типографскому списку. – B: Типографский устав: устав с кондакарем – конца XI – начала XII века. Под ред. на Б. А. Успенский. 3 тома. Москва, 2006, 239–253; Уханова, E. B. Древнерусския списки Студийского устава и проблема богослужения Древней Руси ХІ-ХІІІ века. – B: Liturgische Hymnen nach byzantinischem Ritus . . ., 74–102. In 1062 Theodosios Pechersky commissioned a translation in Slavic of the entire text of the Studite-Aleksios Typikon. This translation, preserved in six Slavic copies, is the only known text of this Typikon. According to the Vita of St. Theodosios the Typikon was also accepted for indicating how to perform monastic chanting (“како пети пения монастырская”). It is suggested that the Slavic translation of the Typikon was made for the use in the Kievo-Pecherskaja Lavra, see Скабалланович, M. Толковый типикон . . ., 399; Taft, R. The Synaxarion . . ., p. 288; Krausmüller, D. The Monastic Community . . ., 67–85; Пентковский, A. M. Типикон патриарха . . .; Уханова, E. B. Древнерусские списки . . ., 74–102. 45 Taft, R. The Synaxarion of Evergetis . . ., 287. 46 Cfs. Дмитриевский, A. Описание . . ., 578. See there the services for Saturday Vespers from the second to the fifth week of Great Lent and the Sundays after Easter: 534, 538, 572; see also Йовчева, M. Солунският Октоих . . ., 93. The question is discussed by O. Krasheninnikova as well. She observes especially the differences in the use of the

85

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

resurrectional stichera between the East Slavic (Old Russian) and the South Slavic (Old Bulgarian) Oktoechoi. According to her the structure of these stichera in the Eastern Slavic manuscripts corresponds to the “short redaction of the Sinai Tropologion”, in which a very small number of chants is included: there are no stichera anatolika or alphabetika, and this differentiates the Eastern Slavic from the Southern Slavic Oktoechoi. In the latter are included three stichera anatolika after the stichera anastasima. Krasheninnikova determines this as “a typical characteristic of the late Studite redaction”. According to her, also, in the early hymnographic manuscripts the stichera anatolika and alphabetika were not included: they entered Jerusalem worship in the 9th century (the author did not note where these stichera come from and why just at that time they entered Jerusalem worship), see Крашенинникова, O. Древнеславянский Октоих . . ., 342, 349–353. Concerning the Evergetis “family” of Typika see Jordan, R. H. The Monastery of the Theotokos Evergetis, Its Children and Grandchildren. – In: The Theotokos Evergetis and Eleventh-Century Monasticism . . ., 215–245. Robert Taft considers the Evergetis Typika as a “peak” in the development of the “Studite era”. He determines the latter as a “fourth stage” in the development of the Byzantine worship, which, according to him, starts about 800, the time of the activity of Theodore the Studite, and continues until 1204, the year of the fall of Byzantium under Latin domination, see Taft, R. The Synaxarion . . ., 291. 47 Mullet, M. Introduction: the Monastery of the Theotokos Evergetis. – In: The Theotokos Evergetis and Eleventh-Century Monasticism .  .  ., 1–16 (2–3). Evergetis means “Benefactress”. The earliest preserved copy of this Typikon is considered to be that by monk John from the early 12th century that was written for the monastery Phoberos or St. John the Forerunner on the Asian shore of the Black Mountain, cf. Jordan, R. H. John of Phoberou: a Voice Crying in the Wilderness. – In: Strangers to Themselves: the Byzantine Outsider. Ed. by D. C. Smythe. Ashgate – Variorum, 2000, 61–75 (63). The Evergetis Typikon shows a great proximity to the Typikon of the Great Church Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, see Дмитриевский, A. Описание . . ., 33. 48 See Klentos, J. The Synaxarion of Evergetis: Algebra, Geology and Byzantine Monasticism. – In: Work and Worship at the Theotokos Evergetis 1050–1200. Ed. by M. Mullet and A. Kirby. Belfast, 1997, 329–355 (346–347); Taft, R. Mount Athos . . ., 186–187. 49 The information is according to Klentos, J. The Synaxarion of Evergetis . . .,346– 347; Taft, R. Mount Athos . . ., 186–187. Nikon writes his own Taktikon in which, according to Skaballanovich, favours the Jerusalem (Sabaitic) Typikon over the Studite one because of the ability of using the old full copy of it based on the Divine Scriptures of the Holy Apostles and the councils. Only in some places does Nikon’s Taktikon reflect Studite practice, see Скабалланович, M. Толковый типикон . . ., вып. 1, 411. 50 Taft, R. “The Synaxarion . . .”, 292. 51 М. Arranz distinguishes the tradition of the Byzantine West from that of the East: the former is for him an amalgam of Sabaitic and Constantinopolitan elements (first of all of the Constantinopolitan Great Church of Hagia Sophia), transmitted in Magna Graecia and could be found in the Typikon of the monastery of San Salvatore in Messina, and the second is that from Palestine, according to Taft, R. The Synaxarion . . ., 288–290. 52 See about this Taft, R. Mount Athos . . ., 179–194. 53 The changes of the 11th century are clearly formulated in Klentos, J. The Synaxarion of Evergetis . . ., 355. The 11th century is particularly complicated in terms of liturgical practice: not only the various redactions of the Studite Typikon were in use in the second half of this century, such as the Hypotyposes, the Studite-Alexios, the Evergetis, etc., but the old redaction of the Sabaite Typikon of the 7th – 8th century was

86

T he N otated R epertory in the E arly

also in use. The latter was followed in one of the monasteries in Latros at least until the mid-10th century. By the end of the 11th century (1091) the ascetic Christodoulos of the monastery of St. John the Theologian writes that the chanting in the church and the whole order of the psalms and prayers should be guided by the Jerusalem Typikon of St. Sabas, see Thomas, J. The Imprint of Sabaitic . . ., 78, 83. In addition, in the 11th century there appeared the new redaction of the Euchologion and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom became the main one in the daily worship in the East, displacing the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great – the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom began to be recorded in manuscripts initially in the full form, see Афанасьева, T. И. Литургии Иоанна Златоуста и Василия Велкиго в славянской традиции (по служебникам XI-XV века). Москва, 2015, 55, 274. 54 This is the practice of the reformed Jerusalem Typikon, which Robert Taft calls “new Sabaitic synthesis”, see Taft, R. Mount Athos . . ., 179–194. Concerning this practice in the Slavic Oktoechoi see Йовчева, M. Солунският Октоих . . ., 90, 93, 107. 55 As it was noted above, the Evergetis Typikon had the greatest influence on worship in Southern Italy (Magna Graecia). 56 Arranz, M. Le Typicon du monastère du Saint-Sauveur à Messine (= Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 185). Roma, 1969, 6. 57 Four stichera anastasima and four anatolika are prescribed for the service on the first Sunday of Great Lent. The stichera anastasima are designated as “old”, see Arranz, M. Le Typicon . . ., 213–214. Three anastasima and two anatolika are prescribed for most of the services on Sunday morning. Three anatolika are found in the service for the evening on Meetfare Sunday, ibidem, 189. 58 The Palestinian traditions were transferred to Constantinople by monks and clerics who fled from Palestine and Jerusalem after their conquest by the Arabs, see Афанасьева, Т. И. Литургии Иоанна Златоуста . . ., 267. 59 See about this Куюмджиева, C. Ранните осмогласници . . ., 181–184. 60 Athanasius the Athonite compiled a Typikon in which he used elements from the known redactions of the Hypotyposes of Theodore the Studite but he did not say exactly what he used from them, see Thomas, J. The Imprint . . ., 194–222. According to Aleksei Dmitrievsky, the Typikon of the Athanasius is closer to the earlier version of the Hypotyposes, the shorter one, cfs. Дмитриевский, A. Описание . . ., 25. As it was said above, the earliest copy of such shorter redaction is included in the Typografsky Ustav of the 11th – 12th century, one of the fifth notated Old Russian Kondakaria, see concerning these also Floros, C. The Origins of Russian Music. Introduction to the Kondakarion Notation. Frankfurt am Main, 2009. 61 This is especially evident in the 14th – 15th century in the newly compiled chant book according to the new redaction of the Jerusalem Typikon – the Akolouthiai-Anthology. In the latter are gathered together various chants under different headings, such as “old” and “new”, “urban” and “monastic”, “ethnikon” and “ekklisiastikon”, etc., as well as many chants of the “old” authors reworked by the “new” ones. In fact, the practice of reworking pieces by the “old” masters by “new” ones is revealed in manuscripts throughout the entire Middle Ages, as well as during the National Revival of the 18th and 19th centuries. 62 In the 11th century many of the morning stichera aposticha begin to be referred to as “anatolika”. Probably that is why they receive the designation “anastasima anatolika”, which testifies to their Eastern origin. If such stichera were used in Jerusalem in the time of St. John of Damascus, their Eastern origin is justified geographically: Jerusalem, seen from the capital Constantinople, is located to the East. As was mentioned, this is also discussed by M. Skaballanovich. According to him the stichera anatolika first appear in Eastern (Jerusalem) practice and they were not known in the oldest Studite Typika, see Скабалланович, M. Толковый типикон . . ., 117–118. The

87

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

morning aposticha lose their liturgical position and are no longer defined as such. In the early manuscripts from the 9th – 11th centuries is found more than one apostichon for Saturday evening and Sunday morning. Gradually these stichera are reduced to one, which in the manuscripts of the 12th century has already been added to the other three stichera anastasima, see for instance the Sinai Greek manuscripts 1593, 792, 824 and 780 in Куюмджиева, C. Ранните осмогласници . . ., 165–166; see also the following stichera in mode 4: Πoυ̃ ει̉σιν αι σφραγι̃δες του̃ μνήματος – third apostichon in Sinai Gr. 1593: it is identified with the second anatolikon for Sunday Vespers; Πρω̃ται τὴν α̉νάστασιν – second apostichon in Sinai Gr. 1593, first apostichon in Sinai Gr. 824, second apostichon in Sinai Gr. 780, 792 and 2018: it is identified with the third anastasimon for Sunday Vespers, cfs. the incipits of the cited stichera in Wolfram, G. Sticherarium Antiquum . . ., 192. The stichera aposticha are identified as stichera anatolika in other modes, such as 3 and plagal 1 for the Sunday Orthros and Saturday Vespers, see Куюмджиева, C. Ранните осмогласници . . ., 165–166. For the transformation of the morning stichera aposticha see also Крашенинникова, O. Древнеславянский Октоих . . ., 347–350; Пентковский, A. Типикон париарха Алексия . . ., 132–135. 63 Southern Italy was a province of the Byzantine Empire for five centuries. She was subordinated to the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate and became something like an “enclave” in the collection of various traditions – from Palestine, Constantinople and Mount Athos, preserving their archaic layers from the pre-iconoclastic period, see concerning this Афанасьева, Т. И. Литургии Иоанна Златоуста . . ., 267. 64 Йовчева, M. Солунският Октоих . . ., 89–91. The lack of the stichera anatolika in some of the Slavic Oktoechoi according to Yovcheva “could be characterized as a practice that was determined by some Typika of the Studite type that either did not know the stichera anatolika, or required fewer of them”, ibidem: 90–91. Regarding worship according to the different redactions of the Studite Typikon see also Крашенинникова, O. Древнеславянский Октоих . . ., 333–342. 65 Popović, S. Are Typika Sources for Architecture? The Case of the Monasteries of the Theotokos Evergetis, Chilandari, and Studenica. – In: Work and Worship . . ., 266–284 (270). 66 According to O. Strunk there is no significant difference between the notated hirmoi of the kanons and those of the makarismoi: in many cases the latter are contrafacta – they have taken their melodic and metrical structure from the hirmoi of the kanons included in the Hirmologia, see Strunk, O. Tropus and Troparion. – In: Speculum Musicae Artis, Festgabe für Heinrich Husmann. Ed. by H. Becker, R. Gerlach. Münich, 1970, 271–272. 67 The Psaltikon contains a repertory for the soloists; the Asmatikon – for the two choirs in the big cathedrals, see regarding them Harris, S. Psalmodic Traditions and the Christmas and Epiphany Troparia as Preserved in 13th-Century Psaltika and Asmatika. – In: Cantus Planus. Budapest, 1990, 205–211. 68 Concerning this see Jung, A. The Kathismata in the Sofia Manuscript Kliment Ohridski Cod. Gr. 814. – Cahiers de l’Institut du moyen-age grec et latin, 61, 1991, 49–77; Raasted, J. Kontakion Melodies in Oral and Written Tradition. – In: The Study of Medieval Chant: Paths and Bridges, East and West. In Honor of Kenneth Levy. Ed. by P. Jeffery. Cambridge, 2001, 273–281. 69 Concerning this in detail see Куюмджиева, C. Стихирарът на Йоан Кукузел . . ., 50–51. 70 Ruth Steiner speaks about chants notated in different notations in early western manuscripts. She suggests that in such cases the writer would have had different prototypes from which he compiled. According to her, the writer could probably not transcribe the pattern from one notation to another, so he recorded the melodies as he found them in

88

T he N otated R epertory in the E arly

different notations, see Steiner, R. On the Verses of the Offertory Elegerunt. – In: The Study of Medieval Chant Paths and Bridges . . ., 283–301 (301). 71 According to Taft, R. Divine Liturgies – Human Problems in Byzantium, Armenia, Syria, and Palestine. Variorum. Ashgate, 2001, IX. 72 Bradshaw, P. F. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. New York-Oxford, 1992, 101. 73 The Slavic incipits are according to Динев, П. Обширен възкресник с полиелеи, величания, катавасии и подобни. Ч. II. София, 1949, 101.

 

89

8 S T U D Y I N G T H E O K TO E C H O S From the Oktoechos to the Anastasimatarion

The object of this study is an examination of the changes of the contents and repertory of the Oktoechos within the Sticherarion that led to the formation of the Anastasimatarion in Greek or Voskresnik in Slavic.1 Though we all know that the Anastasimatarion includes a repertory for the resurrection services for Saturday Vespers and Sunday Orthros, the problem of how these services were formed and established in the notated sources has not yet been at the center of scholarly attention. However, the few studies by Dimitrije Stefanović, Adriana Širli, Jorgen Raasted, Christian Hannick, Danica Petrović, etc. dealing with topics related to the Anastasimatarion, give important clues in this direction. I shall mention some of them. Dimitrije Stefanović, studying the Yale fragment found by Miloš Velimirović at the library of the Yale University, posed the questions of what is the Anastasimatarion, what was its order, who was its author, etc.2 He considered the formation of the Anastasimatarion within the Sticherarion. Stefanović assumed that the order of the “old” Anastasimatarion was established in the fourteenth century when the complete set of hymns for Saturday Vespers was accomplished with the inclusion of the three stichera anastasima and the apostichon.3 Unfortunately, he did not discuss the repertory of the Oktoechos for Sunday. Adriana Širli devoted a book to the Anastasimatarion.4 She considered its formation within the Sticherarion as well. Širli cited two Sticheraria pointed out by Gregorios Stathis as containing the earliest “complete Anastasimatarion without kekragaria and pasapnoaria”: Dionisiou 564 from 1445 and Panteleimonos 936 from the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century.5 She suggested carefully that the structure of the contents and repertory of the Anastasimatarion was probably completed while the stichera anastasima were transmitted from the Sticherarion into the Akolouthiai-Anthology and the kekragaria, theotokia dogmatika and pasapnoaria were added to them. According to her, the earliest Anastasimataria as a distinct type of chant book for singers go back to the second half of the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth century and as a rule are included in the Anthologies.6 The publications of Jorgen Raasted also contain valuable observations on the posed topic.7 Though he did not mention the Anastasimatarion specifically, the 90

DOI: 10.4324/9781003377238-10

S tudying the O ktoechos

accent of his investigations was put on the changes in the contents and repertory of the Oktoechos within the Sticherarion.8 Raasted considered these changes as a “revision” of the great Master St. John Koukouzeles.9 He distinguished the Oktoechos from the time of Koukouzeles, which, according to him, was cyclically (liturgically) arranged from that of the previous time, which followed the systematic (genre) order.10 It is clear that the Anastasimatarion appeared as a result of certain changes in the contents and repertory of the Oktoechos or, in other words, the Anastasimatarion represents a remodeled and changed order of the contents and repertory of the Oktoechos. It is insufficiently clear, however, what part of it has been changed exactly, that is, removed, added or dropped out and how it has been transmitted. This will be on the focus of this study. To determine the changes in the Oktoechos, I took for investigation sources from the twelfth through the beginning of the nineteenth century (up to the New Method established after 1814) that are mainly preserved in four libraries: the library of the Church Historical and Archival Institute of the Bulgarian Patriarchate, the library of the “Ivan Dujčev” Center for Slavo-Byzantine Studies at the State University in Sofia St. Clement of Ohrid, the library of St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai, and the library of Hilandar monastery on Mount Athos. The sources from the last two libraries I consulted on microfilms, respectively, at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and the Resource Center for Medieval Slavic Studies at the Ohio State University. I chose Sticheraria in middle Byzantine notation for the period up to the fifteenth century belonging to the “standard abridged version” which, according to Oliver Strunk, appeared after 1050.11 The study of the sources further clearly revealed that the formation of the Anastasimatarion as a changed order of the contents and repertory of the Oktoechos within the Sticherarion, is a result of a long process. Also, the study of the sources confirmed Širli’s conclusion that the formation of the Anastasimatarion started in the Sticherarion, and then was transmitted into the Anthology where it attained its final form. I have defined four stages in this process. Here I shall present the most characteristic picture of them that became evident by the investigation of the sources from the four abovementioned collections. The exceptions will be the aim of another study. What are the four stages and what allows us to speak of the Anastasimatarion? The first stage is revealed in the Oktoechos in the majority of the early Sticheraria from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The contents and repertory of this Oktoechos transmit a systematic (genre) order. The stichera are separate collections running through the eight modes any time: 88 anatolika for Saturday Vespers (StV), Sunday Orthros (SnO), and Sunday Vespers (SnV); 24 alphabetika with 8 theotokia stichera for StV; anabathmoi for SnO; and staurotheotokia for Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent. The 11 eothina for SnO and prosomoia for Great Lent are written in different places before or after these cycles. Some sources also insert theotokia prosomoia at the end. This order is in all of the consulted thirteenthcentury Sticheraria: manuscripts 812, 813, 815, and 818 from the Church Institute 91

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

in Sofia, Sinai manuscripts 1231 from 1236, 1472 from 1276, and 1585, and the manuscript D. Gr. 188 from the fourteenth-century from the “Ivan Dujčev” Center. The second stage is revealed in the Oktoechos of some of the thirteenth- and in all of the fourteenth-century Sticheraria. The contents and repertory of the Oktoechos in these Sticheraria transmit a cyclic (liturgical) order, that is, the collections of stichera run through the modes only once. The liturgical succession of chants in each mode is the following in mode 1: StV – 4 anatolika, 3 alphabetika with theotokion sticheron; SnO – anabathmoi and 4 anatolika; SnV – 3 anatolika; the staurotheotokia follow these cycles. Also, the eothina and theotokia prosomoia are included. The cycle of the Lenten prosomoia, however, is removed. It is put to its proper place: in the Triodion after Cheesefare Sunday. This order is displayed in the thirteenth-century manuscripts Sinai 1220 and 1484, and in the fourteenthcentury manuscripts Sinai 1221 from 1321, 1464 from 1323, 1223, Dujčev Gr. 49, etc. The third stage is revealed in four of the consulted sources, all of the fourteenth century: Ambrosiana 139 from 1341 and Sinai manuscripts 1230 from 1365, 1228 and 1471. The cyclic order is preserved. The distinctive feature of this stage is the inclusion of sets of resurrection hymns, some of which were notated for the first time. Such are the stichera anastasima for StV and SnO and the aposticha for StV.12 The four sources also contain the theotokia dogmatika: the inclusion of the latter in some sources from the previous two stages was sporadic. The complete order of the contents and repertory of the Oktoechos from this stage is (according to manuscript Sinai Gr. 1471, f. 299r–303v, mode 1): StV – 3 anastasima, 4 anatolika, theotokion dogmatikon, apostichon, 3 alphabetika with theotokion; SnO – anabathmoi, 4 anastasima and 4 anatolika; SnV – 3 anatolika; the theotokia and staurotheotokia follow the latter. The eothina are included in all of the sources. The theotokia prosomoia appear in two of them: Ambrosiana139 and Sinai 1230. Very interesting among the cited four manuscripts is Sinai 1228. There is a polychronion on its last pages written by John Lampadarios [Kladas], in which the name of Nilus, patriarch of Constantinople is read (it starts on f. 286r): “. . . ποιηθέντα παρὰ τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως κὺρ Νείλου, μέλος δὲ κὺρ Ἰωάννου τοῦ λαμπαδαρίου”. This must be Nilus Kerameus, who ruled from March-April 1380 to February 1 1388. If this identification is correct, Sinai 1228 might have been written within this time period, that is, in the last quarter of the fourteenth century. In addition to the above repertory, this manuscript contains four cycles of katavasia, which are written after the staurotheotokia. To my knowledge, this is the first inclusion of katavasia in the Oktoechos as a chapter of the Sticherarion.13 The katavasia, which show the liturgical place of the kanon as it was compiled in the morning service in the Oktoechos, deserve special attention. The first three cycles in mode 1 have the following designation: “τῇ κυριακῇ πρωὶ καταβασία”, “ἕτερα καταβασία”, and “εἰς τὸν ἅγιον Νικόλαο[ν]” (that is St. Nicolas of Myra, which memory is celebrated on December 6). The fourth cycle does not have a designation. According to Hirmologia published in Monumenta Musicaе Byzantinaе, the odes of the cycle are identified as “anastasima”, that is, 92

S tudying the O ktoechos

for the Resurrection.14 Because of the second ode included, the cycle might have been designed for the resurrection days during Great Lent. The katavasia are followed by makarismoi, the movable chants for the liturgy for Sunday. Again to my knowledge, this is the first inclusion of the notated resurrection makarismoi in the Oktoechos. It should be stressed further that the three anatolika stichera for SnV are not included. The fourth, last stage is revealed in some fifteenth-century sources of the new compiled type of books: the kalophonic Sticherarion and the Anthology. There are only two manuscripts of the type of the “standard abridged version” of the Sticherarion from the fifteenth century in the consulted manuscript collections: Sinai 1245 and 1564. Both of them, however, preserve the old tradition of the systematic order of the Oktoechos.15 In this respect, their compilation goes back at least to the thirteenth century. Of all the consulted kalophonic Sticheraria from the fifteenth century (kalophonic Sticherarion from the fourteenth century is not known) only Sinai 1255 includes a repertory from the Oktoechos.16 For the first time this repertory combines the evening psalm 140 for StV with the appropriate stichera anastasima. The same combination for the ordinary resurrection psalms for StV and for SnO with their stichera is revealed in two Anthologies from the fifteenth century: Sinai manuscripts 1463 and 1552.17 The two manuscripts are very close in terms of the contents and repertory of their Oktoechos. In both of them the latter is included after chants for Vespers (in 1552 after “chanted” Vespers of the “cathedral” ordo18). The combination of the ordinary evening and morning psalms for StV and SnO with the appropriate stichera anastasima is the most distinctive feature of the fourth stage in the changes of the Oktoechos. It has the following order in mode 1 (Sinai 1463, f. 80v–112r; Sinai 1552, f. 77r–122r): StV – psalm 140:1,2 “Κύριε, ἐκέκραξα”, 3 anastasima, 4 anatolika, theotokion dogmatikon in two versions (the second is with a terirem and is designated as “another tetraphonos”), apostichon, 3 alphabetika with theotokion; SnO – psalm 127:27a, 26a “Θεὸς Κύριος” in two versions (longer and shorter), anastasimon troparion (apolitikion), alleluia with triadikon for Quadragesima [in Sinai 1552 only: anabathmoi, polyeleos, antiphon and prokeimenon after the 6th ode of the kanon], melismatic author’s versions of “Πᾶσα πνοὴ” for the liturgy, psalm 50:3 after the Gospel, exapostelarion [in Sinai 1463: prokeimenon], the ordinary psalms 150:6 and 148:1 “Πᾶσα πνοὴ” and “Αἰνεῖτε τὸν Κύριον”, 4 anastasima, 4 anatolika, eothina, Great doxology and the makarismos, which is followed by the liturgy. The two Sinai manuscripts are the only examples of all the consulted fifteenthcentury sources that contain a full neumated Oktoechos’ repertory combining the resurrection psalms with the appropriate stichera. The manuscripts consulted from the sixteenth century do not contain such a repertory. The consulted subsequent sources from the seventeenth century onwards include a concise Oktoechos repertory, especially in terms of the SnO. The repertory has the following arrangement (Sinai 1301, f. 10r, mode 1): StV – psalm 140:1,2,3 anastasima, 4 anatolika, theotokion dogmatikon, apostichon, 3 alphabetika with theotokion; SnO – “Πᾶσα 93

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

πνοὴ”, “Αἰνεῖτε τὸν Κύριον”, 4 anastasima, 4 anatolika, and makarismos. The repertory of the Anthology follows after the 4th plagal mode.19 In Sinai 1301 and Hilandar GMS 39 it is ascribed to Chrysaphes the New. The rubric in Sinai 1304 specifies that it was sung in Constantinople. It reads: “The beginning of stichera anastasima as they are sung in the imperial city”. The order of this repertory is extremely stable.20 In all probability, it was established by Chrysaphes the New. In the majority of the sources this repertory is put at the beginning of the volume and is followed by the repertory of the Anthology. It is this Oktoechos repertory that appears also in a separate book from the second half of the seventeenth century.21 It became widespread and it is this one that is often labeled in the rubrics “Anastasimatarion”. Having been compiled along with the repertory of the Anthology, it represents the book of the Anastasimatarion-Anthology. One reads, for instance, in manuscript Ksyropotamou 266 from the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century, defined as an Anastasimatarion-Anthology (f. 9r):22 “Ἀρχὴ σὺν Θεῷ ἁγἰῳ τῶν ὀκτὼ κεκραγαρίων μετὰ τῶν δογματικῶν ὀκτὼ τοῦ Ἀναστασιματαρίου”. In comparison with the Oktoechos from the previous third stage, the Anastasimatarion does not include the anatolika for SnV, anabathmoi, theotokia, staurotheotokia, and theotokia prosomoia. The question of why these cycles were excluded from its notated contents after the fifteenth century and where and how they were transmitted are beyond the scope of this study. Also, beyond its aim are the questions of the role of Chrysaphes the New and Petros Lampadarios in the development of the Oktoechos-Anastasimatarion and the appearance of the “ἀργόν” and the “σύντομον” Anastasimatarion by the beginning of the nineteenth century. What should be stressed here is that according to the discussed sources, the combination of the resurrection psalms with the appropriate stichera for StV and SnO, the inclusion of the makarismoi and the lack of the cycles cited are the landmarks of the Anastasimataria consulted up to the nineteenth century.23 These landmarks differentiate the Oktoechos’ repertory within the “classical” Sticherarion from that one which is outside of it. The forerunner of the Anastasimatarion is maybe best presented in manuscript Sinai 1228. The latter contains the full order of the stichera anastasima for StV and SnO, excluding the 3 anatolika for SnV and including the neumated makarismoi for the first time among the consulted sources. A similar order is revealed in the Slavic manuscript Sinai 19, an unnotated Oktoechos of the 14th century, which is called in an inscription on f. 217r “нов wхтwих” (a “new Oktoechos”). According to Jorgen Raasted’s observations, the reformative work of St. John Koukouzeles led to the changes in the Oktoechos. Hence, in the light of the recent research, we may conclude that in the fourteenth century Koukouzeles had established the new order of the cyclic (liturgical) Oktoechos within the Sticherarion in which special attention was paid to the stichera anastasima (Koukouzeles actually may have been the leading figure in this process). In the fifteenth century, these stichera were combined with the appropriate evening and morning psalms. In doing so, the Anastasimatarion was formed. Thus, the earliest full notated examples of the Anastasimatarion containing the ordinary resurrection psalms and the appropriate 94

S tudying the O ktoechos

stichera, dogmatika and makarismoi could be found already in the fifteenth century. They are well presented in Sinai manuscripts 1463 and 1552.24 The Hilandar manuscripts from the end of the eighteenth and/or the very beginning of the nineteenth century deserve special attention.25 These manuscripts give an important picture for the development of the Balkan Orthodox musical culture as a whole.26 Dimitrije Stefanović considers two of them as containing an Anastasimatarion in Slavic (Bоскресник): 309 and 311.27 Hilandar 668 should be added to the list. The order of the Slavic Voskresnik in the three manuscripts is the same as the one presented above. Only the makarismoi/блажени are not included. The compilation of the Hilandar manuscripts remains a rare example in placing the Anastasimatarion before the Menaion as a section of the Sticherarion.28 Of two Hilandar manuscripts, 309 and 311, the latter contains only the festal Menaion. Hilandar 668 contains a Menaion, Triodion, and Pentekostarion. Actually, none of the Sticheraria consulted from the post Byzantine period contains an Oktoechos as a last section of its volume (it is well known that the Oktoechos in the “classical” Sticherarion follows the office for Sunday of All Saints). This might be one of the distinctive features of the post Byzantine Sticherarion, at least up to the beginning of the nineteenth century. The Hilandar manuscripts, having placed the Anastasimaarion’s repertory before that of the Menaion, actually prove the independent transmission of this repertory and its separation from the “classical” notated body of the Sticherarion. It could be stressed finally that the involvement of other sources might prove or contest some of conclusions in this study. This would be quite natural. I am also aware that many interesting questions, and primarily, questions related to intrinsic music, remain to be researched. The hope is that the topic discussed will provoke another study.

Notes 1 The Oktoechos is the last section of the full Sticherarion. It is included after the Menaion and Triodion, see Kujumdzieva, S. Studying the Oktoechos: from the Oktoechos to the Anastasimatarion. – In: Church, State and Nation in Orthodox Church Music. Joensuu, 2010, 122–131. 2 Stefanović, D., M. Velimirović. Peter Lampadarios and Metropolitan Serafim of Bosnia. – In: Studies in Eastern Chant. Vol. 1. Ed. by E. Wellesz, M. Velimirović. NY, 1966, 67–89. 3 Ibidem. Important observations on the changes in the Oktoechos from the 11th through the 19th century are done by D. Petrović in her book: Osmoglasnik u muzićkoj tradiciji južnih slovena. Beograd, 1982. See also: Kujumdzieva, S. Remodeling the Oktoechos: Purpose and Meaning (Based on Materials from the 12th through the 16th Century). – In: Cantus Planus. Budapest, 2003, 67–89; Idem. Changing the Sticherarion: Tradition and Innovations. – In: Musica Antiqua Europae Orientalis. Bydgoszcz, 2003, 33–51; Idem. John Koukouzeles’ Sticherarion. The Formation of the Notated Anastasimatarion. Sofia, 2004. 4 Širli, A. The Anastasimatarion. Bucarest, 1986. 5 Ibidem, 54. 6 Ibidem.

95

S tudies on L iturgical B ooks

7 Raasted, J. Koukouzeles’ Revision of the Sticherarion and Sinai Gr. 1230. – In: Spolia Berolinensia: Berliner Beiträge zur Medievistik. B. 7: Laborare fraters unum: Festschrift Lazslo Dobszay zum 60. Geburtstag. Herausg. von J. Szendrei, D. Hiley. Hildesheim-Zürich, 1995, 261–277; idem. Koukouzeles’ Sticherarion. – In: Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens. Vol. 2: Tradition and Reform. Ed. by C. Troelsgård. Athens, 1997, 9–21. 8 Ibidem. In private conversation with the author, J. Raasted made a distinction between the Oktoechos from the “classical” period (up to the 15th century) and the Anastasimatarion from the 17th century onwards. 9 Raasted, J. Op. cit. 10 The terms “cyclic” and “systematic” order were coined by O. Strunk in: Triodium Athoum (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Vol. IX). Ed. by E. Follieri, O. Strunk. Copenhagen, 1975, 7. 11 Ibidem. 12 The aposticha are missing in Sinai 1230; the anastasima for the SnO are included in Sinai 1228 and 1471. 13 The katavasia were mentioned by J. Raasted without any special consideration, see Raasted, J. Op. cit. 14 Tillyard, H. J. W. The Hymns of the Oktoechos (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae, Transcripta). Vol. III, part 1. Copenhagen, 1940; Vol. V, part 2. Copenhagen, 1949. 15 G. Stathis gives an Oktoechos in the Sticherarion from the 15th century in which the old systematic order is also preserved: Dochiariou 331 from the second half of the 15th century. It contains (f. 358r): 88 anatolika, 24 alphabetika, anabathmoi, etc., see Στάθης, Γ. Θ. Τὰ χειρόγραφα Βυζαντινῆς μουσικῆς – Ἅγιον Ὄρος. Κατάλογος περιγραφικὸς τῶν χειρογράφων κωδίκων Βυζαντινῆς μουσικῆς τῶν ἀποκειμένων ἐν ταῖς Βιβλιοθήκαις τῶν ἱερῶν Μονῶν καὶ Σκητῶν τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους. Ἀθῆναι. Τ. Α΄ 1975, 380. 16 I have in mind the Sinai Gr. manuscripts 1234, 1250, 1251, 1584, etc. The repertory of the Oktoechos in Sinai 1255, which starts on f. 164r, is described by Annette Jung in detail, see Jung, A. The Settings of the Evening and Morning Psalms according to the manuscript Sinai 1255. – Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Age Grec et Latin, 47. Copenhaque, 1984, 3–63. K. Clark defines this manuscript as Psaltike Mathematarion from the 15th century, see Clark, K. Checklist of Manuscripts in St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinai. Washington, D.C., 1952, 12. 17 Mariana Dimitrova suggests that the combination of the services from Vespers and the Orthros in the Akolouthiai-Anthologies marks the beginning of the Anastasimatarion, see Димитрова, M. Утринната служба във византийските музикални ръкописи от ХІV в. – Palaeobulgarica, 3, 1998, 3–20. 18 Williams, E. V. John Koukouzeles’ Reform of Byzantine Chanting for Great Vespers in the Fourteenth Century. Ph.D., Yale University, New Haven, CT, 1968, 74. According to K. Clark, Sinai 1463 is a Psaltike from the 15th century and Sinai 1552 is a Sticherarion from the same century, see Clark, K. Op. cit., 13. 19 This concise order is also revealed in manuscripts Sinai Gr. 1302 to 1304 and 1326, Dujčev D. Gr. 61 and 115, Hilandar GMS 39, etc. According to K. Clark the manuscript Sinai Gr. 1326 is a Psaltike from the 12th century, see Clark, K. Op. cit., 12. The same 12th century for this manuscript is also given in Beneshević, V. N. Catalogus codicum mss graecorum, qui in monasterio Sanctae Catharinae in Monte Sina aservantur. Petrograd, 1914. The manuscripts Sinai Gr. 1301 to 1304 are dated by K. Clark from the 16th century. All of them, however, contain pieces by Chrysaphes the New, which means that they should have been written as early as the second half of the 17th century. 20 Only the place of psalm 140 is variable: it is written either at the beginning of this repertory or after the Great Vespers in the Anthology.

96

S tudying the O ktoechos

21 The repertory has preserved the old systematization in three sections. The first one includes psalm 140 and the stichera “εἰς τὸ Κύριε, ἐκέκραξα”: 3 anastasima, 4 anatolika, and theotokion dogmatikon; the second one is designated as “aposticon” and includes: apostichon, 3 alphabetika and theotokion; the third one is indicated by “εἰς τοὺς αἴνους” and includes pasapnoaria and their stichera: 4 anastasima and 4 anatolika for SnO. The makarismos is written at the end of each mode with its own designation. The 11 eothina follow the 4th plagal mode. 22 Stathis, G. T. Op. cit., 17. 23 The anabathmoi appear in the 19th century “argon Anastasimatarion” containing the extensive repertory. 24 D. Stefanović considers Manuel Chrysaphes as the author of the “old” Anastasimatarion. His argument is that Chrysaphes’ name is read on the top of f. 1r in manuscript Sinai Gr. 1326, see Stefanović, D, M. Velimirović. Op. cit. Chrysaphes’ name, however, is written by a later hand. The same hand is revealed in Sinai 1312 and 1321 with the year 1893. 25 I would like to acknowledge the Monks of Hilandar monastery for their forethought in seeking ways to preserve and make accessible the manuscript treasures in their library and to thank my colleagues at the Hilandar Research Library and the Resource Center for Medieval Slavic Studies for their excellent working conditions and the care they show both the scholars visiting their library and materials in their keeping. I am especially very grateful to Dr. P. Matejić, former director of the Hilandar Research Center for medieval Slavic studies at the Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, and to Ms. M. A. Johnson, the present director of the Hilandar Center. 26 The Hilandar musical manuscripts were an object of discussion in the following publications: Matejić, M. Hilandar Slavic Codices: A Checklist of the Slavic Manuscripts from the Hilandar Monastery (Mount Athos, Greece). – In: The Ohio State University Slavic Papers, 2. Columbus, 1976; Богдановиħ, Д. Kаталог кирилских рукописа манастира Хиландара. Београд, 1978; Яковљевиħ, А. Инвентар музичких рукописа манастира Хиландара. – B: Хиландарски зборник, 4, Београд, 1978, 193–234; Matejić, P. Watermarks of the Chilandar Slavic Codices. A Descriptive Catalog. Sofia, 1981; Stefanović, D. An Additional Checklist of Hilandar Slavonic Music Manuscripts. – B: Хиландарски зборник, 7. Београд, 1989, 163–176; Matejić, P., H. Thomas. Catalog. Manuscripts on Microform of the Hilandar Research Library, 2 volms. Columbus, 1992; Куюмджиева, С. Българска музика в Хилендар. София, 2008, etc. 27 Stefanović, D, M. Velimirović. Op. cit. 28 An Anastasimatarion and Sticherarion compiled together in a single volume might be seen in the cited Katalog by G. Stathis, vol. A, p. 104 and 208: manuscripts Ksyropotamou 306 and 333 from the second half of the 18th century. The Anastasimatarion in these manuscripts is compiled by Chrysaphes the New and the Sticherarion – by Germanos of New Patras.

97

Part 3

 

STUDIES ON DISTINGUISHED MEN OF LETTERS

9 S T. C Y R I L A N D S T. M E T H O D I U S In Looking for the Roots of Slavic Orthodox Church Music

The beginning of Slavic Orthodox church music, part of the whole Eastern Christian culture, is connected with the activity of the two holy brothers St. Cyril and St. Methodius. This is evidenced by the sources, which give information about them: their Vitas or biographies, services, praises, messages, letters, chronicles, etc. The Old Bulgarian writer Chernorizets Hrabar says in his work “For the letters” that the activity of the two brothers comes as a result of a certain state and cultural development of Slavdom, i.e. their activity became possible at a time when the Christian religion was already widespread among the Slavs and they joined the movements characteristics of both the Byzantine East and the Latin West. There is a huge literature about Cyril and Methodius. However, our knowledge of their musical activity is still very limited and contradictory. The reason for this is primarily due to the fact that there are no entirely notated works from their time: the systematically notated liturgical books that have reached us from both East and West are only from the tenth century on. However, this does not mean that in the established liturgical rituals music has not been performed, as long as there were written hymnographic texts (texts intended for singing in church). Music, whether recitative or melodic, occupies a large part of the liturgical action.1 A sure argument for the fact that unnotated hymnographic texts were sung in the time of the holy brethren, apart from information about the musical performance of such in a church in the sources, are the modal designations in manuscripts from their time. Such designations are systematically indicated in liturgical books that have come down to us from the eighth and the beginning of the ninth century: by the time of the two brothers the modal oktoechos system was already completely built in the East, and from there it was adopted in the West.2 The presence of modal designations is one of the most important and necessary parameters for the musical performance of the chanted texts: the modal designations are a guide for the performance of melodies, as they convey their intonation movement, medial and final cadences, volume, theological semantics, etc. Each researcher should rely on the information in the sources, on the one hand, and on the other, he/she should consider this information in the context of the historical situation in which the given object of research is documented. We believe that the history is a process and nothing arises in an empty place, but it is determined by a number of objective DOI: 10.4324/9781003377238-12

101

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

and subjective complex reasons that give direction for its further development. We will try to adhere to such a methodological position in the course of the exposition. Three different theses are expressed about the work of Cyril and Methodius on the chant texts, taking or not taking into account the overall situation of their activity – a situation that affects both the development of liturgical music and the liturgical rituals in their time:3 firstly, the two brothers translated the texts of the hymns necessary for worship, but did not notate them; secondly, Cyril and Methodius began to translate the texts of the chants from Greek into Old Slavic, but did not translate everything and their work in this regard was continued by their pupils in Bulgaria; and thirdly, Cyril and Methodius did not translate the texts of the hymns: the cultural, historical, and liturgical situation in Great Moravia, when they went to teach the Slavic alphabet, did not presuppose the creation of a hymnography, i.e. texts necessary for singing were not created by them.4 Further, the main questions that are discussed in connection with the musical activity of the two brothers, are: did they study music, did they translate the texts of the basic books designated for singing that we know today from a little later time (the Menaion, Triodion-Pentekostarion and Oktoechos), what kind of church order did they use – monastic or cathedral, what principles guided their musical translations, what kind of chant did they use – Byzantine, Latin or some original Slavic, related to the Slavic folklore, etc. Before discussing these issues, we should emphasize the following in terms of both the context in which Cyril and Methodius worked and the nature of medieval art and culture in general. Firstly, the two brothers were sent among the Western Slavs by the first men in Byzantium – the Emperor Michael III and Patriarch Photios, who were guided by the state and cultural interests in attracting the Western Slavs to the Eastern model of worship. The fact that the two brothers were chosen for this work was not accidental: Cyril and Methodius were educated in Byzantium and no doubt both of them has got the highest education, especially in the field of worship and theology. They were chosen and sent to the West as Byzantine missionaries, well acquainted with the Byzantine Christian model and Eastern culture (the latter is associated primarily with those created in Egypt, Syria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Georgia and Armenia), including church music.5 Secondly, the ninth century was a formative era: after the Seventh Ecumenical Council, held in Nicaea between September 24 and October 13 787, the processing of hymnographic reforms began with the Studios monastery as a center for these reforms. The Studios monastery arose as the largest liturgical and legislative center in the East, displacing Jerusalem in this respect. The Typikon of the monastery shows that the festive annual liturgical cycle, as it was established in Constantinople, was completed at the beginning of the ninth century with the repertory for the fixed liturgical circle (the basis of modern Menaion), for Lent and Easter time, determined by the date of Resurrection (the basis of modern Triodion and Pentekostarion) and for the Easter and weekly cycles (included in the modern Oktoechos).6 In fact, the ninth century was the time when the hymnographic books were completed in their modern format in the East. Thirdly, most of the repertory 102

S t . C yril and S t . M ethodius

was transmitted orally:7 what was performed more often during the liturgical year was excluded from the books. Many chants were remembered from memory.8 The Typikon of the Great Church Hagia Sophia in Constantinople from the ninth century, for instance, does not contain weekly services. Fourthly, the Greek language did not have any ethnic connotation in the countries outside Byzantium: the Greek was perceived as a sacred language of the cult used throughout the Eastern Christian church – as a cultural language of the rich heritage of Antiquity and as a language of administration. In Bulgaria, which adopted the Byzantine Christian model, even after the introduction of the Old Bulgarian as the official language in 893, the Greek language has not been replaced, but continued to be used alongside the Old Bulgarian as a legacy of the Cyril and Methodius era.9 Fifthly, church music both in the East and West had a common root – the early Christian music. Eastern Byzantine and Western Latin (Gregorian) music in the ninth century were genetically similar (the separation of the two churches, as we know, took place two centuries later – in 1054). The similarity between the two “musics” was on the first place that both were monodic: chants of both were distributed in typologically similar books for the feasts of the church year, related to Christ, the Mother of God, the saints, the resurrection and the common services; both of them further had typologically similar modal system of four authentic and four plagal modes, as well as the intonation formulas for entering each mode; both used a basic compositional technique of the so-called centon principle, that of the intonation complexes or of the melodic formulas, called theseis;10 both had two forms of worship – monastic and cathedral, differentiated by the use of the Psalter;11 most of the genres used were again typologically similar developing their own psalmodic and hymnodic forms: psalms, biblical songs, alleluia, processional chants, etc.12 If we look in perspective in the next tenth century, when the hymnographic texts began to be systematically notated, we will see that the similarity between Eastern and Western music continues – the early notations, respectively the Old Byzantine and the Old Frankish, are adiastematic (non-interval). The two have a lot of signs that are very similar in their graphical forms. It is believed that the early notations originate from common primary sources – the prosodic signs of the text and the chironomy, the movement of the hands and fingers.13 And sixthly, we should have in mind that the literature in the Middle Ages was maintained by methods completely different from modern ones: the main principles were translation and compilation. The books transmitted the scriptures bequeathed by the Holy Fathers. They were written in the two sacred liturgical languages established in Europe, Greek and Latin. The translation from one language into another has required the meaning embedded in the scriptures to be preserved. The Vita of Methodius confirms this: “It is not the words we adhere to, but their meaning”.14 Every deviation was perceived a heresy. The same is true when compiling individual works. No one wanted to convey something different or individual. The books were sacred – they were placed on the altar. Writers often refer to themselves as “miserable”, “sinful” and “humble”, i.e. they were considered themselves as executors of God’s will. Variant places in the same pieces in different copies, did 103

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

exist: manuscript tradition abounds with such variants. They might be due to the different interpretations, to some local practice, to the understanding or the taste of the writer, etc. The meaning of the texts, however, was absolutely preserved. Writers, copyists, compilers, etc. had one main goal: to preserve the meaning of the Christian doctrines bequeathed by the Holy Church Fathers. Study of the hymnographic texts in Greek and their corresponding translations into Slavic reveals two important principles in translation of chanted texts (observing, of course, the meaning of the translations): isosilabia – preserving the number of the syllables of the original text and homotonia – preserving the position of the accents.15 A few more important historical facts related to the activities of Cyril and Methodius should be emphasized. Cyril and Methodius were sent among the Western Slavs, as was said, with the state mission to integrate them into the Byzantine cultural model. The situation was used when the Great Moravian Prince Rostislav tried to stop the influence of the German clergy in his country and to replace the Latin books with Slavic ones. The struggle of the two brothers to establish a Slavic alphabet in Great Moravia and Pannonia (parts of the lands of present-day Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Austria) is well known: first by two of them in the presence of Pope Adrian II, and then, after the death of Cyril, by Methodius under the next Pope John VIII. What the two brothers achieved was exceptional for the time: the official recognition of the Slavic liturgical books. The Slavic alphabet became the fourth sacred alphabet that was used in the Christian Church along with the three other such languages – Hebrew, Greek and Latin. However, after the death of Methodius in 885, the work of the two brothers, as we know, failed in the West. And here begins the great role of Bulgaria. It was Bulgaria that accepted their pupils and created the best conditions for their work. The heritage of the Slavic Apostles was saved here and developed further according to the modern achievements in the Eastern Church. It became a basis for the Slavs who adopted the Orthodox culture – for the Russians in the tenth century, the Serbs in the twelfth century and the Walaho-Moldavians in the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries. Looking at the sources preserved about the life and work of the two brothers, first of all we will focus on the information whether they have studied music. What do the sources tell us in this regard? Chapter 4 of the Vita of Cyril states that he studied music along with other “sciences” in Byzantium: “He learned music and all the Hellenic teaching” (“Научи же ся и мусикии и всем прочим елинским учением”).16 Music at that time in both East and West was one of the so-called seven liberal arts that constituted the “humanitarian trivium” (grammar, rhetoric and logic) and the “scientific quadrivium” (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music). One of the sources, “Praise for St. Cyril and Methodius”, probably written by the disciple of the two brothers Clement of Ohrid, confirms for Methodius that he studied music when was in the monastery on Mount Olympus. It is said: “They learned psalms and singing and spiritual songs” (“поучаюся в псалмех и пениих и песних духовних”).17 This 104

S t . C yril and S t . M ethodius

expression is most likely a topos regarding the study of Christian music. It is close to the advice that St. Paul addresses to the followers of Christ, namely to express themselves “in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs”.18 At the same time, he testified that music played an important role in the lives of the first Christians. The three terms are widely discussed by the Church Fathers, such as Origen, Basil the Great, Augustine and others. Undoubtedly, they refer to the Christian liturgical music and have been used in both East and West.19 Their significance is not specifically explained. The term “psalms” could be referred to the performance of psalms and biblical songs that were intended for evening and morning worship: biblical songs (also called “odes”) were included in the Psalters after the last psalm 150 or 151.20 The term “hymns” could be referred to the hymn poetry – after the fourth century various hymns entered the liturgy, such as “Gladsome Light”, a hymn that is performed at the Entrance, a trinitarian, performed in different places in the liturgy, cherubika songs, “The Only Begotten Son”, etc. The term “spiritual songs” probably refer to alleluias, hymns, praises and other chants, performed melismatically during a festal worship. It could be concluded that Cyril and Methodius were acquainted with the liturgical music practiced in the Church in their time. That means that they were acquainted with the two main types of chanting in terms of the link between text and music – the psalmody and hymnody with their respective genres and with the main chant styles: syllabic, syllabo-neumatic and melismatic. Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs were created in such melodic styles.21 The main task of the work of the two brothers was to compile books in Slavic for the liturgical services. What do the sources tell us about this? The earliest information on this subject comes from Great Moravia. According to Cyril’s Vita, the two brothers spent about 40 months or more than three years there: from 863 to 867. Chapter 15 of this Vita speaks of a translation work regarding the liturgy:22 “Soon the whole ecclesiastical order was translated, and they learned Orthros and hours, liturgy and Vespers, the all-night Vigil and the secret services” (“Въскоре же ся вес цръковныи чин преложи, и научиа утрени и годинам, обедней и вечерни, и павечерници, и тайней службе”).23 Two other sources confirm the same: chapter 8 of Methodius’ Vita says that the books were translated “according to the whole church order” (“по всему църковъному чину”);24 we read in the Italian legend that the two brothers created “all the writings necessary for church worship”. The announced translated parts of the liturgy are discussed by the researchers differently. “The whole church order” is widely interpreted: from the translation of all parts of the worship to the translation of texts of the Book of Hours, the special services (Trebnik) and the Book of Services.25 Certainly the prayers necessary for worship have been translated. However, the quoted expression does not give grounds to believe that only certain parts of the liturgy were translated: it is clearly stated that “the whole church order” has been translated. The latter expression certainly refers to a translated church Typikon,26 that is, the church order, which means that the two brothers worked according to the whole church order or according to the church Typikon. The question arises: which Typikon did they work on – the monastic one or the cathedral, and 105

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

respectively, which Typikon did they use in their worship? The prevailing opinion is that Cyril and Methodius used the cathedral Typikon.27 However, studying the early sources gives evidence that the two brothers may have used the monastic Typikon that was compiled in the Studios monastery as well, or at least it was known to them. According to the earliest copies of this Typikon, which synthesized elements of both monastic and cathedral urban liturgical practices, it was already in use after 842.28 What are the arguments that Cyril and Methodius may have used it? Firstly, the Studios monastery was an imperial monastery by its status, i.e. it was ruled by an imperial authority. The same order was in the monastery on Mount Olympus, where Methodius studied and where the monastic order was probably observed. Secondly, the first abbot of the Studios monastery, Theodore the Studite, was in the monastery in Olympus as well: Theodore played a leading role in the liturgical and hymnographic reforms in the Studite monastery. And thirdly, the Studite monks performed worship seven times a day:29 in the morning, in the four small canonical hours (first, third, sixth and ninth), in the evening and in the supper, which are the same services quoted in Cyril’s Vita. These facts give reason to believe that the two brothers knew the Studite Typikon. Their work as to which Typikon to use must have been selective: it was determined by the circumstances where they should serve – in a monastery or in a city church.30 We see from the quoted passage that the main parts of worship were translated: the “morning” is clear what it means; the term “hours” according to Blagoj Chiflyanov, who believes that Cyril and Methodius performed only cathedral (asamatic) worship, refers to the third-sixth hour, which is typical for the cathedral worship;31 however, if we take into consideration the monastic worship, which is quite probable, the number of hours must be full: first, third, sixth and ninth; the said “lunch” must refer to the liturgy performed at noon; the “all-night Vigil” follows the evening service and, as can be seen, it is quoted immediately after that service. The term “secret services” refers to a number of rituals: the Eucharistic kanon, the heart of every liturgy, when the Holy Communion, baptism, ordination, marriage, repentance, etc. are served.32 The translation of the liturgical books into Slavic is an extremely important part of the activity of the two brothers. It is believed that this activity began in Byzantium in 862–863 and ended in Great Moravia.33 Which books did Cyril and Methodius translate according to the sources? Chapter 15 of Methodius’ Vita states that in Great Moravia Cyril first translated “The Psalter and the Gospel with the Apostle and selected Church Services” (“Псалтир бо бе тъкмо и евангелие с апостолъм и избраними службами църковними с Философом преложил първее”).34 The first part of this expression, which mentions the three holy books, is clear. The second part, “selected church services”, is not quite clear. It provokes different interpretations. According to Christian Hanick, it refers to a translation of selected material of the Hirmologion, the collection of hirmoi used as models for the troparia of the kanon that is called in the Byzantine sources “akoluthia” or sequence.35 Hristo Kodov interprets the expression as a translation of individual parts of Euchology (the Prayer book).36 106

S t . C yril and S t . M ethodius

Blagoj Chiflyanov connects it with the sacraments and rites, i.e. the two brothers have prepared in Slavic some special services, which could be funeral, wedding, baptism, etc. According to him, they have prepared everything necessary for the daily services, annual feasts, such as Lenten and post-Lenten periods, along with the sacraments and rites.37 In particular, the expression “selected church services” testifies again that the work of Cyril and Methodius was selective – not only in terms of what church order to use, but also what books to translate as priority and take with for their worship for a given time and place. An argument for the selective work of the two brothers, for instance, is the said by them in Great Moravia: “. . . the hours of the kanon [i.e. the sequence of hours] and the divine liturgy has to be sung publicly in the church of God in the Slavic language”. The sources tell us nothing about the hymnographic books used by Cyril and Methodius in their worship – whether they were those, which we know from the end of the tenth century (Menaion, Triodion-Pentekostarion and Oktoechos) or the specialized notated hymnographic books of the same time (the monastic Stiherarion and Hirmologion and the cathedral Asmatikon and Psaltikon). The silence of the sources in this respect is emphasized by the researchers.38 Hence, the question arises: if the two brothers have practiced liturgical music in the church (it is certainly that they did such music according to the sources) what kind of hymnographic book or books did they use? Fortunately, our knowledge has been significantly enriched in recent years in terms of what was sung in the ninth century. The hymnographic book that existed at that time was the universal liturgical book widely distributed in the Eastern Christian world, known as Tropologion in Greek, Iadgari in Georgian, Tropligin in Syriac and Šaraknoc in Armenian.39 The book contains chants going back to the fifth century. Its “global” repertory, that is compiled for the entire church year, is well presented in the copies of the Georgian Iadgari: the cycles of fixed and movable feasts follow the church calendar in an uninterrupted liturgical order.40 The movable cycle is usually included between the Hypapante on February 2 and the feast of St. George on April 23. Chants in oktoechos sequence and common services follow most often the fixed, movable and again fixed feasts. They are provided with modal designations. No other hymnographic book is known until the end of the tenth century: up to that time all the books with hymnographic texts bare the title Tropologion.41 Study the book shows that genres of troparia, kanons, stihera, hypakoi, prokimena, etc. are included, i.е. chants referring to both the hymnic and the psalmodic kind of chanting or texts based on church poetry and on the psalms. It is assumed that the title of the book was given because of the troparia included: it is assumed that Tropologion means a book of collected troparia. In the first half of the ninth century the book was worked out by the generation of Theodore the Studite in the Studios monastery: the Menaion and the Triodion parts of it were enriched with a number of new feasts celebrated in and around Constantinople and weekly cycle was added to the oktoechos resurrection sequences. The volume of the book grew enormously in terms of feasts, works, genres and authors. Its “global” repertory began dividing into separate books, 107

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

containing respectively the cycles for the fixed, moving and the oktoechos services. The separate books retained the universal name Tropologion in the beginning of their formation. This is evidenced by the Sinai Greek manuscripts from the ninth – eleventh centuries with the repertory of the Menaion and Triodion-Pentekostarion cycles, respectively 607, 556, 579, 759, etc. All of these manuscripts have kept their name Tropologion in their initial rubrics or in the left inscriptions. Besides, all the chants in them bare the modal designations. The formation of the modern hymnographic books, such as Menaion, Triodion-Pentekostarion and Oktoechos, is based on the division of the book into separate parts, but the new titles were gradually established between the late tenth and twelfth centuries. After that the old name Tropologion is dropped and ceases to be used. The book was also distributed in Southern Italy or Magna Graecia. Two large Tropologia originate from there, containing chants with an archaic type of notation: Vat. gr. 771 of the eleventh century with a repertory of the movable feasts from the Preliminary Period of Lent to the Saturday before Pentekost, and Vat. gr. 2008 from 1102 with a repertory for the fixed feasts from the end of December to the end of April (see about them the part II.2. and 3. in this book).42 The Tropologion should have been the hymnographic book that the holy brothers Cyril and Methodius were used in their worship. It was the universal hymnographic book and probably that is why, it was not necessary this book to be mentioned in the sources concerning the two brothers: the use of the book should have been implied. Reasons to believe that the Tropologion is the hymnographic book used by the two brothers give us not only the fact that it was the universal hymnographic book with a very wide distribution, but also that this book was in use in the Studios Monastery: it was pointed out that the two brothers must have been acquainted with the practice of this monastery, which in turn followed the traditions of the Jerusalem St. Sabas monastery. Since the ninth century onwards the Studite monastery had a strong impact on the organization of the monasteries in the East.43 The fact that the Tropologion was used in the worship of the Studios monastery is attested by Theodore the Studite. As abbot of the monastery, he asked Patriarch Thomas I of Jerusalem to send monks to introduce Sabaitic chanting to his monastery. Theodore reminds the monks coming from there to bring two special books: the Ladder (the classic monastery text of St. John of the Ladder, known also as John the Klimakos), intended to be read in a church during Lent, and the Tropologion.44 Two very early hymnographic sources also give reasons to assume that the Tropologion was the hymnographic book used by the holy brothers in the church. Both sources are in Slavic, which suppose that the Tropologion was translated into this language as well. Most likely it was written in Glagolitic, the earliest Slavic alphabet. The first source is a recently discovered Glagolitic fragment of one sheet, housed in the library of St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai, Sinai NE.45 The fragment is supposed to have been written between the first quarter and the 108

S t . C yril and S t . M ethodius

middle of the eleventh century but according to its paleographical characteristics it goes back to the Cyrilo-Methodian era. It turned out to be one of the earliest texts in the Old Slavic or Old Bulgarian and the only known source of Glagolitic script with chant designations. In all probability it originates from Western Bulgaria. The archaic form of its letters brings it closer to the famous Sinaitic Psalter and the writing of some words reveals a closeness to the Glagolitic Kiev sheets (Kiev Missal) of the first half of the tenth century. The Sinai fragment is considered in direct connection with the activities of Cyril and Methodius in Great Moravia and as evidence that the holy brothers used Slavic books written in Glagolitic in their worship.46 The chants that are read on both sides of the fragment are certainly the following: the theotokion “To the Virgin diligently” in mode 4, the troparion “Wise Virgin Vigil” in mode plagal 1(the mode is denoted by the Old Bulgarian term for plagal mode “iskar”, that is, “spark”), the troparion “The bridegroom is coming” in mode 6 of the Consecration of the Bridegroom for the beginning of the Holy Week, “Glory”, “Now and then”, the beginning of the 17th kathisma of psalm 118 (the so-called “innocent”), another troparion, again “Glory“ in mode 3, and the troparion “Glory to You, our God, glory to You”, a rarely written chant that is found in the midnight service in two early Greek sources of the type of the Book of the Hours.47 It is established that the sequence of the chants in the Glagolitic fragment does not coincide with any other one in manuscripts from the same time.48 It is important for us that the texts of some of the chants are found in the Tropologion: the text of the troparion of the Mother of God is found in the Tbilisi manuscript H-2123 from the ninth century, a Tropologion of the type of one of the earliest preserved copies of the Georgian Iadgari;49 the texts of the two other troparia, the theotokion and the “Bridegroom” are found in Vat. gr. 771, the Triodion Tropologion with chants in theta notation. The other early Slavic hymnographic source is the famous Ilija’s book from the twelfth century, a copy of a South Slavic or Old Bulgarian manuscript, with archaic characteristics that also go back to the Cyrilo-Methodian era in terms of its structure, language, repertory, liturgical order, notation, etc. Its main corpus reflects the liturgical practice from the end of the ninth – the beginning of the tenth century,50 the time when Clement of Ohrid, Naum of Preslav and Ohrid and Constantin of Preslav worked in Bulgaria. Services for six months are preserved – from September to February; they are followed by stichera for the Assumption (August 15), Sts. Boris and Gleb (May 3, July 24), Christina of Tire (July 24) and the prophet Elijah (July 20). Many of the texts are from the Cyrilo-Methodian tradition. The oldest kanon for Cyril the Philosopher is revealed in this book.51 The book as a whole preserves chants from lost hymnographic genres, which are no longer found in the second half of the eleventh century. An inscription before the February 2 connects the Ilija’s book to the Tropologion (f. 122v). We read that there begins Lent, i.e. it is clearly attested the typical order of liturgical sequences characteristic for the Tropologion. This inscription remains unique for the Slavic sources. It gives reasons to assume that there was probably a Triodion in the Old Bulgarian protograph of the book, which 109

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

– according to the structure of an uninterrupted liturgical order – suggests that this protograph must have been a Tropologion.52 The manuscript proves its antiquity by the fact that it remains the only East Slavic liturgical source that has not been edited according to the Studite-Alexios Typikon, which suggests that it must have been compiled before the introduction of the latter in Russia or by the middle of the eleventh century:53 the liturgical sequences are not coordinated with the redaction of the Studite-Alexios Typikon, and the chants included differ from both the Greek originals and their respective Slavic chants in later copies.54 It is also assumed that the time of the initial compilation of the book could have been that of Cyril and Methodius, i.e. its core was probably formed in Great Moravia. A little later its protograph received a form close to the one that came to us. This could have been the time when the pupils of the two brothers came to Bulgaria.55 At that time, as it was said above, the separate parts of the Tropologion were divided and the Menaion, Triodion-Pentekostarion and Oktoechos have got their modern format. In other words, if the holy brothers Cyril and Methodius knew the book Tropologion in its “global” syncretic form, composed of an annual liturgical repertory in an uninterrupted continuous liturgical order of fixed, movable and oktoechos sequences, their pupils in Bulgaria should have followed the tendency started in the Studios monastery of separating the book into immovable, movable and eight-mode successions leading to the formation of the modern hymnographic books. Hence, both the Glagolitic fragment and the Ilija’s book suggest that the Tropologion is the hymnographic book used by the holy brothers Cyril and Methodius. Very likely it was compiled in Glagolitic. We do not know how exactly the name of the book was adopted in Slavic, if it was at all: hymnographic Glagolitic books are not preserved with rubrics.56 The sources inform us about the liturgical musical activity of the two brothers in the western capital Rome. They also inform us about the original hymnographic pieces created by them. Cyril and Methodius were in Rome by the end of 867 or the beginning of 868. They carried with the relics of Pope St. Clement of Rome, which they found at the sea near Kherson during their Khazar mission in 861 (it is written ςγςθ = 6369, that is, 861). Pope Clement of Rome was the first Father of the Church and the third of the successors of the Apostle Peter to the Roman Episcopal See. He died a martyr’s death, thrown into the sea, tied to an anchor. Cyril wrote a piece in honor of the pope, which was probably performed on November 25, when the memory of St. Clement of Rome is celebrated. Anastasius the Librarian, cardinal, scholar, librarian of the Roman Church, adviser to several Roman popes, such as Nicholaos I, Adrian II and John VIII, wrote in an extensive letter to Bishop Gauderich of Velletri about this work calling it the Hymn:57 “By the way, in Greek schools is sung what this truly wonderful Philosopher wrote on the occasion of the discovery of the holy relics of Blessed Clement . . . The scroll of the hymn . . . I did not dare to translate, because if the syllables are too little or too many in the Latin translation, it would not be well arranged, corresponding to the melody of harmony”.58 110

S t . C yril and S t . M ethodius

The Hymn is considered an original work of Cyril. What do the sources say about the original works of Cyril and Methodius, intended for singing? The Legend that tells about the discovery of the relics of St. Clement speaks of this.59 After the arrival of the two brothers in Rome, the relics of St. Clement of Rome were taken to the cathedral of St. Paul. Hymns, such as “Glory to You, Lord, glory to You”, were sung on the way to the cathedral.60 The Hymn by Cyril was sung after entering the church. The following sections of it are mentioned: “second chant”, “middle chant”, “kontakion chant”, “fourth chant”, “sixth chant”, “praise”, sung in the Orthros and in the lity (procession). The cited passages clearly show that the Hymn was in the form of a kanon, the second larg multi-stanza compositional form established after the kontakion in the eighth century. Numerous kanons dedicated to individual saints were created especially for the time of Lent unlike the previous time that of St. John of Damascus when kanons were exclusively written for the Lord, the Mother of God and for the common services.61 The creation of the kanons for the individual saints was among the prestigious trends of the time. The form of the kanon was developed by one of the most prominent hymnographers of the ninth century, Joseph the Hymnographer. He was among the first to write kanons for particular saints.62 This is a new direction in hymnography. It is associated with the compilation of the Synaxarion (the book of the lives of the saints) and the Menaion (the book of services for the saints on the days of the 12 months of the year). Kanons were created for each saint and for each day of the church year. The goal was to sanctify every day of the year in terms of establishing the entire spiritual connection between heavenly and earthly life. Having written a kanon for St. Clement of Rome, Cyril actually followed this new direction in hymnography. The indication of the kontakion after the “middle” or third ode must have been a very old practice of performance, as almost all the known sources up to our time include the kontakion after the sixth ode. Traces of such an older practice are found in a church Typikon from the eleventh century, compiled by Nikon, a monk from the St. Virgin monastery in Black Mountain. This Typikon prescribes the performance of a kontakion for the Holy Mother of God after the third ode in the kanon.63 It is a significant fact that the Typikon of Monk Nikon is based on the Typikon of the Studios monastery.64 Hence, the performance of the kontakion after the third ode is an old Studite practice. This is one more evidence in favor of the fact that Cyril and Methodius must have known this practice. It is not yet known when exactly the text of the Hymn (the kanon) for the Pope Clement of Rome, written apparently in Greek, has been translated into Slavic: early Bulgarian and Russian manuscripts from the twelfth century onwards already contain it in Slavic. The sources attribute an original hymnographic work to Methodius as well: Kanon of St. Demetrius of Thessaloniki in mode 4. It is revealed in the sources from the eleventh to the fourteenth century. Methodius, like his younger brother, also wrote a kanon and with that he joined the new trends of the development of hymnography. It is believed that the kanon of St. Demetrius was written shortly before the death of Methodius – in 884, and probably performed on October 26, 111

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

the day of St. Demetrius of Thessaloniki. Chapter 15 of Methodius’ Vita reads: “And he celebrated the Holy Liturgy along with the clergy, honoring the memory of St. Demetrius” (“И светое възношение тайное с клиросом своим възнесъ, сътвори памят светаго Димитрия”).65 The sources give information about the solemn consecration of the Slavic books in the churches in Rome as well. This happened during the time of Pope Adrian II. Chapter 17 of Cyril’s Vita reads that, on this occasion the Pope celebrated a liturgy in Slavic in four large churches. And for all of them it is said that he sang when consecrated the Slavic books: “The Pope accepted the Slavic books, consecrated them and laid them in the church St. Mary, called Fatan, and sang the holy liturgy above them . . . And when he consecrated them, he performed a liturgy in the Slavic language in the church of St. Peter, and the next day he sang in the church of St. Petronila and on the third day he sang in the church of St. Andrew, and from there to the great multilingual teacher the Apostle Paul sang at the night the holy liturgy in Slavic over the holy tomb . . .” („Приим же папет книги словенския, освяти и положи я в църкви святиа Марии, яже се нарицает Фатнъ, пеша же с ними литургию . . . И яко я святиша, тогда пеша литургию в църкви святаго Петра словенским язиком, и в други ден пеша в църкви святая Петронилы и в трети ден пеша в църкви святаго Андреа, и оттуду пакы у великаго учителя язическаго Павла апостола, в църкви в нощи пеша святую литургию словенскы над святым гробом . . .”).66 The sources do not specify which liturgy was celebrated: this of St. Basil the Great or of St. John Chrysostom. Both liturgies at that time were ordinary daily liturgies. The difference between them is that the liturgy of St. Basil is longer and more solemn. It was not until the beginning of the thirteenth century that the performance of the liturgy of St. Basil was reduced to ten days a year, and the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom remained the usual daily liturgy.67 It is interesting to know which parts of the liturgy that were translated into Slavic were performed in Rome. This question remains open. It is known that there was a difference between the duties of the clergyman, who had the right to pronounce the divine formulas, and the duties of the congregation in the Western Church. Common places in worship, such as prayers in daily services, some psalms, hymns, formulas for repentance, readings and interpretations of the Gospel and Apostle, etc., were probably performed first in Latin and then in Slavic. Chapter 8 of Methodius’ Vita provides information in this regard on the liturgy. It says: “Keep the custom of the Mass [the liturgy] the Apostle and the Gospel to be read first in Latin and then in Slavic” (“Съ же йедин хранити обычаи, да на мъши първейе чътут апостол и евангелийе римски, таче словенскы”).68 The Eucharistic kanon during the communion could have been hardly performed in Slavic, as it refers to a very important and strictly kept sacrament. However, Methodius, after the death of his brother Cyril, seems to have also performed this part of the liturgy in Slavic. Pope John VIII in his letter to Prince Svetopolk in 880 addressed Methodius with the words: “We have heard that you sing the liturgies in barbaric language, i.e. in Slavic. In our message [to you] in this regard . . . we 112

S t . C yril and S t . M ethodius

had forbidden you to perform the sacred and solemn parts of the liturgy in this language and [we had ordered you to perform them] either in Latin or in Greek, as they are performed all over the world in The Church of God.”69 It is clear from the same letter that the most important thing was to keep the meaning of what has been served and sung in the church in Slavic – a fact that we emphasized at the beginning. The Pope also says: “. . . it is not in contradiction with the faith and the divine teaching, the liturgy to be sung in Slavic . . . as well as all other services, if they are well translated and interpreted”.70 And still: “. . . we asked this Methodius . . . whether he sings the Holy Liturgy . . . as it is kept by the Holy Roman Church and accepted and transmitted to the Holy Fathers from the Apostolic Scriptures . . . He claims that he sings it according to the Apostolic Scriptures of the Holy Roman Church and as it had been transmitted by the Holy Fathers”. Many activities of Cyril and Methodius remain insufficiently documented. It is clear, however, that the two holy brothers translated into Slavic the main liturgical books for all parts of worship, as it was practiced in the ninth century: the Psalter, the Gospel, the Apostle, the Prayer Book for the services necessary for daily, weekly, monthly and annual cycles, as well as for some special services. Scholars emphasize that the difference between the Eastern Byzantine and Western Roman rituals at that time was not significant and the compilation of elements of both was not a problem. As noted by Blagoj Chiflyanov the difference between Eastern and Western worship was primarily in terms of the language, not in the church order: the compilation of elements of both would not have affected the meaning of the main form of worship.71 There were close ties between the two churches, despite their rivalry for supremacy. Many texts were translated from Greek into Latin: a number of festivals and processions in Rome were taken from Byzantium, including chants.72 In addition, up to the middle of the eighth century the election of a Roman pope had to receive the approval of the Byzantine emperor. These facts must be among the reasons that favored the mission of Cyril and Methodius in the West and its successful implementation there up to a certain time. The Slavic books were recognized as sacred and consecrated in the church.73 According to the sources, the two brothers used in their worship not only the Slavic language, but also the other two sacred languages used in the Christian churches in Europe – Greek and Latin. Chapter 17 of the Vita of Methodius, for example, gives evidence about Gorasd, whom Methodius appointed his deputy. It is said that Gorasd was “trained well in reading Latin books . . .”74 Latin, Greek and Slavic languages were probably used at the funeral of Cyril in 869. In chapter 18 of his Vita we read: “The Pope then ordered all the Greeks who were in Rome, as well as the Romans, to gather with candles and sing over him and make a funeral for him, as for the Pope himself. And so they did”.75 The mentioned above the Kiev sheets, the early Glagolitic fragment of seven folia from the first half of the tenth century, contains elements of the South Slavic and West Slavic languages. The source evidenced that the two brothers were acquainted with the Western rituals.76 It is established that the protograph of the Kiev sheets was a Latin Sacramentary (a book of texts used by a priest during 113

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

mass) of the eighth century.77 Short prayers for ten masses are preserved in the Kiev fragment: two for saints – St. Clement of Rome (November 25) and St. Felicity (November 23), and eight for common services, six of which are for saints for the days of the week (without mentioning a particular name), one for martyrs, and one for all celestial powers.78 Compiling prayers for saints and common services in a single book is a very early practice. This brings the fragment closer to the “global” repertory of the Tropologion.79 One of the main chanted books in the West, the Antiphonary (Antiphonale missarum), resembles the structure of the Tropologion: hymnographic texts of chants for the fixed, movable and again fixed feasts, as well as for common services are revealed in some of the copies of this book from the third quarter of the eighth century.80 The chants of the so-called “Missa Graeca” (the ordinary chants for the Western Mass) were sung in Greek and Latin of the time of Cyril and Methodius: “Κύριε”/ [“Domine”], “Δόξα”/“Gloria”, “Πιστεύω”/“Credo”, “Ἅγιος”/“Sanctus” and “Ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ”/“Agnus Dei”.81 The possible connection between the activities of the two brothers and the emerging chants from “Missa Graeca” can be traced along several lines: firstly, most of the manuscripts in which they are included, probably written between 870 and 880, are from the same type of book to which the Kiev Missal ascend, the Sacramentory;82 secondly, the same chants are also included in non-liturgical books of great universal use, such as Psalters, Dictionaries and Grammars, which is explained by the fact that these chants were probably considered very important; and thirdly, it has been established that books of the mentioned types, were written in one of the most authoritative and influential Western monasteries, the Benedictine ones, such as St. Maria and Mark in Reichenau. In the latter monastery the respect for the two Thessalonian brothers was very high.83 In the so-called Pomenik of the monastery from the ninth century (the Book of the monks spent time there – deceased and alive), the name of Cyril is quoted among the deceased monks, and of Methodius – among the living.84 The names of the two brothers are written in Latin, but the name of Methodius is also written in Greek letters.85 Whether “Missa Graeca” is the mass called in chapter 8 of Methodius’ Vita by its Latin name “missa” (“мъша”) is a question that remains open for the time being.86 The data from the sources give grounds to say definitely that it was during the time of the two brothers that the foundations of the Slavic Orthodox liturgical music were laid – a conclusion made by a number of researchers. The texts of the chants could be taken from the books they have translated, as well as from the existing universal hymnographic book in their time – the Tropologion. Since the melodies were transmitted orally, it was not a problem to sing these texts in Slavic, which is a fact that has been established throughout the Middle Ages: a work is constituted in the act of performance.87 The use of the Slavic language, together with Greek and Latin in the worship of the two brothers in the churches in Europe, certifies the inclusion of the Slavic language among the other two sacred languages and respectively, to be equal to them. Towards the beginning of the ninth century, the preserved hymnographic books show a well-developed 114

S t . C yril and S t . M ethodius

festive system of feasts for the Lord, Virgin and saints, feasts for Easter and common services (apostles, prophets, confessors, martyrs, etc.). With small variants, this festive system has become the norm for the liturgical calendar in the East and West.88 The sources also reveal a well-developed genre system of the psalmodic and hymnic types: psalms, biblical songs, alleluia, prokeimena, troparia, stihera, kanons, kontakia, hypakoi, etc.89 The basic musical terminology was probably translated in the time of Cyril and Methodius as well. In the above-mentioned Sinai Glagolitic fragment NE with chant designations, for instance, the Slavic translation for a plagal mode is written – “iskar” (literary means “spark”), which is transmitted in the earliest Old Bulgarian manuscripts, such as the Sinai Glagolitic Euchology from the tenth-eleventh century (Euchoogium Sinaiticum, 1/N); also, the designation of the mode plagal 3 as “varis” is translated as “heavy”, etc. Finally, we can summarize what is largely certain about the musical activity of the two brothers. The chant corpus in Slavic created by them is represented by both translated and original works in syllabic and melismatic style. In all probability, it is systematized in a hymnographic book of the type of the Tropologion, one of the earliest known such books. The approval of the activity of the holy brethren by the consecration of the Slavic books by the Roman popes shows that their work was done at a high professional level. This means that the work was done in accordance with the requirements of the existing liturgical practice in Western Europe, i.e. the activity of Cyril and Methodius was in accordance with the established liturgical standards of the time there. This could have made possible the practice of the Old Slavic corpus in the West. The work of Cyril and Methodius failed in Western Europe but was saved in Bulgaria by their pupils who were invited by the Bulgarian Tsar Boris I and solemnly accepted there. The saved Slavic alphabet became the base of the Old Bulgarian language and the books written in it were transmitted from Bulgaria to other Christianizing Slavic countries in the East. The third cultural civilization in Europe, that of the Orthodox Slavs, known as “Slavia Orthodoxa”, was formed.

Notes 1 “Recitative” and “melodic” music are terms accepted in musicology. According to them, two types of notation systems were formed from the earliest times: ekphonetic for recitative performance of the texts from the Psalter, the Gospel and the Apostle, and melodic for the other texts that goes through different stages of development until the 19th century. 2 Nardini, L. Aliens in Disguise: Byzantine and Galican Chants in the Latin Liturgy. – Plainsong and Medieval Music, 2, 2007, 145–172 (146). 3 Лазаров, С. Няколко сведения за музикалната дейност на Кирил и Методий. – Българска музика, 1956, № 6, 20–23; Anfänge der slavischen Musik. Bratislava, 1966; Тончева, Е. Към въпроса за музикалната дейност на славянските просветители Константин-Кирил и Методий. – В: Проблеми на старата музика. София, 1975, 7–37; Strunk, О. The Notation of the Chartres Fragment. – In: Essays on Music in the Byzantine World. Ed. by K. Levy. New York, 1977, 68–111; Velimirović, M. The Melodies of the Ninth-Century Kanon for St. Demetrius. – In: Russian and Soviet

115

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

Music: Essays for Boris Schwarz. Ed. by H. Brown. Ann Arbor, 1984 [1985], 9–34 (Bulgarian translation in: Българско музикознание, 1, 1987, 45–63; Russian translation in: Mузыкальная культура средневековья, 1, 1991, 3–20); Hannick, C. Kyrillos und Methodius in der Musikgeschichte. – In: Musices Aptativ Liber Annuarius, 1, 1984–1985, 168–177; Куюмджиева, С. Какво са пели Кирил и Методий през ІХ в.? – Музикални хоризонти, 4, 1985, 4–14; Hannick, C. Das musikalische Leben in der Frühezeit Bulgariens. – Byzantinoslavica, 49, 1988, 23–38; Hannick, C. Das “Slovo na prenesenie mostem Sv. Klimenta” als liturgiegeschichtliche Quelle. – Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 231. Roma, 1988, 27–236; Карастоянов, Б. Нотирани канони за Кирил и Методий в руски служебен миней от ХІІ в. – В: Втори международен конгрес по българистика. T. 21. София, 1989, 364–371; Тончева, Е. Музиката в България през ІХ – Х в. – В: Кирило-Методиевска енциклопедия. Т. 2. София, 1995, 762–773; Hannick, C. Началa славянской гимнографии в Кирилломефодиевскую эпоху. – В: Thessaloniki – Magna Moravia. Thessaloniki, 1999, 347–354; Drillock, D. Early Slavic Translations and Musical Adaptations of Byzantine Liturgical Hymnody. – St. Vladimir’s Theologigal Quarterly, 44, issue ¾. Crestwood, 2001, 375–407; Kujumdzieva, S. Viewing the Earliest Old Slavic Corpus Cantilenarum. – Palaeobulgarica, 2, 2002, 83–101; Попов, Г. Химнография. – В: Кирило-Методиевска енциклопедия. Т. 4. София, 2003, с. 400–414; Иванов, И. Светите братя Кирил и Методий – дипломати и пазители на вярата на Църквата. – В: Благовестие и мисия. Мисионерско и просветителско дело на светите братя Кирил и Методий и свети Климент Охридски. София, 2018. 4 This thesis is launched recently by Maria Jovčeva, see Йовчева, M. Старобългарската химнография. – В: История на българската средновековна литература. София, 2008, 102–124 (105–106); Jovčeva, M. Slavic Liturgy in Great Moravia and Its Hymnographic Components. – In: The Cyril and Methodius Mission in Europe – 1150 Years since the Arrival of the Thessalonian Brothers in Great Moravia. Brno, 2015, 250–258 (253). 5 Winkler, G. The Armenian Night Office II: The Unit of Psalmody, Canticles, and Hymns with Particular Emphasis on the Origins and Early Evolution of Armenia’s Hymnography. – In: Studies in Early Christian Liturgy and Its Context. Ashgate, Variorum, 1997, 475–551; idem. Anhang zur Untersuchung: “Über die Entwliklungsgeschichte des Armenischen Symbolums” und seine Bedeutung für die Wirkungsgeschichte der Antiochenischen Synoden von 324/325 und 341–345. – Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 271. Roma, 2004, 107–159; Тончева, Е. Към въпроса за музикалната дейност . . ., с. 11; Попов, Г. Химнография . . ., 401. 6 Taft, R. Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of Byzantine Rite. – Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 42, 1982, 179–194. 7 Wellesz, E. A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography, 2nd ed. Oxford, 1961, 163. 8 The earliest notated books contain chants that are performed rarely during the church year: chants, performed often during the year, were generally excluded from the early notated books, see Hopin, R. Medieval Music. NY, 1978, 45. The singers knew many chants by heart (they often sang them during the liturgical year). Some chants that were performed from the earliest Christian times were recorded in the period of the Balkan Revival in the 17th – 18th centuries. 9 Throughout the Middle Ages, the Greek language was used as a language of the cult, of the administration and as a cultural language not only in Bulgaria but also in Russia, Serbia, Wallachia and Moldavia. 10 This is evidenced by a preserved hymn from the 3d century from Egypt, notated in a letter notation and dedicated to the Holy Trinity. Its structure is different from the ancient Greek music and close to the music of Central Asia: it consists of a number of melodic formulas linked by recitative passages. Some of these formulas show a

116

S t . C yril and S t . M ethodius

connection with later Byzantine melodic patterns. The structure of the hymn testifies that the early Christian music accepted oriental, not ancient Greek compositional elements, and that Byzantine music developed in constant relation to the early Christian music, cfs. Toнчева, Е. Към въпроса . . ., 13. Western music deviated around the end of the 10th century. Having looked for the exact pitch of the sound, the neume notation began to be gradually replaced by a linear notation. 11 Strunk, O. The Byzantine Office at Hagia Sophia. – In: Essays on Music . . ., 112–150. 12 Nardini, L. Transmission of Repertories/Contamination of Styles: The Case of Liturgical Music in Southern Italy (9th-13th Century). – In: Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America. Luncheon Seminary, 6 October 2004, 1–21; Nardini, L. Aliens in disguise . . ., 145–172; Dyer, J. Sources of Romano-Frankish Liturgy and Music. – In: The Cambridge History of Medieval Music. Ed. by T. F. Kelly, M. Everist. 2 vols. Cambridge, 2018: vol. 1, 92–122. 13 Floros, C. Еinführung in die Neumenkunde. Heinrichshofen, 1980, 12. 14 After Tachiaos, A.-E. Cyril and Methodius of Thessalonica. The Acculturation of the Slavs. Thessaloniki, 1989, 95. 15 Høeg, C. The Oldest Slavonic Tradition of Byzantine Music. – Proceedings of the British Academy. Vol. 39. London, 1953, 47; Filonov Gove, A. The Evidence for Metrical Adaptation in Early Slavic Translated Hymns. – In: Fundamental Problems of Early Slavic Music and Poetry. Ed. by C. Hannick (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Subsidia. Vol. VI). Copenhagen, 1978, 211–246; Drillock, D. Early Slavic Translations . . ., 375–407. Early notated sources testify to the observance of these principles: the superfluous syllables in the Slavic translations are neutralized with a sign for repetition (either of the one performed on last syllable or of the whole motive before). The high professional level of translation is also achieved through the mastering of appropriate intonation complexes or melodic formulas. The formulas could be combined in different ways. Loaded with theological semantics, they remain stable and are the key to the transmission and assimilation of music in different countries in different languages. Musical idioms from the earliest sources are revealed in the chanted books even in the 19th century. 16 After Лавров, П. А. Материалы по истории возникновения древнейшей славянской письмености. Hague-Paris, 1966; Динеков, П. Константин-Кирил Философ. – В: Кирило-Методиевска енциклопедия. Т. 2. София, 1995, 388–423 (395). The words “music” and “singing” in the documents cited are stressed here and further by the author, S.K. We believe that they refer to the chanting texts. 17 Лавров, П. А. Цит. съч., 81. 18 Wellesz, E. Op. cit., 33–43. 19 Ibidem, 33. The famous pilgrim to the holy places of the 4th century, Egeria (also known as Etheria and Sylvia), used a similar topos, reporting on the cathedral service in Jerusalem during her stay there between 351 and 354. Egeria writes in her diary that “hymns, psalms and antiphons” were performed, accompanied by prayers and readings, see Куюмджиева, С. Ранните осмогласници. Извори, богослужение и певчески репертоар. София, 2013, 101. 20 Their number of 14 remained longer in Constantinople; the reduced number of 9 remained to this day, see Schneider, H. Die biblischen Oden im christlichen Altertum. – Biblica, 30, 1949, 28–65 (64); 239–272 (248). 21 According to E. Wellesz, “psalms” refers to the psalms and canticles (biblical odes); “hymns” – to verses, stanzas, litanies and processional songs; “spiritual songs” – to alleluias and songs of praise, that is, the differention between the three terms refers to the contents of the texts. Musically there was no absolute differention, see Wellesz, E. A History of . . ., 42. 22 Translation work is viewed differently from our time in both the Antiquity and the Middle Ages. The compilation of the texts that are pronounced and sung in church, was

117

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

done by the Fathers of the Church. That is why they were perceived as sacred transmitting the “absolute” Truth. The author in the Middle Ages had to convey this Truth, established once and for all by the Holy Fathers. The translation work was reduced to the correct interpretation of the sacred texts. What could have distorted the meaning embedded in the texts was declared heresy. This postulate is passed on in both the Old and New Testaments. The exact transmission of the meaning of the text is the first concern of the authors. Hence, the choice of sources, fidelity to established standards, careful stylistic work, elimination of dubious places in conceptual, stylistic and compositional-structural terms, are among the most important criteria by which a given work was compiled or created. 23 Лавров, П. А. Цит. съч., 28. 24 Ibidem, 73. 25 Стойкова, А. Възникване и развой на старобългарската литература през IX-X в. – В: История на българската средновековна литература. София, 2008, 43–46. 26 B. Chiflyanov explanes the expression in this sense, cfs. Чифлянов, Б. Богослужебният чин, преведен от братята Кирил и Методий в началото на Моравската им мисия. – В: Славистичен сборник. Т. 5. София, 1973, 57–68. 27 Ibidem, see also: Arranz, M. La tradition liturgique de Constantinople au IX siecle et l’Euchologe slave du Sinai. – Studi sull’Oriente christiano, 4, 2000, N 2, 41–100; Temchinas, S. Primojo slavisko apegyno structures rekonstrukcija. Vilnius, 2001. K. Stanchev believes that Cyril did not translate the entire church order or the entire collection of liturgical books, but he only explained them to his students, after Jovčeva, M. Slavic Liturgy in Great Moravia . . ., 251. 28 Dumbarton Oaks electronic version: Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents. A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founder’s Typika and Testaments, & 4. “Stoudius: Rules of the Monastery of St. John Prodromos in Constantinople”, 84. 29 Ibidem, 92. The cited services belong to the so-called “public” worship. According to the Old Testament, it was served seven times a day in the following order: evening, midnight, morning, at 3 p.m., 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. In the city churches, the midnight service was usually omitted. The Divine Liturgy, performed on Sundays and holidays, is the center of worship. Its place is after 3 p.m. The cited services are included in various liturgical books, сfs. Gardner, J. von. Russian Church Singing. Vol. 1. Orthodox Worship and Hymnography. Crestwood, 1980, 71–73. 30 Maria Yovčeva believes that the two brothers worked only in the monastery’s liturgical order, without specifying which one. The main part of the order, according to her, was hymnography, cfs. Йовчева, M. Старобългарската химнография . . ., 105. For the time being, however, research shows that psalms were mainly performed in the monastic churches and this performance was recitative since most of the worship there was mediative. In urban churches, on the other hand, the main part of the service included music. That is why the cathedral service is also called “asmatic” (from “asma” meaning song), see Strunk, O. Op. cit., 112–150. 31 Чифлянов, Б. Литургика. София, 1977, 187–192. 32 Ibidem, 265. 33 Динеков, П. Константин-Кирил Философ . . ., 419. 34 Лавров, П. А. Цит. съч., 77. 35 Hannick, C. Начала славянской гимнографии . . ., 1999, 352. 36 After Jovčeva, M. Op. cit., 253. 37 Чифлянов, Б. Богослужебният чин . . ., 61. 38 Ibidem, p. 62; Гошев, И. Св. братя Кирил и Методий. – Годишник на Софийския университет, Богословски факултет. Т. 15. София, 1938, 56–77. 39 Up to the 21th century this book was mentioned only by Ivan Goshev of the Bulgarian scholars, see Гошев, И. Старобългарската литургия (според български

118

S t . C yril and S t . M ethodius

и византийски извори от ІХ-ХІ в.). – Годишник на Софийския университет, Богословски факултет, 9, 1932, 2–79 (56–77). 40 “Global” repertory is a definition of Stig Frøyshof for the transmission of the book in the period up to the 9th century, see Frøyshov, S. S. R. The Early Development of the Liturgical Eight-Mode System in Jerusalem. – St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 51: 2–3, 2007, 139–178; Frøyshov, S. S. Greek Hymnody. – In: Canterbury Dictionary of Hymnology. Ed. by I. R. Watson, E. Hornby. Norwich, 2013, 1–63; Куюмджиева, С. Ранните осмогласници. Извори, богослужение и певчески репертоар. София, 2013; Kujumdzieva, S. The Hymnographic Book of Tropologion. Sources, Liturgy and Chant Repertory. NY-London, 2018. 41 Christian Hannick believes that during the time of the holy brethren the hymnographic material was collected in three books: Stiherarion containing stichera, Stiherokathismatarion containing stichera and kathismata and Kanonarion with the kanons, see Hannick, C. Началa славянской гимнографии . . ., 350. Studying the manuscripts, I have not found a book designated Stichirokathismatarion, see Куюмджиева, C. Ранните осмогласници . . . 42 Куюмджиева, С. Ранните осмогласници . . ., 51–70. 43 The practice of the Studios monastery has had a great influence especially on the literary work in Bulgaria. Since the end of the 8th and the beginning of the 9th century, many Bulgarian monks have lived in this monastery, working together with Byzantine, Russian and Serbian men of letters. It is established that the early Bulgarian monastic worship followed the tradition of the Studios monastery. Study of the “Testament” of the Bulgarian saint of the 10th century, John of Rila for instance, shows that it is very close to the “Testament of our Venerable and God-bearing Father and Confessor Theodore, Abbot of Studite” and his “Commandments for the Brethren.” An argument also is the Old Bulgarian Glagolitic Euchologion from the 10th – 11th century, kept at the library of St. Catherine’s monastery on Sinai. It contains texts borrowed from the Studite Typikon, see Гюзелев, В. Студийският манастир и българите през средновековието (VІІІ-ХІV в.). – В: Зборник радова Византолошког института, 39, 2001–2002, 51–67; Гошев, И. Старобългарската литургия .  .  .; Гошев, И. Правилата на Студийския манастир. – Годишник на Богословския факултет, 17, 1940; Гошев, И. Заветът на св. Иван Рилски в светлината на старобългарското и византийското литературно предание от ІХ-ХІV в. – Годишник на Духовната академия, 4, 1955, 473–477. 44 Thomas, J. The Imprint of Sabaitic Monasticism on Byzantine Monastic Typika. – Orientalia Laurensiensia Analecta, 98. Leuven, 2001: The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to the Present, 73–83 (75); Troelsgård, C. Songs for the Theotokos. Pieces of Papyrus and the Early Byzantine Theotokia. – In: Cantus Planus. Budapest, 2013, 5–24 (15). It is no coincidence that some authors call Hypothyposis, the earliest Studite Typikon, written in the middle of the 9th century, an “amalgam” from the worship of the Sabaites and the Great Church Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. Towards the end of the 10th century, it was edited according to the changes in the liturgical practice, cfs. Krausmüller, D. The Monastic Communities of Stoudios and St. Mamas in the Second Half of the 10th Century. – In: The Theotokos Evergetis and Eleventh-Century Monasticism. Ed. by M. Mullett, A. Kirby. Hollywood, 1994, 67–85 (68). 45 The fragment was discovered in 1975, along with a number of other manuscripts. For a long time, however, it remained unknown because it was in the collection of Ethiopian manuscripts and its Glagolitic text was not deciphered. Therefore, its call number is not yet available, see Glibetić, N. A New 11th Century Glagolitic Fragment from St Catherine’s Monastery: The Midnight Prayer of Early Slavic Monks in the Sinai. – Археографски прилози, 37. Београд, 2015, 11–49.

119

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

46 Ibidem, 19. 47 Ibidem, 24. 48 Ibidem, 16. 49 The troparion is marked as hypakoe in mode plagal 2 in this manuscript. 50 Верещагин, Е. Ильина книга. Древнейший славянский богослужебный сборник. Факсимильное воспроизведение рукописи. Билинеарно-спатическое издание источника с филолого-богословским комментарием. Подг. Е. М. Верещагин. Москва, 2006, X. 51 Ibidem, IV, IX. 52 Vereshchagin also speaks about this, see Верещагин, E. Цит. съч., X. According to him, the designation of Ilija’s book as Mеnaion is not correct. The original composition of this manuscript, as the author emphasizes, is difficult to be determined. That is why he had chosen to use not the species (type) term, but the genus – a book, ibidem, XV. 53 The Studite-Alexius Typikon is based on the earliest records of Theodore the Studite’s Hypothyposis from the second half of the 10th century. It was compiled for the Dormition of Virgin Mary monastery, founded near Constantinople in 1034 by Patriarch Alexios (Alexei), a former Studite monk. Alexios used the rules of the Studite Hypothyposis, editing some of them. His redaction, which is more extensive than the known copies of Hypothyposis, in many cases shows deviations from them. As Robert Taft points out, one of the main goals of this redaction was to settle the contradiction between the three liturgical circles – the Menaion, the Triodion-Pentekostarion and the Oktoechos, arising from the moving date of Easter, when material from the three cycles had to be combined for a single service, cfs. Taft, R. The Synaxarion of Evergetis in the History of Byzantine Liturgy. – In: The Theotokos Evergetis and Eleventh-Century Monasticism . . ., 287. 54 Верещагин, Е. Цит. съч., IV–XV. 55 Ibidem, 351. Vereshchagin also suggests that the copy of the manuscript may have been compiled before the introduction of the Studite Typikon in the Russian Church, or it was compiled in a place far away from Kiev, where the new rules were distributed more slowly and later on, cfs. Верещагин, Е. Цит. съч., Х, 351. 56 Iskra Hristova-Shomova also reports about such books, see Христова-Шомова, И. Драготин миней. Български ръкопис от началото на XII в. София, 2018, 30. 57 It is believed that the latter was written between 875 and 879, see Динеков, П. Константин-Кирил Философ . . ., 388–423. It means, if it is so, that the Hymn was performed for a long time after the death of Cyril in 869. 58 After Георгиев, Е. Кирил и Методий. Истината за създаването на българската и славянската писменост. София,1969, 132–141. 59 Лавров, П. А. Цит. съч., 149. 60 The incipit of the hymn is the same as that of the hymn in the Glagolitic fragment quoted above, performed in midnight service according to the hours in which it is also placed. 61 Patterson Ševčenko, N. Canon and Calendar: the Role of a Ninth Century Hymnographer in Shaping the Celebration of the Saints. – In: Byzantium in the 9th Century: Dead or Alive? Ed. by L. Brubaker. Variorum, 1998, 101–115. This tendency is definitely present in the „new” Tropologion, Sinai manuscript МГ 56 from the 8th – 9th century, in which the number of individual memories is significantly higher than those for the common services of the previous time, cfs. Nikiforova, A. The Tropologion Sin. Gr. NE/MГ 56–5 of the Ninth Century: A New Source of Byzantine Hymnography. – In: Scripta & E-Sripta. Vol. 12. Sofia, 2013, 157–185 (166). 62 Patterson-Ševćenko, N. Op. cit., 101–115. 63 Dumbarton Oaks electronic version: Byzantine Monastic Foundation . . . & 20: Black Mountain: Regulations of Nikon of the Black Mountain; & 26: Luke of Messina, Typikon of Luke for the Monastery of Christ Savior (San Salvatore) in Messina.

120

S t . C yril and S t . M ethodius

64 Ibidem. Christian Hannick also points to a kontakion after a third ode in the kanon according to the Typikon of Messina from around the 11th century, see Hannick, C. Das „Slovo na prenesenie mostem Sv. Klimenta” . . ., 27–236. 65 Лавров, П. А. Цит. съч., 77. Some modern scholars argue the authorship of Methodius of this kanon, as the name „Pope Constantin” (“Priest Constantin”) was found in an acrostic in its copies after the 13th century. “Pope Constantin” is identified with the disciple of Cyril and Methodius Constantin of Preslav. For now, however, the authorship of Constantin is not proven. Samples for this kanon date back to the 12th century in manuscripts in Greek and in Slavic Hirmologia from the 12th century. The kanon was performed on the Assumption of the Virgin on August 15, see Velimirović, M. The Melodies of the Ninth-Century Kanon for St. Demetrius, 9–34. The early Slavic kanons, written between 870 and 880, have been found to show textual and metrical integrity between the hirmos and the troparia of the odes, i.e. the kanons already reveal the familiar modern form, see Jakobson, R. The Byzantine Mission to the Slavs. – Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 19, 1965, 257–265. 66 Лавров, П. А. Цит. съч., 33–34. 67 Kujumdzieva, S. The Byzanine-Slavic Sanctus: Its Liturgical and Musical Context (see chapter I.3. in this book); Афанасьева, Т. И. Литургии Иоанна Златоуста и Василия Великаго в славянской традиции (по служебникам XI-XV века). Москва, 2015. The liturgy of St. Basil is celebrated ten times during the liturgical year: in the evening before the Nativity of Christ, on January 1, on Epiphany, on the first five weeks of Lent, on Holy Thursday and on Holy Saturday. There is also an opinion that Cyril translated the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, see about this Kazhdan, A. (ed.). Constantin the Philosopher. – In: Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. 3 vols. NY-Oxford, 1991. Vol. 2, 737–738. To my knowledge, the liturgy of St. Basil is mentioned twice. First, Charles de Bald of the 9th century wrote to the clergy in Ravenna: “. . .The solemn liturgy is celebrated in our presence . . . in the way it is celebrated in Constantinople, whose author is St. Basil”, after Atkinson, C. M. Further Thoughts on the Origin of the Missa Graeca. – In: De musica et canto. Studien zur Geschichte der Kirchenmusik und der Oper. Helmut Hucke zum 60. Geburtstag. Herausg. von P. Cahn, A.-K. Heimer. Hildesheim-ZürichNY, 1993, 75–95. Second, the old Bulgarian writer Presbyter Kozma from the second half of the 10th century says that „the great Basil submitted to us the liturgy”, after Смядовски, С. Литургия на св. Петър. – В: Кирило-Методиевска енциклопедия. Т. 2. София, 1995, 542. According to Tatiana Afanasieva, in the 11th century the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom started recording before that of St. Basil the Great and gradually it became the main liturgy in the Byzantine Church, displacing in this respect the liturgy of St. Basil the Great, see Афанасьева, Т. Цит. съч., 55. 68 Лавров, А. П. Цит. съч., 73–74. It is known that in Croatia, where the Slavic liturgy according to the Roman ritual has been preserved, the following procedure has been adopted: the priest speaks in Slavic those parts of the liturgy that were to be performed aloud or sung by the congregation. The other parts are sung in Latin, cfs. Dostal, A. Origins of the Slavonic Liturgy. – Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 19, 1965, 67–89. 69 Пикио, Р. Мястото на старата българска литература в културата на средновековна Европа. – Литературна мисъл, 8, 1981, 19–37. The mentioned “sacred and solemn” parts of the liturgy have been translated into Slavic when the two brothers were in Great Moravia: chapter 15 of Cyril’s Vita announces the translation of the “secret services”. 70 After Георгиев, Е. Цит. съч., 90–91, 279. 71 Чифлянов, Б. Богослужебният чин . . ., 58. In the Eastern Church the same ritual was observed, but it was performed in different languages: Greek, Georgian, Armenian, Syrian, Slavic in its different redactions (Bulgarian, Russian and Serbian) and others. In the Western Church there were various rituals, such as Roman, Milanese, Galician, Mozarabic, etc., but they were performed in one language until the Reformation, the Latin.

121

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

72 Apart from the octave, certain texts, melodies, liturgical rituals, some antiphons, processional chants and chants from the usual ones in the liturgy, trisagia and many alleluia are adopted from the Eastern music, see Nardini, L. Aliens in disguise . . ., 147–148. 73 For Eastern worship, see Чифлянов, Б. Литургика . . .; for the Western – Dayer, J. Op. cit., 104. According to Joseph Dyer, worship in the Western Church and in the monastic and cathedral services followed the same hours: morning, 1, 3, 6 and 9 p.m., evening and midnight. According to him also, the same chants were performed in these services: psalms and biblical songs with antiphons, readings followed by responsories, hymns and prayers, but they, however, were arranged differently, see op. cit. 74 For the use of Latin language in worship by the holy brethren, see also Марти Р. Кирило-Методиевската традиция в чуждо облекло (Ролята на латиницата в Кирило-Методиевата мисия и в България). – В: Кирило-Методиевски студии. T. 25. София, 2016, 58–73 (60–61). 75 After Динеков, П. Цит. съч., 417. In the same article Petar Dinekov emphasizes that the works of the great writer were created in two languages – Slavic and Greek. 76 Минчева, А. Киевски листове. – В: Кирило-Методиевска енциклопедия. Т. 2. София, 1995, 249; Йовчева, М., М. Димитрова. Евхологични текстове. – В: История на българската средновековна литература, 165. 77 The book was already in use during the reign of Pope Adrian I. Prayers performed by both priests and people were included in it, see Dayer, J. Op. cit., 92–122. 78 An important question, which researchers differ from, is whether the Kiev Missal is a fragment of a complete translation of the Latin Sacramentary or a separate and complete addition to the rarely performed liturgy of St. Peter on June 29 (the latter is mentioned in chapter 11 of the Vita of Methodius). The liturgy of St. Peter is discussed as a link between Western and Eastern liturgy, see Минчева, A. Цит. съч., 250. According to Tatiana Afanasieva, this liturgy is not related to the Moravian mission of the holy brothers: its Roman-Byzantine form probably originated in the midst of Italo-Greek monks. The oldest copy of it in Slavic is found in the Sinaitic Glagolitic Missal (Sin. Slav. 5/N). According to Afanasieva also, its Slavic translation was probably made not by Cyril and Methodius, but by their followers in the western regions of the First Bulgarian Kingdom, see Афанасьева, Т. Цит. съч., 265. 79 In the early days common services were widely used, as the services for saints were a few. The number of the latter increased over the years, often in a hierarchical-thematic order, and this fact applies to both Eastern and Western worship, see Crocker, R. Liturgical Material of Roman Chant. – In: New Oxford History of Music. Vol. 2: The Early Middle Ages to 1300. Ed. by R. Crocker, D. Hiley. Oxford-New York, 1990, 119. 80 Куюмджиева, С. Ранните осмогласници . . ., 234; Dayer, J. Op. cit., 97. The services in the Western books are called Temporale (feasts of time): the story of Christ as Man and God from birth to the Ascension; Sanctorale (holy saints); and Commune sanctorum (common services). Especially for the Antiphonary, see Генов, Я. Антифонарът в Средновековието и съвременността: сравнително изследване. Цикълът Quadragesima. Ph.D., София, 2008. 81 Atkinson, C. M. Further Thoughts . . ., 75–95; Waneck, N.-M. The phenomenon of the so-called “Missa Graeca” chants assessing new hypotheses regarding their emergence and dating. – Clavibus unitis, 7/2, 2018, 3–12 (p. 4). As the first chant “Kyrie”/“Domine” was very popular, it was not included among the chants of the Greek liturgy. The chants are not notated. Paleo-Frankish neumes are put only at the beginning of “Doxa” (Glory). 82 This and the following information are after Waneck, N.-M. Op. cit., 4–12. In the second half of the 9th century, chants from “Missa Graeca” appeared in four of the seven Sacramentories in Greek. The use of the Greek language is explained by the fact that it was one of the sacred languages used by educated circles, which included chants in this

122

S t . C yril and S t . M ethodius

language in the manuscripts they composed as a sign of education. An interesting fact is that the texts of the chants are transliterated: it is assumed that the Greek language was taught orally and was written phonetically in Latin letters, see Waneck, N.-M. Op. cit., 8. 83 The monastery was opened in 724. Benedictine monks, who had a high spiritual authority, live according to one of the oldest orders in the history of Western monasticism. This order was established in all monasteries within the Frankish Empire. It allowed the existence of local liturgical customs. The Benedictine monasteries became the largest centers of literature and scholarship: they organized educational schools for the laity and the clergy. There were also scriptoria in which various books were written. 84 This is manuscript Rh. Hist. 27 from the Central Library in Zürich. 85 It has been established that the names of the two brothers were written by one of the monks of the monastery. The latter was among the centers in Western Europe where the Greek language and script were very well known, see Марти Р. Кирило-Методиевската традиция . . ., 61; Bershin, W. Griechisch-lateinisches Mittelalter. Von Hieronymus zu Nikolaos von Kues. Bern-München, 1980, 180–184, 192–193. The spelling of the name of Methodius in Greek, as well as of six of his potential students, can be seen as an act of indication that they came from countries where the use of Greek was a daily practice, as it actually was in the East and especially in Thessaloniki. 86 According to Tatiana Afanasieva, a translation of Latin Mass was done by Methodius most probably during the period of his archbishopric in 870–885, cfs. Афанасьева, Т. Цит. съч., 262. And if so, it is another argument in favor of the fact that Methodius knew well the Latin worship. 87 Treitler, L. Homer and Gregory: The Transmission of Epic Poetry and Plainchant. – Musical Quarterly, 9, 1974, 333–373. 88 Wegman, H. A. J. Christian Worship in East and West. NY, 1985, 79. 89 Куюмджиева, С. Ранните осмогласници . . . Lord’s feasts from the Epiphany to Pentekost are described in the Diary of Egeria in the first half of the 4th century. The cycle of these feasts is defined as an “old” festal cycle, transmitting the “old Christian year”, see Burkitt, F. C. The Jacobite Service for Holy Saturday. – Journal of Theological Studies, 24, 1923, 424–427 (426). Later on, in the middle of the 8th century, a variety of liturgical chant poetry was collected in the Georgian Lectionary. It documents a memory of a saint and/or a holiday for almost every day of the liturgical year. The Lectionary also, reads detailed instructions for the participation of bishops, clergy, deacons and people, which suggests that the performance was done by a soloist – choir – congregation. The manuscript is considered the earliest document for public worship, see Leeb, Н. Die Gesänge im Gemeindegottesdienst von Jerusalem (vom 5. bis 8. Jahrhundert) (= Wiener Beiträge zur Theologie. B. XXVIII). Wien, 1970, 34. Robert Taft defines it as Kannonarion-Synaxarion, i.e. a type of liturgical calendar in which the details of the readings for the movable and immovable memories celebrated during the church year are given, see Taft, R. Christian Liturgical Psalmody: Origins, Development, Decomposition, Collapse. – In: Psalms in Community. Jewish and Christian Textual, Liturgical, and Artistic Traditions. Ed. by H. W. Attridge, M. Fassler. Atlanta, 2003, 7–33 (28).

 

123

10 M E T R O P O L I TA N Т H E O L E P TO S OF PHILADELPHIA Between Tradition and Innovation

Тheoleptos, Metropolitan of Philadelphia in Asia Minor, was one of the most significant figures in the socio-political and cultural life of Byzantium in the second half of the thirteenth and the first quarter of the fourteenth century.1 My interest in this person began while I was working with musical manuscripts at the “Ivan Dujčev” Center for Slavo-Byzantine Studies at the St. Clement of Ohrid University in Sofia. There I came across a notated chant by Theoleptos in manuscript D. Gr. 292. The manuscript is a magnificent full Sticherarion from the middle of the fourteenth century in middle Byzantine notation, containing Menaion, Triodion-Pentekostarion and Oktoechos.2 Its origins are connected with the Kosinitsa monastery near Drama, a region that was settled by a large Bulgarian population during the fourteenth century.3 Despite the vast literature about the life and activities of Тheoleptos, his musical works have remained almost unknown. Thus, every discovery related to the musical activities of this interesting person is extremely valuable, as his works appeared amidst the maelstrom of the dramatic events of the time, for example the Orthodox Church’s refusal to unite with the Western Church during the 1270s, or the survival of three sieges of Philadelphia by Ottoman invaders after 1310: Theoleptos managed to defend the city from Ottoman attacks, for which he earned the hero’s halo.4 In this study I am going to present the notated works by Тheoleptos, comment on their place in the liturgy and characterize the manuscripts in which they appear. First of all, however, what do we know about Тheoleptos? Information from various sources indicates that he was born around 1250 in Nicaea and died shortly before the end of 1322.5 In 1275 or after the spring of 1276, Тheoleptos abandoned secular life and went to Mount Athos, where he became a pupil of Nikephoros the Hesyhast.6 Gregory of Palama, who was Theoleptos’ pupil and was introduced to hesyhasm by Тheoleptos himself, considered him one of the most important figures in the sphere of that doctrine.7 After Andronikos II Palaiologos ascended to the throne in 1282, Тheoleptos was appointed as Metropolitan of Philadelphia, a position he held for nearly 40 years – from 1283 or 1284 until the end of his life. He maintained close relations with the Palaiologoi family. Theoleptos was especially close to Irene Hagiopetritis, the second daughter of Theodore 124

DOI: 10.4324/9781003377238-13

M etropolitan Т heoleptos of P hiladelphia

Hagiopetritis (also known as Nikephoros Choumnos and the monk Nathanial), a prominent scholar and high-ranking imperial official, serving as emperor’s closest advisor: in 1295 Theodore was appointed for first secretary and prime-minister at the court of Andronikos and in 1309/10 became governor of Thessaloniki. Irene married Andronikos’ son, the despot John Palaiologos, and received the title “vassilisan”. Her marriage took place after Easter in 1303, when she was 12 years old and John was 17. Irene was famous for her vast erudition: she was a bibliophile and possessed a rich library. She also copied manuscripts on request.8 The connection between Theoleptos and Irene dates to 1307, when Irene’s husband died suddenly and Irene, under the influence of Тheoleptos, became a nun. Тheoleptos personally presided over her monastic vows, where she took the name Eulogia in memory of her husband’s aunt, the sister of Michael VIII, who had worked to defend the Orthodox faith. Irene-Eulogia restored the Christ Philantropos Soter convent near the Great Church Hagia Sophia in Constantinople and became its abbess.9 Theoleptos was her confessor and spiritual mentor. Irene’s father was one of Тheoleptos’ biographers, as well as the author of one of the two eulogies written for him.10 It was he who reported that Тheoleptos composed hymns, which together with his sermons were so moving that they attracted huge numbers of worshipers to the churches where they were performed.11 Тheoleptos could have performed his hymns himself, since from the epistolary literature preserved from and to him, it is well known that he had served as a deacon (singer) on Mount Athos.12 These two basic facts – that Тheoleptos composed hymns and was a deacon – offer firm evidence that he was involved in music. His relationship to music can also be judged from some of his writings in his treatises. On reading them, it becomes clear that Theoleptos ascribed enormous significance to psalmody. In his treatises on monastic life, for example, Theoleptos places the regular singing of psalms (“ἡ εὔρυθμος ψαλμῳδία”) on equal footing with the Ten Commandments and characterizes it as “fresh air for divine contemplation”.13 In his expressed opinion about psalmody, Theoleptos publicly advertised his new relationship to this oldest of chant forms, which systematically began to be notated in musical manuscripts from the fourteenth century onwards.14 Miloš Velimirović first raised the question of Theoleptos’ musical activities, dedicating particular attention to the topic in one of his articles as early as 1971.15 In his research, Velimirović presented two works by Тheoleptos both of which are of the genre of stichera. The first was discovered in an eight folia manuscript fragment, currently housed at the library of Parliament in Athens, number 58. The fragment is from the early fourteenth century in middle Byzantine notation. The Theoleptos’ sticheron is for the feast of St. John of Damascus whose memory is celebrated on December 4: “Ἡμῶν χεὶρ τοῦ Βαπτιστοῦ” in mode 3.16 Velimirović believed that Тheoleptos was the author of both the text and the music of the sticheron. He suggested that Тheoleptos wrote the sticheron precisely for St. John of Damascus since the relics of this saint were preserved in the church of the monastery where Irene-Eulogia was. Тheoleptos used to go to preach at that church and to honor the saint he had written the sticheron, which most likely was performed there in honor of the saint. 125

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

The second sticheron presented by Velimirović is “Οὐράνιε βασιλεῦ” (“Celestial King”) in the mode plagal 2. Velimirović found it in two manuscripts, both of which are Sticheraria. They are in Greek from the fourteenth century in middle Byzantine notation and are located in the Athens National Library: 884, dated in the inscription by a certain Athanasios from 1341, and 895. In the first manuscript the sticheron is written at the end of the Menaion (f. 221r-v), while in the second it comes at the end of the entire manuscript (f. 246r-v). In the same Athens manuscript the rubrics indicates only that it is the work of the Metropolitan of Philadelphia, while Athens 895 reports that it is by Тheoleptos of Philadelphia “εἰς παράκλησιν” (“for supplication”). The chant’s position in the liturgy is not indicated. Examining the work with the aim of establishing this, Velimirović found the incipit of its text in the Euchologion, in the second edition published by J. Goar in 1730 in Venice. There this text is presented as a troparion, which is sung after the kanon “εἰς φόβον σεισμοῦ” (“for a terrible earthquake”). From this, Velimirović concluded that the chant was most likely written because of an earthquake. As he pointed out, in Тheoleptos’ time there was at least one major earthquake in Constantinople in 1296. If his suggestion that the chant was written on the occasion of the earthquake turns out to be correct, then it would be among the very few known notated compositions that appeared immediately in response to experienced events. Тheoleptos’ notated works have also been discussed by Jorgen Raasted, who came across two such compositions while studying the manuscript Ambrosiana 139 sup at the Milanese National Library.17 The manuscript is a middle Byzantine Sticherarion with an inscription (f. 301v) certifying that the text was written by Leon Padiotes, while the neumes were written by a certain Athanasios, and that it was completed in October 1341, the same year the Athens 884 manuscript was written.18 The two works by Тheoleptos in the Milanese manuscript are also stichera and are written at the end of the manuscript (f. 317r-v).19 Both of them are in mode plagal 2. The first is the sticheron known from Velimirović’s article on the two Athenaian manuscripts – “Οὐράνιε βασιλεῦ”. The attribution in the Milanese manuscript states that it is an idiomelon by “our holy father” Тheoleptos from the city of Philadelphia. The second sticheron, “Θεὲ τοῦ παντὸς τρισάγιε”, which is quite short in comparison, is introduced with the attribution “τοῦ αὐτoῦ” (“by the same”), i.e. by Тheoleptos. Also, in the Milanese manuscript nothing is mentioned about the liturgical position of the stichera.20 According to J. Raasted’s opinion, the mode plagal 2 is equally suitable for the subject of earthquakes as it is for attacks by the Ottomans, who had already captured much of Asia Minor during that period. Musical manuscripts with notated works that include the name of Тheoleptos – the three presented by Velimirović and the one by Raasted – were thus exhausted. Now, however, we must add to them the manuscript Dujčev Gr. 292, which contains notated work by the Philadelphian metropolitan. On f. 39r of the manuscript, on the upper right-hand side, there is a note written in bright carmine-red ink (the same used to write other designations on the manuscript):21 “ἕτερ[ον] ἰδ[ιόμελον] 126

M etropolitan Т heoleptos of P hiladelphia

Figure 10.1  “Uranie vasilev” by Theoleptos MS D. Gr. 292, f. 39r, fourteenth century: “Uranie vasilev” ascribed to Metropolitan Theoleptos.

τοῦ Φιλαδελφί[ας] κυρ[ίου] Θεολ[ή]π[του], ψαλλόμε[ν]ον εἰς λιτὴν” (“another idiomelon by Mr. Тheoleptos of Philadelphia, sung at a procession”). This note refers to the sticheron in mode plagal 2 “Οὐράνιε βασιλεῦ”, quoted by Velimirović from Athens manuscripts 884 and 895, and by Raasted from Ambrosiana 139. Like the latter manuscript, the Dujčev manuscript confirms that this sticheron is an “idiomelon”. Unlike Ambrosiana 139 and the two Athenian manuscripts, however, here the sticheron is not at the end of a section or the entire manuscript, but in the Menaion section, in the service for October 26. It is the final, fourth sticheron after a cycle of three stichera that follow the traditional chants to the patron saint of October 26, the Holy Martyr St. Demetrios of Thessaloniki – the MyrrhGiver. The cycle of stichera, ending with the sticheron by Тheoleptos, begins on the preceding folio 38r, where it is introduced by heading “τοῦ σεισμοῦ” (“for an earthquake”). The stichera are the following: “Τῆς γῆς συνταρασσομένης” in mode 2, “Φοβερὸς εἶ, Κύριε” in mode plagal 2 nenano, and “Νινευῖται τοῖς παραπτώμασιν” in mode plagal 2. The same cycle of three stichera, which is introduced by the same heading “τοῦ σεισμοῦ”, is traditionally included in the service on October 26 and relates to the prayer for protection from earthquakes. The three stichera can be found 127

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

systematically written down even in early Sticheraria, such as Тhеоl. Gr. 136 from the first half of the twelfth century (f. 40v–41r) from the Vienna National Library.22 They are written there in the same order as above and in the same modes.23 The preceding attribution is for a large earthquake. It reads: “Τῇ αὐτ[ῇ] ἡμέρ[ᾳ] στιχ[ηρὰ] τοῦ μ[ε]γ[άλου] σεισμοῦ. Ποίημ[α] Συμε[ὼν] τοῦ ἐν τ[ῷ] Θαυμ[ασ]τ[ῷ] ὄρει” (“For the same day [October 26] stichera for a large earthquake. The work is by Simeon from the Wonderful Mountain”).24 In the consulted manuscripts from the twelfth to fourteenth centuries, the cycle of these three stichera, when it has an attribution, is introduced by both variants quoted above: “τοῦ σεισμοῦ” (“for an earthquake”)25 and “τοῦ μεγάλου σεισμοῦ” (“for a great earthquake”).26 Designations of the author of the three stichera are given comparatively less frequently. In the considered manuscripts the authors are different: Studites in the Athens 884 and Dujčev 292,27 Simeon – in Theol. gr. 136, and Sikeotes in the Milanese manuscript. The text of the sticheron by Тheoleptos for earthquake is not from the traditional repertory and at the present time I have not yet researched when this text entered the Euchologion. The addition of Тheoleptos’ sticheron to the traditional cycle of stichera for earthquake in the Dujčev manuscript confirms Velimirović’s suggestion that it was related to the service for such cases. Dujčev 292 is the only presently known manuscript in which this sticheron is written in its actual place in the liturgical cycle, i.e. it does not remain in the marginal repertory, but is included in the traditional repertory within the service on the day on which it should be sung. The inscription in this manuscript also notes another extremely important fact: that this sticheron is sung during the lity, i.e. during a procession. We can only guess as to whether Тheoleptos wrote this work as a result of personally experienced events, the other question that was posed by Velimirović. The Typika prescribe a significant number of processions for earthquakes. These services are performed on one of the nearly 20 days during the year designated for the celebration of urban events related to the history of Constantinople, for example, the city’s birthday on May 11, enemy attacks, fires, sieges, earthquakes and so on. They are counted as part of the urban liturgical services in the capital, which were created early on and which were some of the most popular services, related to the idea of the divine defense of the city by God and the Virgin Mary. During such services both of them was shown particular honor. Urban church services can be examined as an exceptional example of the unification of urban life and Christian divine services. The population went outdoors en masse with prayers for Divine Mercy and protection, for supplication and consolation.28 These services in Constantinople were so relevant and significant that they had an impact on all churches in the Eastern Orthodox world. Constantinople was called simply “the city” (“polis”), and when the word “city” was used, it was clear that it meant Constantinople. In manuscripts from the fourteenth century onwards a series of chants are written, which are marked as “πολιτικόν”, i.e. “urban”, and this means precisely that they were performed in the city of Constantinople. As John F. Baldovin emphasizes, the connotation “city” included within itself the concept of civilization, and particularly when it came to memorializing events connected with the 128

M etropolitan Т heoleptos of P hiladelphia

city’s past, the entire city became a church.29 For this reason these services, which usually began after the Orthros and took the form of a processional manifestation of piety, were performed outside, where there was more space: often at the Forum in Constantinople, a place as important as the Great Church itself, on the edge of the city or beyond the city walls.30 Earthquakes were viewed particularly as a clear sign of divine dissatisfaction.31 Even the early Typika listed the dates when prayer services against earthquakes should be performed. In the manuscript St. Cross 40 from the tenth century, the Typikon of the Great Church Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, which contains the rules for patriarchal liturgies, nine such services are ordered: on September 25, October 7 and 26, December 14, January 9 and 26, March 17, August 16 and the Monday after Pentecost.32 The service on October 26 is designated for large earthquake. These memories are connected with concrete years when earthquakes occurred: September 25 – with the earthquake in 447,33 October 26 – with the earthquake in 740, January 26 – with the earthquake in 450 and so forth.34 Seven of these services, including that on October 26, involve the participation of the patriarch.35 The service against earthquakes performed in the Forum of Constantinople usually began from the Church of the Holy Resurrection and proceeded toward the Forum with praises. The deacon would proclaim the great ekthenion “Kyrie, eleison” and the solo singer would begin the processional troparion. The “Kyrie, eleison” is performed in six of the nine liturgies used to celebrate services against earthquakes during the procession. It would follow after the reading of the Gospel, which was completed while stopping before various churches on the way to the Forum. Services for earthquakes are also ordered in the Studite monastic Typikon. In the version from the San Salvatore monastery in Messina, manuscript Messina 115 from the year 1131, a service for earthquakes is required on October 26 after that for St. Demetrios. The three standard stichera listed above are quoted for that service, as well as the kanon of the Orthros after that in honor of the holy martyr.36 Research on Theoleptos’ works shows that the sticheron “Οὐράνιε βασιλεῦ” was the most popular: it is included in four of the five manuscripts now known to contain his works. The manuscript Dujčev Gr. 292 proves that it is related to the service for earthquakes on October 26. This service took shape as early as the eighth century and the cycle of three stichera has been systematically notated in it from the eleventh century onwards. And if we carefully examine manuscripts from the fourteenth century that include Theoleptos’ stichera, we will find a connection between them with respect to the basic tendencies of the time, whose most prominent representative was St. John Koukouzeles the Master. In the most general sense, these tendencies are related to editorial activity in line with the requirements of the newly edited Sabaitic liturgical order. J. Raasted believed that the two manuscripts, Athens 884 and Ambrosiana 139, reflect the strongest revisions of the Sticherarion by Koukouzeles.37 This is directly evidenced in the inscription in the Athens 884 (f. 390v), where one reads that the manuscript is a copy of the manuscript already edited by Koukouzeles, a manuscript that was subjected to 129

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

“διόρθωσις” (“corrected” or “explained”).38 The manuscript Dujčev Gr. 292 also belongs to that group, which shows the characteristics of a Sticherarion that has been revised by the Master in terms of content and structure. The manuscript is especially close to Athens 884: in terms of its inclusion of Тheoleptos’ sticheron and in terms of the whole earthquake cycle: in both manuscripts the three standard stichera for the service are attributed to the Studites.39 Having connected Тheoleptos’ works with the new liturgical tendencies, we could consider them as following the progressive hesychastic ideas of the time. The question of Koukouzeles’ connection to hesychasm has been posed in the musical literature and concrete characteristics of silent hesychastic prayer reflected in his musical works have been pointed out.40 That Тheoleptos was familiar with Koukouzeles’ work is demonstrated by the, albeit indirect fact, that in 1309 his follower Irene-Eulogia, whom he continually guided spiritually, made a copy of the Hirmologion from the original manuscript by Koukouzeles.41 The Hirmologion that she copied, Sinai 1256, according to O. Strunk and J. Raatsed, is among the earliest manuscripts to reflect the new tendencies in music and to show a connection with the Master’s editorial activities.42 Thus, it is highly likely that Тheoleptos and Irene-Eulogia shared a common interest in music: their names are linked with musical manuscripts that clearly reflect Koukouzeles’ editorial activity.43 Furthermore, Тheoleptos was among the most fervent champions of the establishment of a unified order for the liturgy, and the establishment in practice of the newly edited liturgical order guaranteed this. Research on Theoleptos’ sticheron “Οὐράνιε βασιλεῦ” in the four manuscripts (Athens 884 and 895, Ambrosiana 139 and Dujčev 292) reveals textual and melodic variants, which indicate that before being notated, the sticheron was transmitted orally for a certain time.44 A number of arguments can be offered to support this claim.45 Firstly, the notated piece is not the same in all four manuscripts: each of them shows variants. They could be due to notated records of differing performances. The chant was notated in the way in which it was heard and/ or remembered by the scribe. In one place, for example, the version in the Dujčev manuscript is closer to the variant in one of the Athens manuscripts, which in other aspects it resembles Ambrosiana. Secondly, in the Dujčev manuscript a row of melodic variants is written beneath the basic notated text, which often reaches the length of the entire phrase, without essentially changing the general melodic contour. Similar variants indicate differences in performance and, respectively, the expression of these differences within the notated records. Thirdly, in all four manuscripts the sticheron is in a strophic form, which is not typical for the sticheraric style:46 a single melodic model repeats more than ten times with the same cadence, ending on the basic tone of the mode plagal 2 – e. The repetitions of the model vary. In some cases the model is made up of a single phrase ending in a stereotypical cadence, while in others it has two phrases: the first one intonated on the basic tone a, while the second one is on e. Fourthly, in both manuscripts, Athens 884 and Ambrosiana 139, which were written in the same year 1341, and 130

M etropolitan Т heoleptos of P hiladelphia

by a scribe with the same name Athanasios (the same writer?), the sticheron is not identical: differences can be found. All of this indicates that in the written records of the sticheron in question in the cited manuscripts, realizations of varying performances were documented: the sticheron was most likely notated by different writers at different times in different places, and/or from the performance of different singers. One other fact supports the idea of the oral transmission of the sticheron and gives us an answer to the question of whether Theoleptos wrote it about the great earthquake in Constantinople in 1296, as Velimirović suggested. The sticheron “Οὐράνιε βασιλεῦ” in the same mode, plagal deuteros, but without author’s attribution was discovered in a considerably earlier manuscript – Sinai 1258. The manuscript is a Hirmologion and, according to its inscription, was written by the monk Paulos, who finished it on July 15, 1257 (f. 144v). The sticheron was written at the end of the manuscript after the colophon (from f. 145v onwards). The inclusion of a sticheron in the Hirmologion is unusual, since, as it is known, the Hirmologia contain hirmoi of the kanons. The sticheron in the Sinai manuscript bears the following attribution: “στιχηρ[ὸν] δεσποτικ[όν], παρακλητικ[ὸν] κ[αὶ] κατανυκτικόν” (“a sticheron for divine supplication and repentance”). This attribution brings it close to that in Athens 895, where it is ascribed to Theoleptos and one reads the designation “εἰς παράκλησιν”. The sticheron in Sinai 1258 reveals characteristics similar to those in the abovementioned manuscripts: middle Byzantine notation, strophic structure, and the same phrasal cadence on the basic tone of the mode plagal 2 – e. In terms of text and melody it contains insignificant variations with respect to all of the manuscripts cited above – it does not coincide exactly with any one of them, just as they do not coincide with each other. Unlike them, however, in Sinai 1258 there are no melodic variants written out either above or below the basic notated text, variants that are typical of Sticheraria. O. Strunk established that Sinai 1258 transmitted a tradition, which in many ways preceded that of John Koukouzeles and can be seen in the earliest Hirmologia related to Koukouzeles’ name, such as Petersburg 121 from 1302 and the above-mentioned Sinai 1256 from 1309, copied by Irene-Eulogia.47 In all probability the metropolitan was familiar with the early version of the sticheron “Οὐράνιε βασιλεῦ” in the Sinai manuscript. That means that Theoleptos has not written the sticheron for the great earthquake in Constantinople in 1296 – neither its text, nor its music: the sticheron was recorded forty years before this earthquake. However, we can assume, Theoleptos knew it and it was he who could have performed it during or after the great earthquake “εἰς παράκλησιν” (“with supplication”). Having gone to different places to preach, Theoleptos could have performed it in each one of them. Thus, later manuscripts, in which the sticheron is ascribed to the Philadelphian metropolitan, give evidence of records of his performances, which, as stated above, were done by different scribes, at different times, and in different places. If this is truly the case, then the sticheron “Οὐράνιε βασιλεῦ” is one of a very few examples of directly recorded oral tradition and, in particular, of how 131

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

Figure 10.2  “Uranie vasilev” “Uranie basilev” according to the following MSS: Athens 895, 14th century, f. 246r; Ambrosiana 139, 1341, f. 317r-v; Dujćev Gr. 292, 14th century, f. 39r; and Sinai 1258, 1257. Transcriptions are done by Svetlana Kujumdzieva.

the oral tradition entered the written practice. It is also one of a few examples of how a performer was identified as a composer in the act of his performance and at the same time, of interaction between tradition and innovation.48 The last question which I am going to discuss here is about the places where Theoleptos could have performed “Οὐράνιε βασιλεῦ” and respectively, where his performance could have been heard and recorded. Judging from the manuscripts in which the sticheron was written, certain places can be localized. Undoubtedly, in these places the liturgical chant was maintained on a very high level. Firstly, we can point out Irene-Eulogia’s convent in Constantinople, where Theoleptos used to go to preach sermons. By the middle of the fourteenth century, this convent was counted among the largest convents in the Byzantine capital, having nearly 100 nuns. Evidence indicates that the educated among them sang in the church choir.49 Secondly, the sticheron must also have been performed at the monastery in Kosinitsa near Drama, where probably the manuscript Dujčev Gr. 292 was written. A large neighboring monastery, St. John Prodromos (the Forerunner) near Serres, was also one of the places where this sticheron was very 132

M etropolitan Т heoleptos of P hiladelphia

likely sung. The two monasteries, Prodromos and Irene-Eulogia’s, maintained a close relationship: in the Typikon from Prodromos, dated 1332, certain elements from the Typikon from Irene-Eulogia’s convent can be noted, which suggests the closeness of their liturgical practices. There is also documentation showing that shortly before the death of Irene-Eulogia in 1355, she willed her estate to the St. Prodromos monastery in Serres.50 The latter maintained a close relationship with the monastery of Kosinitza as well. Both monasteries are of particular significance for Bulgarian Orthodox music: in many musical manuscripts from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries that were written in their scriprtoria are revealed chants from the polieleoi and kratemata genres with the designation “βουλγάρικον” (“Bulgarian”), “ἡ βουλγάρα” and “βουλγαρίτσα” (“Bulgarian woman”).51 Finally, I believe that all said above gives us grounds to search carefully the traces in music that Theoleptos left and that these traces, found in six manuscripts known for now, are rather significant (see the List). List of Chants Linked With the Name of Theoleptos I

“Οὐράνιε βασιλεῦ”, mode plagal 2 1

Athens 884, 1341, f. 221r-v. The sticheron is at the end of the Menaion; it is ascribed to Theoleptos. The chant is introduced by Miloš Velimirović. 2 Athens 895, fourteenth century, f. 246r-v. The sticheron is at the end of the manuscript; it is ascribed to Theoleptos and bears the title “εἰς παράκλησιν”. The chant is introduced by Miloš Velimirović. 3 Ambrosiana 139 sup, 1341, f. 317r-v. The sticheron is at the end of the manuscript; it is ascribed to Theoleptos. The chant is introduced by Jorgen Raasted. 4 Dujčev Gr. 292, fourteenth century, f. 39r. The sticheron is in the service for October 26; it is ascribed to Theoleptos. The chant is introduced by Svetlana Kujumdzieva. 5 Sinai 1258, 1257, f. 145v–146r. The sticheron is at the end of the manuscript after the colophon. It is anonymous. The chant is introduced by Svetlana Kujumdzieva. II “Ἡμῶν χεὶρ τοῦ Βαπτιστοῦ”, mode 3 1 Manuscript no. 58 from the Library of the Parlaiment of Athens, fourteenth century, f. 7v–8r. The sticheron is for St. John of Damascus, December 4. It is ascribed to Theoleptos. The chant is introduced by Miloš Velimirović. III “Θεὲ τοῦ παντὸς τρισάγιε”, mode plagal 2 1

Ambrosiana 139 sup, 1341, f. 317v. The sticheron is ascribed to Theoleptos. The chant is introduced by Jorgen Raasted. 133

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

Notes 1 See about him Velimirović, M. The Musical Works of Theoleptos. Metropolitan of Philadelphia. – In: Studies in Eastern Chant. Vol. II. Ed. by M. Velimirović. LondonNY-Toronto, 1971, 155–165; Kujumdzieva, S. – Between Tradition and Innovation: The Case of Metropolitan Theoleptos of Philadelphia in Musical Manuscripts. – In: Tradition and Innovation in Late- and Postbyzantine Liturgical Chant (= Eastern Christian Studies, 17). Ed. By G. Wolfram, C. Troelsgård. Leuven, 2013, 151–185. 2 More about the musical manuscripts at the “Ivan Dujčev” Center, see Kujimdzieva, 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 methods du cataloguage des manuscrits de la collection du centre Dujcev”. Thessalonique, 1992, 283–292; Куюмджиева, С. Стихирарът на Йоан Кукузел. Формиране на нотирания възкресник. С., 2004, 63–67. 3 On the manuscripts at the Dujčev Center, see Džurova, A., K. Stanchev, V. Atsalos, V. Katsaros.“Checklist” de la collection de manuscrits grecs conservee au centre de recherches slavo-byzantines “Ivan Dujcev” aupres de l’Universite “St. Clement d’Ohrid” de Sofia. Thessalonique, 1994. About the population in the region between Serres and Drama, see Божилов, И. Княжение словьньско или Σκλαβοαρχοντια. – В: Старобългарска литература, 28–29, 1994, 23–28; Божилов, И. Българите във Византийската империя. София, 1995. 4 See Hero, A. С. The Life and Letters of Theoleptos of Philadelphia. Brooklin, Mass., 1994, 16 and next. 5 Ibidem. Data are taken from there, p. 11–25; see also Оxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Ed. By A. Kazhdan. 3 volms. Vol. 3, 1991. 6 Hero, A. С. Op. cit., 25. 7 Hero, A. C. A Women’s Quest for Spiritual Guidance. Brooklyn, Mass., 1984, 18. 8 Hero, A. C. The Life and Letters . . ., 96. For more on Irene, see Nicol, D. M. Тhe Byzantine Lady: Ten Portraits 1250–1500. Cambridge, 1994: Eirene-Eulogia Choumnaina Palaiologina, Princes and Abbess, Died c. 1355, 59–68. 9 It is assumed that the restoration of the convent, which Irene undertook with her own funds, was completed in 1312 and that it was then opened. For more, see Hero, A. C. The Life . . ., 96–100. Irene compiled a Typikon for her convent, of which only a fragment survives. It was written after 1307. Research has displayed that in its compilation documents older than the time of its writing were used. The sources are from Mount Athos monasteries, the monasteries St. John the Forerunner near Serres and Kosinitsa near Drama, see Thomas, J. Ph. Documentary Evidence from the Byzantine Monastic Typika for the History of the Evergetine Reform Movement. – In: The Theotokos Evergetis and Eleventh-Century Monasticism. Ed. by M. Mullet, A. Kirby. Belfast, 1994, 246–273. 10 The second eulogy for Theoleptos was written by Manuil Gavalas, who later became Metropolitan Matheos of Efes, see Hero, A. C. The Life . . ., 11 and next. 11 Ibidem, 18. 12 Ibidem, 14. Letters exchanged between Theoleptos and Irene-Eulogia were written between her becoming a nun in 1307 and the metropolitan’s death in 1322. For more on them, see Нero, А. С. The Life and Letters of . . .; also Hero, A. C. A Woman’s Quest for Spiritual . . . 13 See Lingas, A. Hesychasm and Psalmody. – In: Mount Athos and Byzantine Monasticism. Ed. by A. Bryer, M. Cunningham. Variorum, 1996, 155–168. 14 It seems that this motivated new compositional techniques, ornamentation and tropes applied to genres of psalmody, which brought it the corresponding and much sought after “beautiful sounding” or the „καλοφωνία”. 15 Velimirović, M. The Musical Works of Theoleptos . . .

134

M etropolitan Т heoleptos of P hiladelphia

16 Ibidem. The cited sticheron is written on f. 7r and is preceded by a chant from Nikephoros Gregoras, one of Theoleptos’ contemporaries. 17 Peria, L., J. Raasted, eds. Sticherarium Ambrosianum (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae, XI, Pars Suppletoria). Copenghagen, 1992, 10 and next. 18 The scribe of the text of the Milanese manuscript, Leon Padiotes, is known as a scribe of manuscripts written in Constantinople during the first half of the 14th century on special fabrian paper. For this reason, J. Raasted suggests that the Ambrosiana manuscript originated in scriptoria in Constantinople, see. Peria, L., J. Raasted. Sticherarium . . ., 10. 19 Ibidem. Raasted examined the section between f. 304r and 319v as an “appendix” to the basic repertory of the manuscript, since it was written after the colophon. In his opinion this section of the text was copied from a different source, see Peria, L., J. Raasted. Sticherarium . . ., 10. The inclusion of the two stichera at the end of the manuscript indicates that they are newer works: in most manuscripts the new works – newly compiled, newly composed, newly notated, newly edited and so forth – are placed at the end as an appendix. For example, the early notated chants from the Great Vespers in the Sinai manuscript 1257, a Hirmologion from 1332, are written at the end of the manuscript. 20 Raasted, who otherwise compares Ambrosiana 139 and Athens 884, does not notice the existence of Theoleptos’ sticheron “Οὐράνιε βασιλεῦ” in the latter manuscript; maybe it escaped his attention and he did not make the connection between the two manuscripts referring to this sticheron. In terms of the former manuscript he states that the sticheron is designated for earthquakes. 21 The same bright carmine red ink is used to write, for example, in the upper field on f. 136v, before the beginning of the month of May, which begins with May 7 in the basic text (the day of the Holy Martyr Akakios). We read: “May 2 and January 18, idiomela for St. Athanasios the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria”, i.e. it is noted that in that place a service should be performed for the saint. The same carmine red ink is also used to write modal designations: on f. 190r above the mode plagal 1 is written mode 3; in the same way on f. 199r above the mode plagal 2 is written mode 2; explanations are also added, such as “apostichon”, “εἰς Κύριε, ἐκέκραξα”, and so forth. Whether these inscriptions are additional, explanatory, alternatives or all of the above is a question that requires special investigation. Similar comments can be seen also as written realizations of practices existing in oral form with their variations. 22 For this manuscript, see Wolfram, G., ed. Sticherarium Antiquum Vindobonense (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Vol. X. Pars Principalis). Wien, 1987. The three stichera are regularly included in the service for 26 October in Slavic Menaia until the end of the 19th century inclusively. Their Slavic incipits are, respectively: “Земли смущаемей”, “Страшен еси, Господи” and “Ниневитя несогрешений”, see Иванов Севлиевец, A. Минейник. Константинопол, 1869, 57–59. The three stichera in this Menaion are introduced by the heading “на стиховне стихиры”. After them, an apolytikion is written, followed by the inclusion of yet another sticheron under the title “трясение” (shaking): “Призиряй на землю” in mode 8. 23 Only the first of them has a different incipit: not “Τῆς γῆς”, but “Ἡ γῆ συνταρασσομένη”. The sticheron on f. 48v of the manuscript Ottobonensis Gr. 380, a Sticherarion from the 14th century from the Vatican Apostolic Library in Rome, also has the same incipit. The author worked with a microfilm of the manuscript in the library of the Institute for Greek and Latin Studies at the University of Copenhagen. 24 Wolfram, G. Op. cit., 218. 25 In manuscripts Athens Gr. 888, a Sticherarion from the 14th century from the Athens National Library, f. 49v-50r, and the above-cited Ottobonensis Gr. 380, f. 48v-49r. 26 In manuscript Gr. 815, a Sticherarion from the 14th century, from the library of the Church Historical and Archival Institute at the Bulgarian Patriarchate, f. 48r-v. In the Menologion of Basil II, manuscript Vat. Gr. 1613, written between 976 and 1025, there is a heading for a large earthquake for October 26: “ἡ ἀνάμνησις τοῦ μεγάλου

135

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

σεισμοῦ”. The author worked with the microfilm of the manuscript in the Vatican Microfilm Library at the St. Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, during her research visit there in 2012. 27 His name was introduced with the first sticheron, where the author of a given cycle is usually presented. New composed works begin with the introduction of a new name, as here is the case with the sticheron by Theoleptos. 28 Baldovin, J. F. Worship. City, Church and Renewal. Washington, DC, 1991, 25. 29 Ibidem. 30 See Baldovin, J. F. The Urban Character of Christian Worship (= Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 228). Roma, 1987, 221. 31 Baldovin, J. F. Worship. City . . ., 16. 32 According to Baldovin, J. F. The Urban Character . . ., 292–297. 33 The origins of the trisagion are connected with celebrations on this date. It is thought to have been introduced into the Eucharistic liturgy of Constantinople sometime during the 5th century, see Baldovin, J. F. The Urban Character . . ., 219. 34 See also Conomos, D. The Late Byzantine and Slavonic Communion Cycle: Liturgy and Music. Washington, D.C., 1985, 23. During that earthquake the church St. Irene, the largest surviving church in Constantinople after Hagia Sophia, was destroyed. It was restored in 753 by Constantine V, see Brubaker, L., J. Haldon. Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (ca. 680–850): the Sources. Ashgate, 2001, 8. 35 The information is according to the same Typikon. The remaining dates are: September 25, October 7, December 14, January 26, August 16, and the Monday after Pentekost, see Baldovin, J. F. The Urban . . ., 298. 36 [Ἑσπέρας] “Φῶς ἱλαρόν”. Ἀναγνώσματα γ΄ τοῦ μεγάλου σεισμοῦ. τὸ α΄, προφητείας Ἡσαΐου, τὸ β΄, προφητείας Ἱερεμίου . . ., τὸ γ΄, προφητείας Δανιήλ . . . Εἰς τὸν στίχον, στιχηρὰ τοῦ σεισμοῦ, ἦχος β΄. Ἡ γῆ συνταρασσομένη. Ἄλλο, πλ. β΄ Φοβερὸς εἶ, Κύριε. Ἕτερον, ὁ αὐτός. Νινευῖται τοῖς παραπτώμασιν. Δόξα, ἦχος πλ. β΄, Σήμερον συγκαλεῖται ἡμᾶς. Καὶ νῦν. Θεοτοκίον. Ἀπολυτίκιον . . . Ἕτερον, τοῦ σεισμοῦ, ἦχος πλ. δ΄.” This is followed by the Orthros with two kanons: for the saint (St. Demetrios) and for earthquakes, mode 4, according to Aranz, M. Le Typicon du monastere du Saint-Sauveur a Messine. Cod. Messinensis Gr. 115, A.D. 1131 (= Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 185). Roma, 1969, 44. For the service on October 26 the celebration of communion for disasters following psalm 115:4, is also required. The same should be also performed on the Saturday of the Akathistos hymn for the Holy Virgin, see Conomos, D. The Byzantine and Slavonic . . ., 23. In a later manuscript, 814 from the library of the Church Historical and Archival Institute of the Bulgarian Patriarchate in Sofia, a Sticherarion dated 1720, the three standard stichera for earthquakes are inserted between the stichera for St. Demetrios. They are followed by eight kanons for earthquakes in mode plagal 2. The first kanon is introduced with an attribution given to the author Joseph, but most likely all eight kanons are by him as well. They alternate with the 20 kanons dedicated to the saint (St. Demetrios) in mode 4, of which the first is attributed to Theophanos. Every other kanon for the saint is attributed to Patriarch Philotheus I: most likely ten are by Theophanos and other ten are by Philotheus, all in mode 4 (fol. 135r-157r). 37 Peria, L., J. Raasted. Sticherarium . . ., 11; Raasted, J. Koukouzeles’ Sticherarion. – In: Byzantine Chant. Tradition and Reform. Ed. by C. Troelsgård. Monographs of the Danish Institute of Athens, vol. 2, Athens, 1997, 9–23; Куюмджиева, С. Стихирарът на Йоан Кукузел . . . See also the cited literature there. I have not yet had an access to the manuscript Athens 895. 38 Athens 884 from 1341 is the only manuscript in which we read about Koukouzeles’ death. The scribe Athanasios writes in his inscription that Koukouzeles “has recently passed away”. Bearing in mind that before the great Master is not known any other

136

M etropolitan Т heoleptos of P hiladelphia

person with the name Koukouzeles, we could certainly assume that Athanasios had in mind John Koukouzeles. If this is true, we could approximately fix the dates of Koukouzeles’ life – from around 1280 to around 1341. The author worked with the microfilm of this manuscript in the library at the Institute for Greek and Latin at the University of Copenhagen. 39 The standard stichera for earthquakes in Athens 884 are written on fol. 56r. 40 Тончева, Е. Полиелейни мелодии, означени като български в балканската музикална практика (пс. 135 по извори от ХІІ-ХІІІ и ХІV-ХV в.). Докт. дис. София, 1993; Lingas, А. Hesychasm and Psalmody . . ., op. cit.; Куюмджиева, С. Стихирарът на Йоан Кукузел . . ., p. 120 and following. During 1351 the Church Council of Constantinople declared both the hesychastic doctrine and practice as official of the Orthodox Church. 41 Irene left two inscriptions in Sinai Hirmologion 1256. The first one is on f. 183r and identifies John Koukouzeles as the writer of the manuscript: “χεὶρ Ἰω[άννου] παπαδοπούλου τοῦ κουκουζέλ[η]” (“by the hand of John Papadopoulos Koukouzeles”). The second inscription is on the opposite side of the same folio, 183v, which establishes Irene as the copyist of the whole manuscript and provides the year in which she completed it: “ σὺν Θεῷ ἁγίῳ ἐπληρώθη τὸ παρὸν εἰρμολόγιον διὰ χειρὸς Еἰρήνης ἁμαρτωλῆς θυγατρὸς Θεοδώρου τοῦ ἁγιοπετρίτου καὶ καλιγράφου” (“with Holy God the present Hirmologion was completed by the hand of Irene, the sinful daughter of Theodore Hagiopetritis and calligrapher”). Raasted assumes that Irene copied the first inscription from Koukouzeles’ original, see Raasted, J. Koukouzeles’ Sticherarion . . ., op. cit. 42 Strunk, О. P. Lorenzo Tardo and his Ottoeco nei MSS. Melurgici. Some Observations on the Stichera Dogmatika. – In: Essays on Music in Byzantine World. Ed. by K. Levy. NY, 1977, 255–267. 43 To the circle we can also certainly add the above mentioned Gregory of Palama, who grew up in the court of Andronikos II, where he could have met Koukouzeles. Gregory was later a singer at the Great Lavra St. Athanasios on Mount Athos at the same time when Koukouzeles was there. 44 Velimirović pointed out that Theoleptos followed the melodic principles for formulaic construction in his works, according to the accepted stylistic norms of the time. “Theoleptos’ works, as Velimirović says, are an example of a careful combination of melodic and textual accents”, see Velimirović, M. The Musical Works . . ., 159. 45 The transcriptions are according to the basic principles in MMB. 46 See the analyses of chants of this type in Куюмджиева, С. Рилската певческа школа през Възраждането. Канд. дис. София, 1980. For the existence of such forms, see also Тончева, Е. Болгарски роспев. Композиционно-структурни особености на стихирарическия жанр. – В: Проблеми на старата българска музика. София, 1975, 95–160; Куюмджиева, С. Между писмената църковна музика и фолклора. – Музикални хоризонти, 12–13, 1989, 166–176; Kujumdzieva, S. Dynamics between Written and Oral Church Music. – In: Cantus Planus. Budapest, 1992, 283–292. 47 Strunk, O. Melody Construction in Byzantine Chant. – In: Essays on Music . . ., 200. The manuscript Petersburg 121, is thought to reflect the tradition from Palestine and Sinai: notes in Arabic similar to those found in abundance in many Sinai manuscripts have been left in its margins. The inscription that includes the name of Koukouzeles in the Petersburg manuscript is on f. 148v. The author worked de visu with the manuscript at the National Library in St. Petersburg. 48 One of the ideas of the famous medievalist Leo Treitler was that the musical work in medieval monodic culture was realized in the act of performance, and that the singer undertook a constant reconstruction of tradition, see Treitler, L. Homer and Gregory: The Transmission of Epic Poetry and Plainchant. – Musical Quarterly, IX, 1974,

137

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

333–373. The performance of the Theoleptos’ sticheron was inarguably intended for October 26: on this day people prayed to be saved from earthquakes. 49 They were called “mothers” and assisted the abbess in running the monastery. Uneducated nuns were called “sisters” and they took care of the housework, see Hero, A. C. The Life and Letters . . ., 100. 50 According to her letter № 7, see Hero, A. C. Woman’s Quest . . ., 20. 51 See for example the Athens manuscripts 2599, 2622, 2406 and 2401 in: Велимирович, М. „Българските” песнопения във византийските музикални ръкописи. – Известия на Института за музика, 18, 1974, 197–203; Станчев, К., Е. Тончева. Българските песнопения във византийските аколутии. – Музикознание, 2, 1978, 39–71; Тончева, Е. Полиелейни мелодии, означени като български . . . There was a significant Bulgarian presence in both monasteries throughout the 14th century.

 

138

11 H I E R O M O N K E V S TAT I E O F  P U T N A The Putna Music School Revisited

In 1882 Emil Kaluzhnjacky attended the Putna monastery in Bukovina and announced about musical manuscripts he came across there.1 Alexander Yatsimirsky confirmed his findings 20 years later, in 1902.2 This lays the foundation for research on the musical manuscripts from Putna. The latter are studied by various Rumanian scholars, to mention Radu Pava, Gheorghe Chiobanu, Marin Jonescu, Grigore Panciru and a little bit later – Titus Moisescu and Gabriela Ocneanu.3 Since pieces in Slavic in Bulgarian redaction are included in these manuscripts they are studied by Bulgarian scholars as well, like Raina Palikarova Verdeil, Stoian Petrov, Hristo Kodov and Elena Toncheva. The Slavic language in Bulgarian redaction was used along with the Greek one as a language of the cult and administration in both principalities Wallachia and Moldavia until the midseventeenth century.4 The Putna musical manuscripts were also studied by other scholars like Ann Pennington and Dimitry Conomos.5 The number of the musical manuscripts is gradually increasing in the studies – from three to five, to seven, and today a whole family of sixteenth such manuscripts, the fragments including, is known. They are housed in various libraries in Rumania, Russia, Bulgaria, Greece, Ukraine, Germany and Czech.6 The manuscripts are from the sixteenth century and their origin goes back to the Putna monastery. They reveal the names of men of letters involved in music at the monastery: authors, singers, conductors, writers and rhetors – Evstatie, Anthonie, Demetian Vlach and Lukachi. All the findings gave reasons to speak about the existence of the big singing school in Putna. The blossom of this school goes back between 1490 and 1585, that is, about twenty-five years after the founding of the monastery in 1466 by Stephen Fifth the Great and its consecration on July 10 the same year. In this study I shall put an accent on the characteristic features of the Moldavian manuscripts established by the Bulgarian scholars and especially on the new findings in two manuscripts – the famous Evstatie’s book and the manuscript 816 from the Church Historical and Archival Institute at the Bulgarian Patriarchate in Sofia. As a whole the Moldavian manuscripts are an evidence of the most complete adoption of the late Byzantine (known also as “Koukouzelian”) musical system in Slavic according to the new redaction of the Jerusalem Typikon or the neo-Sabaitic DOI: 10.4324/9781003377238-14

139

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

Typikon of the fourteenth century.7 The Bulgarian redaction of the texts of the pieces included was established in the literary and hymnographic school in Tirnovo at the time of the last Bulgarian Patriarch, Euthimios and it is known also as Euthimios’ redaction. The earliest adoption of the late Byzantine musical system in Slavic is documented in the same Tirnovo school by the end of the fourteenth century. An evidence of this is the manuscript 289 from the National Library in Sofia, the socalled Palauzov’s copy of the Synodikon of Tsar Boril, compiled very likely under the redaction of Patriarch Euthimios. The manuscript contains four bilingual chants in mode 4 in late Byzantine notation – Greek-Bulgarian. It should have been written at least one more chant because above the first preserved chant is read “τoῦ αὐτoῦ”, that is by the same composer. The name of the latter, however, remains unknown because the sheets before the first notated text are missing. The text under the neumes in the four chants is in Greek but the Bulgarian text is written both in the main text above the notated chants and on the margins with the note – “зде поят певци с гласом” (“here the singers chant with voice”).8 The practice of the new revised Typikon established in Tirnovo school spread to the West and to the North of the Bulgarian lands. This is the so-called “Second South-Slavic influence” – the new revised books were transmitted by the men of letters from the school of Patriarch Euthimios. They traveled to and settled in different countries. Of particular importance here is the case of Gregory Tsamblak, a distinguished man of letters from the second half of the fourteenth and the first quarter of the fifteenth century, a pupil of Patriarch Euthimios. Between 1401 and 1406 he was a presbyter of the Great Church of Wallachia and Moldavia with the capital of Suchava. During his stay there Tsamblak wrote more than 25 didactic speeches and sermons in Bulgarian. All of the Moldavian musical manuscripts are bilingual, Greek-Bulgarian. They are of the type of the Akolouthiai-Anthology, the new class of chant book containing a repertory according to the new revised Jerusalem Typikon. The basic chapters of this book are compiled by music theory, the so-called papadike, a repertory of Great Vespers with the Preliminary psalm 103 and the First stasis with the first three psalms, of the Orthros, the three liturgies and of special services for both great feasts and the feasts for particularly reverend saints in the places where the books were written down. The repertory of last chapter usually is a rather melismatic defined as kalophonic (beautiful sounding). The Moldavian manuscripts reveal a stability in terms of the succession of the basic chapters.9 In terms of the manuscripts in Greek, however, they show some peculiarities. The study of the music theory for instance, according to the Evstatie’s book and two other Moldavian manuscripts, Bucharest 283 and Jasi I-26, shows that it is reduced to two parts: the first one gives the drawings of the neume signs only without any text of explanation as they appear in the Anthologies in Greek manuscripts; all of the small intervallic signs are given but the number of the great hyronomic signs is reduced to 24 (usually they count about 39); the family of the theta-signs is entirely missing;10 there is a tendency of enlarging the form of the great signs. The study of Great Vespers reveals archaic features: melodic characteristics of the early repertory of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth century 140

H ieromonk E vstatie of P utna

are evident. In the Preliminary psalm for instance the authors from the fourteenth century are preferred, like John Koukouzeles, Georgios Panaretos and John Lampadarios Kladas; the verse 29c is included, which is encountered in the fourteenthcentury manuscripts but is uncommon for the practice of the fifteenth century. The repertory of the First stasis containing the first three psalms is reduced to the first one; the authors from the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth century are preferred here as well, like Ksirus and Chalivuris.11 In the pieces in Cyrillic the intoning of the so-called letter “er”, big (“ъ”) or small (“ь”), written at the end of the words, is revealed. This fact connects the Moldavian manuscripts with both the Old Bulgarian sources up to the fourteenth century, like the Bitolja and Argirov Triodia, the Menaion of Dragan, etc., and the Old Russian Kondakaria from the eleventh-thirteenth centuries where the intoning of this letters is also found. It is suggested that the vowels ending with “er” required an ornamentation. It is established further that the bilingual repertory is written in the following way: firstly, one chant is written with two texts one under another – Greek and Bulgarian; secondly, one chant is written twice – first in Greek and then in Bulgarian or vice versa; and thirdly, chants are written in both languages supplementing each other in a given service. The most famous man of letters from the Putna music school of the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century is Evstatie. There is no data about his life. His autograph is known according to two dated manuscripts – from 1511, the Evstatie’s book, and from 1515.12 The Evstatie’s book is the most investigated Moldavian musical manuscript.13 It is the earliest dated Moldavian manuscript characterized as a unique one in terms of its language. Many personal notes are read in it and this gave a reason the book to be determined as a personal one.14 Evstatie has compiled his book of notated pieces for both the great Christian feasts and feasts for very popular and venerated saints. In all probability these pieces were used by him not only to sing according to them in the services, but also to adapt not notated texts to their melodies: he could have used the notated melodies as models for some modes in some particular genres in the services.15 Evstatie left his name in two inscriptions. The first one is written in the form of a square in Glagolitic shrift, the oldest Bulgarian shrift from the time of the holy brothers Cyril and Methodius. It says (f. 140v): “Сие творение Евстатиева” (“The whole work is by Evstatie”). There are secrete shrift (a cryptogram) in the four corners of the square. The meaning is identified as “граматика” (“grammar”), “риторика” (“rhetorics”), “ветия” and “филтеле” (last two words are without meaning).16 The second inscription is at the end of the book. It is written in Cyrillic in the form of a square as well (f. 158v).17 Evstatie says in it that he is a Protopsaltes at the Putna monastery and that the book is written by him at the time of John Bogdan on June 11, 1511. In two other inscriptions Evstatie notes that he writes in Bulgarian and in Greek. The first one is written in a cryptogram in Cyrillic letters in the form of cross (f. 25v): “Сей херувик ест тоносом греческим язиком българским словом граматикия” (“The entire cherubikon is according to Greek melody in Bulgarian language”).18 The second 141

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

Figure 11.1  Evstatie’s book Evstatie’s book, 1511, f. 25v: the inscription of Evstatie.

inscription is written again in the cryptogram and means (f. 63r): “‘Dostojno est’ is in Bulgarian, ‘Aksion estin’ – in Greek”.19 Almost all the titles, inscriptions and indications in the Evstatie’s book are in Bulgarian. The great part of them are written in Glagolitic shrift. This is a very intriguing fact: in the beginning of the sixteenth century, when the Glagolitic shrift was out of use for a long time ago, it was still known and in use in the northern Moldavian lands. That could mean that it was transmitted there by manuscripts stemming from the western Bulgarian lands where its use lasted longer and until later. Actually, Evstatie was the most zealous writer in Bulgarian. The chants in Bulgarian in his book prevail: they are more than 65. Among them are: “Theos Kyrios” in eight mode succession, resurrectional troparia, theotokia, weekly morning prokeimena, yearly koinonika, weekly koinonika for Thursday and Saturday, kratemata, polyeloi, kalophonic stichera for some great feasts, etc. Evstatie indicates first of all his authorship of the chants – very rarely he gives the name of another author, which is unusual for the written practice at his time.20 About 24 works are ascribed to him – in Greek and in Bulgarian. Among his pieces are two stichera with a particular significance. Both of them are in Bulgarian. The first one is devoted to St. John the New of Suchava. It is known that after the death of the saint about 1330, his relics were transferred from Ukraine to Moldavia in 1402. The title of the sticheron is “Северна страна” (“Northern 142

H ieromonk E vstatie of P utna

Figure 11.2  The chant for St. John the New Evstatie’s book, 1511, f. 138v: the chant for St. John the New of Suchava “Северна страна”.

country”) (f. 138v–140r). It is the first lity sticheron for Great Vespers in mode 1. The study shows that the author of its text is Gregory Tsamblak. During his stay in Moldavia Tsamblak wrote a Vita of St. John the New commissioned by the Prince Alexander First the Good. Along with the Vita Tsamblak wrote an entire office for the saint also. His authorship is evidenced by the acrostic of the theotokia in the kanon in this office.21 Hence Evstatie has notated the text of the sticheron, which means that he is the author of the melody only. The second sticheron is devoted to St. Petka of Epivat. It is included at the end of the Evstatie’s book. Petka-Paraskeva was born in the town of Epivat in Kalikratia region in Thrace in the second half of the tenth century. There was a strong belief that she has always been the protector of the poor and the healer of the sick. Her popularity grew tremendously among the Balkan Orthodox people during the reign of the Bulgarian Tsar Ioan Asen the Second when her relics were taken from the Latins in Epivat and transferred to the Throne Church “St. Forty” in Tirnovo between April and August of 1231.22 Because this was a great political and cultural event – the relics of the saint to be taken away from the Latins and put in an Orthodox place – St. Petka was proclaimed a patron saint of both the Bulgarian capital and the Bulgarian kings. An office was created in glorification of her at the time of the king Ioan Asen the Second. Later on Patriarch Euthimios wrote 143

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

a Vita for her.23 With the fear of the Ottoman invasion, her relics were shifted to different places: after the fall of Tirnovo in 1393 they were shifted to kingdom of Vidin on Danube in North-West Bulgaria, after the fall of Vidin in 1396 – to Belgrade in Serbia, then to Constantinople in Byzantium in 1521, and finally to Jasi in Romania in 1641 where they are kept up to the present day. Hence, between the twelfth and the seventeenth century the relics of St. Petka were transferred from Epivat to Jasi, traveling through Tirnovo, Vidin, Belgrade and Constantinople, demonstrating the strength of the Orthodox faith. In terms of this numerous pieces for the saint were created. They belong to the four Balkan cultures – Byzantine, Bulgarian, Serbian, Walacho-Moldavian and penetrated in the Russian as well.24 St. Petka earned the nicknames Petka of Tirnovo, of Belgrade and of Jasi. The earliest notated music for St. Petka I have found in the oldest known copy of her office, which is included in the so-called Menaion of Dragan or the Trephologion (that is, the festal Menaion). The manuscript is from the second half of the thirteenth century and its larger part is kept at the Bulgarian Zografos monastery on Mount Athos.25 In two stichera in mode 2, following the photagogikon after the ninth ode of the kanon in St. Petka’s office, the sign theta is put. This sign is a stenographic equivalent of different melodic options with melismatic character.26 The performance of the places with theta signs was left to the singers: the latter had to make their choice how to perform them. The sign theta is often accompanied by other two signs: double bareia, known also as piasma, and double okseia, known as diple. Last combination is very typical for the sources

Figure 11.3  The chant for St. Petka of Tirnovo Evstatie’s book, f. 153r: the chant for St. Petka “Преподобна мати Дево девице”.

144

H ieromonk E vstatie of P utna

from the twelfth and the thirteenth centuries.27 The theta sign is revealed in two places in the mentioned stichera in the office of St. Petka in Dragan’s Menaion.28 The earliest fully notated chant for the popular saint is revealed in the Evstatie’s book. Below on f. 153r is read:29 “Cт[ихи]рa с[ве]тeй Параскеви” (“Sticheron for St. Paraskevi”), mode plagal 2. The sticheron has the following incipit: “Прeподобна мати дeво дeвице. Параскиви” (“Reverend Mother, Virgin Maiden. Paraskevi”). The careful observation of the text shows that the author of the text had in mind St. Petka of Epivat. We read: „ . . . светлое светило вернимъ царемъ нашемъ дръжава. Епиватwмъ” (“. . . brightly luminary of the true Tsar of our state Epivat”). The whole content has a character of a eulogy. It expresses both a strong hope and ardent prayer for salvation. There is no evidence where the text has been taken from and who has written it. A comparative study shows that it does not have any parallel of the known texts published for St. Petka until now. The question of whether the text in the Evstatie’s book is a translation or is an original creation remains open. The sticheron is included in the chapter of the festal melismatic stichera, one of the most typical chapters of the Akolouthiai-Anthologies. It is this chapter, which contains the kalophonic or beautifully-sounding repertory. In its greater part the latter represents a new author’s melismatic interpretation of the old traditional melodies. Typical for this repertory are the teretismata or kratemata chants, which texts are compiled of meaningless syllables, like te-ri-re, to-to-to, te-ru-re, etc. The goal of such pieces was to cover liturgical time according to the new redaction of the Jerusalem Typikon that required a longer festivity. The sticheron for St. Petka in the Evstatie’s book is composed in such kalophonic style. There is a terirem part at its end. The two stichera, for St. John the New of Suchava and for St. Petka, are included in another manuscript of the Putna family, I/544, written about 1520 and housed in the museum of the same Putna monastery (f. 76v and 82r). Obviously both stichera have found a stable place in the liturgical practice of this monastery.30 The other manuscript, 816 from the library of the Church Historical and Archival Institute at the Bulgarian Patriarchate in Sofia, is from the third quarter of the sixteenth century.31 It was found in the old depository of the Bachkovo monastery, the second largest Bulgarian monastery. The manuscript is not in a very good condition: its bindings are not preserved, the edges of the sheets are frayed, the ink, especially the red one, is faded. The palaeographical analysis of the script shows that it was written by Anthonie, the same writer who wrote the manuscript Jasi I-26 from 1545 and the manuscript from the library of Dragomirna monastery from the third quarter of the sixteenth century.32 The initial rubrics are written like the other manuscripts from the Putna school. The study shows also that the Sofia manuscript is almost identical with this one of Jasi in terms of both the selection and the arrangement of the repertory. Almost all the titles and the indications are written in Bulgarian like in the Evstatie’s book. A typical repertory of the Akolouthiai-Anthologies is included – for Great Vesper, the Orthros, the three liturgies and the kalophonic settings. The weekly koinonika and the cherubika occupy the central place in the liturgies – they are extremely richly 145

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

presented.33 The long intonational formulas (the so-called echemata) are typical for the beginning of the cherubika. In many places figures are painted in the form of both a clenched and an open hand, the so-called “hyronomic hands”. Such figures appear rarely in musical manuscripts. In the Sofia manuscript they are put on places where the medial signatures are written down, that is, very likely they function as signs for separation in the compositional structure of the chants and also, as signs for caution.34 Very often they precede the melismatic parts in the pieces. It is suggested that these signs could belong to some secret practice referring to the guidance of the choirs in the Putna monastery, that is, they are related to the indications given by the hands of the domestikos (the conductor of the choirs in the church).35 As a whole, the Sofia manuscript shows that it is particularly sophisticated written. It seems, however, that Anthonie did not know very well Greek, because a number of errors in the spelling of this language are revealed in the text. A fragment of eight sheets was recently found in the library of the National museum in Prague. According to the codicology, paleography and repertory of the chants included, the fragment was identified as belonging to the Sofia 816.36 It contains kalophonic stichera that are missing at the beginning of the last chapter of the manuscript – just there where the kalophonic repertory begins (between f. 116v and 117r). The study of the church music at the Putna monastery shows, in conclusion, that it intertwined its path closely with that created and practiced in Bulgarian lands. One of the great tasks in Putna was to preserve the Orthodox memory in the condition of foreign religious domination. And this was done perfectly on a high professional level: the musical repertory necessary for the worship in the monastery was compiled and notated according to the established new revised Jerusalem Typikon, including pieces for particularly reverend saints that were glorified there. Among the latter were St. John the New of Suchava and St. Petka of Epivat. The musical activity in Putna allows us to penetrate through the centuries and to discover some of the foundations of what is sacred to every national culture: the creative power unleashed by memorable personalities and events that have become an example of inspiration to future generations. It is our duty to know, remember and study the created by and about them.

Notes 1 According to Pennington, A. Evstatie’s Song Book of 1511: Some Observations. – Revue des Etudes Sud-Est Europeenes, 9, № 3. Bucharest, 1971, 565–583. 2 Яцимирский, А. И. Кирилловские нотные рукописи с глаголическими тайнописными записями. – В: Древности. Труды славянской коомисии Импер. Москоского археологического общества. Т. III. Москва, 1902, 149–163. 3 See the bibliography in Ocneanu, G. Evstatie’s Cheroubic Hymn Compositions: His Cheroubic Hymn in Mode III. – Composition and Chanting in Orthodox Church: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Orthodox Church Music. Joensuu, 2009, 115–141.

146

H ieromonk E vstatie of P utna

4 Palikarova Verdeil, R. La musique Byzantine chez les Bulgares et les Russes (du IХe au XIVe siecle) (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae, Subsidia. Vol. 3). Copenhagen, 1953; Петров, С., Х. Кодов. Старобългарски музикални паметници. София, 1973; Тончева, Е. Молдавски ръкописи от XVI век – Велика вечерня. Репертоарно и палеографско-текстоогическо изследване (за музиката в Евтимиевата книжовна школа в Търново през XIV век). Ph. D., София, 1979. 5 Pennington, А. Evstatie’s Song Book . . .; Idem: Seven Akolouthiai from Putna. – Studies in Eastern Chant, 4, 1979, 112–134; Conomos, D. The Late Byzantine and Slavonic Communion Cycle: Liturgy and Music. Washington, DC, 1985. 6 The manuscripts are as follows (in chronological order): 1) Moscow State Historical Museum, Shchukin collection № 350 – accomplished in 1511, written by Protopsalt Evstatie, 172 folia; 2) Sankt Petersburg Russian Academy of Sciences № 13.3.16 – the first 14 folia from the former manuscript; 3) Moscow State Historical Museum № 1102 – accomplished on August 30 1515, written by Protopsalt Evstatie, 207 folia; 4) Putna monastery № 56/544/576/I – c. 1520, first 84 folia; 5) Putna monastery № 56/544/576/ II – last 76 folia from the former manuscript (according to G. Ocneanu this is a Sticherarion from the second half of the 15th century; however, if it contains last folia of manuscript Putna 56/544/576, it should be dated like it – from 1520); 6) Leimonos № 258–1527, written by Deacon Makarie of Dobrovat Monastery, 274 folia; 7) Jasi University library № I-26–1545, written by Hieromonk Anthonie of Putna monastery, 241 folia; 8) Moscow State Historical Museum, Barsov collection № 1345 – first half to mid-16th century; 9) Moscow State Historical Museum Sin. Pevch. № 1109 – mid-16th century, 78 folia; 10) Bucharest Rumanian Academy of Sciences № 283 – second half of the 16th century, 240 folia; 11) Lvov № 1060 – second half of the 16th century, 166 folia; 12) Sofia Church Historical and Archival Institute № 816 – third quarter of the 16th century, written by Anthonie, 234 folia; 13) Prague National Museum PNM 1 Da 9, last 8 folia from the former manuscript; 14) Dragomirna monastery № 1886 – third quarter of the 16th century, written by hieromonk Anthonie, 140 folia; 15) Bucharest Rumanian Academy of Sciences № 284 – third quarter of the 16th century, 88 folia; and 16) Leipzig University library № 12 slav. – third quarter of the 16th century, 134 folia. Cfs. Ocneanu, G. Op. cit., 127; Eliseeva, А. Deux Anthologies de chant du monastère de Putna: nouvelles découvertes dans les archives du Musée d’Etat d’Histoire de Moscou, in print; Маринов, Я., С. Георгиева. Молдавската певческа школа през XVI в. Антологията ЦИАИ 816. – В: Ab Oriente Lux. Музика на православния Изток. София, 2018, 97–117. 7 About the new redaction of the Jerusalem Typikon see Taft, R. Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of Byzantine Rite. – Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 42, 1982, 179–194. 8 J.-B. Thibaut was the first who wrote about the notated texts in this manuscript, see Thibaut, J.-B. Etude de musique byzantine. La notation de St. Jean Damascene ou Hagiopolite. – In: Известия Русского археологического института в Константинополе. Т. III, 138–179; see also Palikarova Verdeil, R. Op. cit., 213–215; Лазаров, С. Синодикът на цар Борил като музикално-исторически паметник. – Известия на Института за музика. Т. VII, 1960, 5–77; Тончева, Е. Музикалните текстове в Палаузовия препис на Синодика на цар Борил. – Известия на Института за музика. Т. XII, 1967, 57–161. 9 The data are according to Тончева, Е. Молдавски ръкописи . . . 10 According to Тончева, Е. Късновизантийската музика и нотация в славянската ръкописна практика от 14–16 в. – В: Славянска палеoграфия и дипломатика. Т. 1. София, 1980, 255–265 (258). 11 The manuscript Jasi I-26 contains the full cycle of the Preliminary psalm 103, followed by the psalm 1 of the First stasis.

147

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

12 About manuscript 1102 of 1515 see Карастоянов, Б. Два новооткрити нотирани извора за балканската певческа практика на славянски език през XVI в. – Българско музикознание, 2, 1985, 3–13; Ocneanu, G. Evstatie’s Cheroubic Hymn . . .; Elena Toncheva noticed that someone prof. N. Smochina gave an information about one more manuscript of Evstatie. He came across to it in the church “Alba” in Bukovina. There was an inscription saying that the manuscript is a Hirmologion written by Protopsalt Evstatie from the Putna monastery who was born in Kristeshi (probably Krishana?). It is a question, however, which one was this church (maybe in the region Alba in Transilvania?); and also, was the mentioned Krishana the real birthplace of Evstatie? I am not aware with any other information about this: Toncheva did not cite where she got it, see Тончева, Е. Молдавски ръкописи . . ., 27. 13 Palikarova-Verdeil, R. Op. cit.; Петров, С., Х. Кодов. Цит. съч.; Тончева, Е. Молдавски ръкописи . . .; Conomos, D. The Late Byzantine and Slavonic . . . 14 Pennington, A. Evstatie’s Song Book . . . 15 According to Кожухаров, С. Служба за Йоан Сучавски. – В: Кожухаров, С. Проблеми на старобългарската поезия. Т. 1. София, 2004, 184. 16 Ann Pennington determines six ciphers that were used by Evstatie: two in Cyrillic (called “taraberik” and “Greek key”), three in Glagolitic (actually one in Glagolitic and two in pseudo-Glagolitic) and one in cypher, see Pennington, A. Evstatie’s Song Book . . . 17 It is published by A. Pennington and reads in Bulgarian: “Протопсалт Евстатие от Путненскаго монастир исписа сия книга о петии. Творениа своя в дны благочестиваго и христолюбиваго господина нашего Йоана Богдана воеводы господаре земли молдовлахийской в лето седмотисечное и деветнадесетое [7019– 5508 = 1511] месеца юниа единадесети ден. Сия книга сия песни приносит”, see Pennington, A. Evstatie’s Song Book . . . 18 E. Kaluzhnjcky reads the inscription as follows: “This chanting calls tonos in Greek, in Bulgarian – grammar”. He specifies that “grammar” means “introducing the art of chanting”. According to Тончева, E. Молдавски ръкописи . . ., 173. 19 It is said: „Съи Достойно наречеся Аксион ест [на] български и [на] гръцки“, cfs. Петров, С., Х. Кодов. Цит. съч., 177. 20 Some of other authors are identified by A. Pennington according to comparative studies with the manuscript Е. D. Clarke 14 of 1553 from the Bodleian Library in Oxford. 21 Кожухаров, С. Служба за Йоан Сучавски . . ., 185–187. 22 About this see Кожухаров, С. Неизвестно произведение на старобългарската поезия. – В: Старобългарска литература, 1, 1971, 289–323 (290); Иванова, К. Житието на Петка Търновска от Патриарх Евтимий (Източници и текстологически бележки). – В: Старобългарска литература, 8, 1980, 13–37. 23 Archbishop Sergios speaks about one more saint Paraskeva from the region of Archangelsk. Her memory was celebrated on June 3. This Paraskeva, however, remains unknown for the Slavic South, see about this Кожухаров, С. Търновска (Евтимиевска) служба за св. Петка Епиватска. – В: Проблеми на старобългарската поeзия. София, 2004, 109. 24 Ibidem. The problem about the transmission of the hymnographic texts for the service of St. Petka is very complicated, see about this Кожухаров, С. Търновска (Евтимиевска) служба . . ., 112–115; Idem. Неизвестно произведение . . .; Бакалова, Е. Житието на св. Петка в късносредновековното изкуство на Балканите. – Сп. Родина, 2, 1996, 57–84. 25 Manuscript 85.I.8. In this Menaion the services for the most popular Bulgarian saints Cyril and Methodius, Tsar Peter, John of Rila, Michel the Soldier and Petka of Tirnovo are gathered together. The manuscript also, contains eight fully notated pieces. According to the church calendar they are identified as follows: the first apostichon from the

148

H ieromonk E vstatie of P utna

service for Hagiomartyr Anthimos on September 3, glory of aposticha for the eve of the feast of prophet Zacharios on September 5, glory of aposticha for the eve of Obrezanie Gospodne on January 1 (the feast of St. Basil the Great), a sticheron for Theophany on January 6, the first litany sticheron for the eve of Sretenie Gospodne on February 2 (the feast of Hypapante), and three refrains to the troparia for the ninth ode of the kanon for the same feast, see about this also Петров, С., Х. Кодов. Старобългарски музикални паметници . . ., 151–157. The notation of these chants is determined as an archaic type of palaeobyzantine one (Chartres? Coislin? Theta? Other?). The combinations of the neume signs are considered as unique – they are not encountered in any other musical source. About the notation in the Dragan’s Menaion see Palikarova Verdeil, R. La musique Byzantine . . ., 227–229; Raasted, J. Musical Notation and Quasi Notation in Syro-Melkite Liturgical Manuscripts. – Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen Age Grec et Latin, 31a, Copenhague, 1979, 11–37; 31b, 1979, 53–77; Тончева, Е. Музикални знаци. – В: Кирило-Методиевска енциклопедия. Т. 2. София, 1995, 760. 26 About theta notation see Raasted, J. Theta Notation and Some Related Notational Types. – In: Palaeobyzantine Notations. Vol. 1. Hernen, 1995, 57–62; Кожухаров, С. Палеографски проблеми на тита-нотацията в средновековните ръкописи от 12–13 век. – В: Славянска палеография и дипломатика. Т. 1. София, 1980, 228–247. 27 Raasted, J. Theta Noation . . . 28 The service of St. Petka in the Dragan’s Menaion is published in Иванов, Й. Български старини из Македония. София 1931, 431. The places in theta notation required a melismatic performance. It is already well known that the theta notation has got a wide dissemination in Eastern Orthodox countries – it is documented in various song books in both Greek and Slavic: Menaia, Triodia (Festal and Lenten) and Oktoechoi. The basic sign theta, called also thema and fita in Russian, appears for the first time in the fund of the palaeobyzantine notation. The study of the text of the service for St. Petka shows that the Greek protograph of the text is not known. Its translation in Slavic was done in Tirnovo in 1234. It was this translation that gave rise to the rich hymnographic cycle in Slavic devoted to the saint. It has got a wide dissemination in the Late Middle Ages and during the centuries was enriched with many new pieces, see about this Кожухаров, С. Търновска (Евтимиевска) служба . . ., 109. The theta notation in the pieces of the service for St. Petka is revealed also in the Festal Menaion from the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century, see about it Кожухаров, С. Палеографски проблеми на . . .; Idem. Новости в музикалната медиевистика. – В-к Антени, 6.ХІІ.1978, 13. 29 See Петров, С., Х. Кодов. Цит. съч., 181. According to E. Toncheva the sticheron is attributed to Evstatie, cfs. Е. Тончева. Молдавски ръкописи . . ., 45. 30 The Bulgarian scholar Ilija Todorov announced about the service for St. Petka written probably in Moldavia in the fifteenth century. The service is included in manuscript 1/450/577/II from the library of the Putna Monastery, a Menaion for October from the fifteenth century, see Тодоров, И. Из ръкописната сбирка на манастира Путна. – В: Старобългарска литература, 10, 1981, 71–87 (73–74). 31 The Bulgarian theologian Ivan Goshev was the first who mentioned about this manuscript in 1930, see Гошев, И. Нови данни за историята и археологията на Бачковския манастиp. – В: Годишник на Софийския унивеpситет, Богословски факултет. Т. 8. София, 1930–1931, 341–388. Hristo Kodov identified the manuscript as belonging to the Putna family, see Петров, С., Х. Кодов. Старобългарски музикални паметници . . ., 347. 32 The manuscript contains the basic chapters of the Akolouthiai-Anthologies: 1r-10v – Great Vespers with psalm 103 (it is not completed because of missing sheets), the First stasis with the psalm 1, verses 1–6; 11r-116v – Orthros; 117r-234v – kalophonic stichera for greater church feasts and theotokia.

149

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

33 The cherubika songs are very richly presented in this manuscript in comparison with the other Moldavian manuscripts. There are chants also for the Presanctified liturgy (it is performed during Lent), the first three days of the Great Week, Easter, Sunday of All Saints, etc. 34 Е. Тончева. Молдавски ръкописи . . ., 149. 35 Ibidem. 36 The shelfmark is РNM 1 Da 9, see about this Маринов, Я., С. Георгиева. Молдавската певческа школа . . .

150

12 M E T R O P O L I TA N S E R A F I M OF BOSNIA New Findings in the Graeco-Slavic Contacts in Balkan Orthodox Church Chant

The Metropolitan Serafim of Bosnia became known in the field of Orthodox music history according to the so-called Yale fragment, discovered by the late Prof. Miloš Velimirović at the library of Yale University in 1964.1 The importance of this discovery threw a new light on the Graeco-Slavic contacts in the development of Balkan Orthodox music and revealed new paths of their investigation in terms of both music and musicians or people involved in music. The main part of the fragment (eleven sheets of paper) contains thirteen chants in mode 1 for Saturday Vespers.2 The text is written in Slavic with Greek letters, that is, a kind of Greek phonetic transliteration. The notation is late Byzantine of the second half of the eighteenth century. There is a rubric in Greek at the beginning (f. 1r) revealing the contents that reads: “Ἀναστασιματáριον σὺν Θεῷ ἁγίῳ ὅπερ ἐτονίσθη εỉς τὴν σλοβανικὴν διάλεκτον παρὰ τοῦ μουσικολογιωτάτου κὺρ Πέτρου λαμπαδαρíου τοῦ Πελοποννησίου κατὰ τò τοῦ παλαιοῦ ἀναστασιματαρίου ὕφος δι’ αỉτήσεως τοῦ πανιερωτάτου Μητροπολίτου ἁγíου Μπóσνας κυροῦ Σεραφεὶμ ἐπ’ ὠφελείᾳ τ[ῶν] σλοβάν[ων] διὰ ψυχικòν αὐτοῦ μνημόσυνον” (“With Holy God Anastasimatarion, which was set to music in the Slavic dialect by the most learned musician, kyr Petros Lampadarios of Peloponnese, according to the order of the old Anastasimatarion, at the request of the Very Reverend and Holy Metropolitan of Bosnia, kyr Serafim, for the use of the Slavs and for the memory of his soul”). In this study I shall present unknown or not sufficiently known data related to Serafim of Bosnia. As Miloš Velimirović pointed out, very little is known about this interesting and distinguished person. The focus of my study is a musical manuscript from the library of Rila monastery, 6/59, which contains two inscriptions with the name of the Metropolitan Serafim. Rila monastery is located in the southwestern part of Bulgaria. It is the biggest monastery in Bulgaria and one of the biggest monasteries on the Balkans. It has very rich library. The musical manuscripts housed there are from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. They are more than 100. The manuscript 6/59 originates from the eighteenth century. It is of the Akolouthiai-Anthology type. This type, as is already well known, was compiled at the end of the thirteenth and the very beginning of the fourteenth century according to the DOI: 10.4324/9781003377238-15

151

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

Figure 12.1  Yale fragment Yale fragment, second half of the 18th century, f. 1r.

revised Jerusalem Typikon. For the first time chants for Vespers, the Orthros, and the three liturgies were compiled in it. The manuscript 6/59 is written in Greek in late Byzantine notation. The two inscriptions in which the name of Serafim of Bosnia is read are in Slavic and seemingly written by him. They are dated. The inscription with the earlier year is written on the second to last folio. It reads: “1779=марта м[есе]ца 30. купихъ сию yалтикиицу азъ грешный митрополитъ Босан[с]ки Серафимъ” (“1779 March 30. I, the sinful metropolitan Serafim of Bosnia, bought this chant book”). The other inscription is on the inside of the front cover. We read: “Сiя псалтикия Серафима митрополита Дабробосанскаго въ монастира рылскагw wбретающагося: 1781” (“This chant book belongs to the metropolitan Serafim of Bosnia who is now in Rila monastery: 1781”). Who was Serafim and what do we know about him? Miloš Velimirović stressed that his personality is “a mystery as to whether he was a Greek, a Serb, or a Bulgarian”.3 According to some Serbian sources, the name of Serafim referred to as Metropolitan of Bosnia is attested for the first time in 1766, the year when the Patriarchate of Serbia was abolished and the Serbian church became a domain of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate. Serafim’s name appears in a petition according to 152

M etropolitan S erafim of B osnia

which the Serbian bishops “requested” the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate to annex the domain of the Serbian (Pech) Patriarchate. The appearance of Serafim’s name in such a document gave reasons to Serbian historians to conclude that Serafim was not a Serb.4 Velimirović argued that Serafim was not a Greek either: if he had been a Greek, according to him, he would have favored the use of the Greek language. Serafim’s request for creating chants in Slavic does not support his Greek origin. According to some Bulgarian sources, Serafim was Bulgarian, born in the town of Razlog or Bansko in southwestern Bulgaria.5 Hieromonk Hierotej of Rila, Serafim’s contemporary, gave evidence about him in an inscription found written in the margin of the pages of an Oktoechos printed in 1715 in Moscow.6 The evidence goes back to the year 1753 when the monk Serapion was elected abbot of Rila monastery. Serapion served four years as abbot. In 1757 Pech’s Patriarch Cyril visited Rila monastery. He proclaimed Serapion a prelate. Serapion was sent to the Stip eparchy, which had a temporary seat of the metropolitan in the town of Kujstendil. After that Serapion was appointed metropolitan of the Dabrobosnia eparchy, which had its seat in the town of Bosnia. He was renamed Serafim. According to some documents, Serapion-Serafim remained in this appointment six years – from 1766 until 1772.7 After that he went to Rila monastery spending the rest of his life devoted to literary work. It is not known when exactly Serafim

Figure 12.2  The inscription of Serafim of Bosnia MS Rila 1/36 from 1770, f. 16v: the inscription of Serafim of Bosnia.

153

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

settled at the monastery. An inscription left by him on f. 16v in the manuscript “Paraklis of St. John of Rila” shows that in 1770 Serafim was at the monastery. We read: “ .  .  . Преписахъ из’ стари[х] рукописни[х] книгахъ .  .  . азъ смиренный, митрополитъ Дабробо[са]нскiй Серафимъ. Въ лето аyо м[e]с[e] ца сеп[тември]: з . . . ” (“. . . I, the humble Metropolitan Serafim of Dabrobosnia copied this book from the old ones in 1770, September 7”).8 It is assumed that Serafim died at Rila monastery about 1800. Hence, he must have been born at latest about 1720. As it can be seen by the inscriptions, Serafim has always signed himself as a Metropolitan of Bosnia, even in later ones when he was already back to Rila monastery. Serafim sent his request for Slavic chants to Petros Lampadarios of Peloponnese, as the Yale fragment evidences. It is not by chance. Petros was his famous contemporary, one of the most distinguished musicians during the second half of the eighteenth century. He was a composer, theorist, singer at the Great Church in Constantinople, and teacher in the second music school, which was founded by the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate in 1776.9 His activity outlines a new era in the development of Balkan Orthodox music. The manuscripts from his time compared to those from prior to 1770 display differences in codicological, palaeographical and musical aspects. I take as a provisional dividing year 1770 because at that time the activity of Petros Lampadarios and of the other musicians of his circle had already been widespread. I shall point out quite briefly some changes in the musical repertory, which are related to the aim of this study. The investigation of musical manuscripts up to 1770 reveals several layers of repertory:10 firstly, a traditional one,11 which contains anonymous chants with designations showing different musical traditions – “old” and “new”, “urban” and “monastic”, “soloistic” and “choral”, etc.; secondly, an old-composed layer with pieces from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries composers, such as John Koukouzeles, John Glykys, Ksenos Korones, John Lampadarios Kladas, Manuel Chrysaphes, etc.; and thirdly, a newly-composed first layer with pieces from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries composers (up to 1770), such as Chrysaphes the New, Balasios Hiereos, Petros Bereketes, Germanos of New Patras, Kosma the Macedonian, etc. Since 1770 one more (fourth), a newly composed second layer appeared. It contains first of all works by Petros Lampadarios, Petros Byzantios, Jakovos Protopsaltes and many others from the generation of the last quarter of the eighteenth and the very beginning of the nineteenth century. These composers developed further the trends of Balkan Orthodox music laid out by the former generation of composers from the second half of the seventeenth century up to 1770. They established as a basic compositional procedure the “exegesis”, that is, the interpretation of the chants by means of using a more “analytical” notation that recorded the exact performance of the melodies (it was opposed of the “stenographic” kind of notation).12 Unlike the former generation of composers who applied the exegesis procedure to some chants only, like trisagion nekrosimon, Petros Lampadarios and his contemporaries applied it to the whole chant repertory. 154

M etropolitan S erafim of B osnia

The musical Anthology with the cited inscriptions of Serafim represents an exquisitely written manuscript in a small pocket size. According to its palaeographical characteristics, the manuscript must have been written before 1770. It contains 288 folia of a repertory in Greek of the abovementioned layers up to 1770, starting with the Preliminary psalm 103 “Ἀνοίξαντός” in mode plagal 4 for the Great Vespers. There is a rubric, which says that the chants of this psalm were composed “by different writers, old and new”. However, there are neither names, nor any other designations. Maybe the composers of the chants became so popular that there was no need for their names to be written down. My investigation of the chants revealed that they are works of the composers from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: John Koukouzeles, John Lampadarios Kladas, Ksenos Korones, Manuel Chrysaphes, and so on. After the Preliminary Psalm follows the evening psalm 140:1,2 “Κύριε, ἐκέκραξα” designated as “μεγάλον κεκραγάριον” performed on Saturday Vespers (12r); it is given in eight modes; then follow theotokia dogmatika for the same office and pasapnoaria (psalm 150:6,1) also in eight modes for Sunday Orthros (21r). After them are written chants of the Akathistos office for the Holy Theotokos performed on Saturday Orthros during the fifth week of Lent in mode plagal 4 (41r): the resurrection morning piece “Θεὸς Κύριος”, the troparion “Tὸ προσταχθὲν μυστικῶς” and the prooemium of the kontakion “Tῇ ὑπερμάχῳ Στρατηγῷ”. The latter is designated as “ Ποίημα ἀρχαĩον, ψάλλεται δὲ δίχορον” (“work old, sung by the two choirs”). Then follow chants for the Orthros of the Holy Week in mode plagal 4: “Ἀλληλούϊα”, “Ἰδοὺ ὁ Νυμφίος” and “Ὅτε οἱ ἔνδοξοι” (44r). They are succeeded by the following chants: the melismatic versions of different composers in different modes performed at the Orthros before the Gospel (46v), the eleven morning Gospel stichera with the traditional rubric that ascribes them to the Emperor Leo VI the Wise, “μελισθέντα” (meaning notated) by John Glykys Protopsaltes (59r), a doxology by different authors (77r), trisagion for the Holy Cross by Manuel Chrysaphes in mode 4 (98v) and trisagion nekrosimon designated as “ἐξηγητικόν” (interpreted) in the same mode 4 (99v). The author or the interpretor of this trisagion is not given. My investigation identified it with the work of Balasios Hiereos from the second half of the seventeenth century. In some manuscripts (for instance, Rila 6/19 from 1731, f. 248v) is said that Balasios has interpreted his trisagion according to this one sung in Athens and known under the designation “Ἀθηναῖον”. The Trisagion is followed by two chants of the special prelate service in mode plagal 3 (known also as varis): “Τὸν Δεσπότην”, designated “ἀρχαῖον” and “Ἄνωθεν οἱ Προφῆται” by John Koukouzeles designated “ἔντεχνον” (102r-v). After them are included polychronia or wishes for a long life (105r) followed by chants for the three liturgies: of St. John Chrysostom (with cherubika and koininika by different composers), of St. Basil the Great and of the Presanctified Gifts (110r–214v). After them is written the sticheron “Ἀναστάσεως ἡμέρα” in mode 1 (214v). Again, the composer is not given. I identified him with Manuel Chrysaphes of the fifteenth century. After this chant are included kalophonikoi hirmoi by Petros “Γλύκυ Μελόδι” (!), that is, Petros Bereketes of the second half of the seventeenth century designated “πανηγυρικός” (festal) (231v). The manuscript 155

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

ends with some chants that are written by another hand: the resurrection troparia, called “eulogitaria” in mode plagal 1, performed on Sunday Orthros (279v) and two cherubika songs. The first cherubikon is in mode 1 by Petros Byzantios (284r) and the second one is in mode plagal 1. It is in Slavic. A rubric in Greek above it reads (286r): “Ποίημα κὺρ Διονυσίου ἱερομονάχου τοῦ ἐκ Βελεστίνου” (“a work by kyr hieromonk Dionisios of Veles”). Petros Byzantios, to whom the first cherubikon is ascribed, is a composer from the generation of Petros Lampadarios, that is, he belongs to a generation later than the one whose works are included in the main part of the Anthology presented. Thus, the other hand, which has written the last three pieces, is later than the one in which the main text is written. That means that the last three pieces are written in addition. They are written in the same exquisite manner as the basic part of the manuscript. The two cherubika songs – by Petros Byzantios and Dionisios of Veles – are written outside the main cherubikon repertory included in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. The cherubika in this Liturgy are by authors from the second half of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries up to 1770: Germanos of New Patras, Balasios Hiereos, Chrysaphes the New and others. The question is raised: where the two cherubika songs at the end of the manuscript were written down – in Rila monastery when the manuscript had already been purchased by the Metropolitan Serafim, that is, after 1779, or before that time? Observing once again the authors of the two cherubika songs, I would say the following. Petros Byzantios is one of the most famous musicians from the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century. His popularity is comparable

Figure 12.3  The cheroubikon by Dionisij of Veles MS Rila 6/59, second half of the 18th century, f. 286r. Transcription is done by Svetlana Kujumdzieva.

156

M etropolitan S erafim of B osnia

to that of Petros Lampadarios. About Dionisios, however, we know nothing: up to now his name has not been encountered in any other musical manuscript. The rubric cited above refers to him as a hieromonk. That shows that he held a high ecclesiastical rank. Judging by the cherubikon, he must have been a contemporary of Serafim. It is possible that they knew each other. They worked in neighboring places: the towns of Stip and Veles. Only one Dionisios with a high rank from the second half of the eighteenth century is revealed.13 He was a bishop and prepared a Graeco-Slavic Dictionary in town of Veles.14 The Dictionary has the following title: “Nастоящаго сiе речникъ вписася со руку мене смиреннагw архиереа и митрополита бившаго щипскагw Дioнiсiа Византiйски. Гречески и словенски аwг г.” (“This Dictionary was written by my hand, a humble prelate and the former metropolitan of the town of Stip, Dionisios of Byzantium. Greek and Slavic, 1803”). Dionisios was the metropolitan in the town of Stip until 1788.15 The nickname “Byzantium” here might be synonym of “Orthodox”, that is, in the service of the Orthodox Church. It is a question for now of whether Dionisios of Veles and Dionisios of Byzantium is the same person.16 The cherubikon in Slavic that is included in the Rila manuscript, is of the ordinary kind of cherubika songs sung in the liturgy during the Great Entrance when the Holy Gifts entered the altar. Both parts of it are written down: “Иже херувими” – “Яко да царя” (“That who mystically” – “That we may raise on high the King of all”). There is an alleluia at the end. There is also a terirem, a passage with meaningless syllables sung to cover a certain liturgical time at the beginning of the Great Entrance. It is inserted after the words “Яко да царя” as was the practice of the late Byzantine time from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries onwards.17 The melodical phrases are comparatively short and most of them end on d, one of the basic tones of mode plagal 1. The melody moves between this tone and f, the other basic tone of mode plagal 1.18 The phrases are composed of a limited number of formulas intoned in the range of seventh. Only in the terirem part does their range reach an octave. The melody of the cherubikon is a simple one. To my knowledge the cherubikon of Dionisios of Veles is the only notated cherubikon in Slavic among the entire cherubikon repertory composed during the time of the second half of the seventeenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century (up to the establishment of the New Method of Byzantine music after 1814): all the cherubika of that time are written in Greek, including the known bilingual Graeco-Slavic manuscripts from Rila and Hilandar monasteries.19 The chants in Slavic appeared systematically notated in musical manuscripts after the Metropolitan Serafim’s appeal to Petros Lampadarios. Miloš Velimirović suggested that the Yale fragment was written about 1770.20 According to the cited inscription in the manuscript “Paraklis of St. John of Rila”, Serafim was at Rila monastery in September of the same year. Did he send his appeal to Petros Lampadarios from there? The handwriting of the last three pieces in manuscript Rila 6/59 resembles very much the one in manuscripts written with certainty in Rila monastery by the end of the eighteenth and/or the very beginning of the nineteenth century: the bilingual Graeco-Slavic Anthology Rila 5/78 and the Slavic Hirmologion 1268 of the National library “Sts. Cyril and Methodius” in Sofia. Besides, we 157

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

Figure 12.4  “Translation” by Joasaph of Rila MS Rila 5/78, end of the 18th or the very beginning of the 19th century, f. 1r: psalm 1 – “translation” by Joasaph of Rila.

should keep in mind that there was a close relationship between the town of Veles and Rila monastery: the latter founded a school in Veles.21 In conclusion, I would like to stress that the presented musical Anthology of the Metropolitan Serafim of Bosnia is one more proof about the great role that he played in the process of adopting the new Church Slavic language for the Balkans to the musical repertory of the second half of the eighteenth century. It is not by chance that a piece in Slavic was included in his book. Hence, the cherubikon in Slavic might have been inserted at the time when Serafim purchased the manuscript 6/59 and the piece was recorded in Rila monastery. The question of who wrote it, Serafim himself or another monk of Rila monastery, remains open for now. What is sure is that Serafim’s appeal for creating a repertory in Slavic was heard. Pieces in Slavic written in late Byzantine notation for most of Vespers, the Orthros, and the three liturgies appeared in manuscripts originating from monasteries on Mount Athos, like Hilandar, Ksenofontos and Dionisiatos and the Bulgarian lands.22 Some of them are linked with the names of Hieromonk Makarij of Hilandar and Hieromonk Joasaph proabbot of Rila. The name of Dionisios of Veles now has to be added to them. No doubt these pieces were performed in the churches, or, applying the words of the Metropolitan Serafim in his message to Petros Lampadarios, they were used by the Slavs in their worship. All this outline one more clue about the close contacts between Slavs and Greeks in the Balkan Orthodox Church chant. 158

M etropolitan S erafim of B osnia

Notes 1 Stefanović, D., M. Velimirović. Peter Lampadarios and Metropolitan Serafim of Bosnia. – In: Studies in Eastern Chant. Vol. 1. Ed. by E. Wellesz, M. Velimirović. LondonNew York-Toronto, 1966, 67–88. 2 Ibidem. 3 Ibidem. 4 Ibidem. 5 Писахме да се знае. София, 1984, 391. 6 Ibidem, 301. 7 Душаниħ, C. Серафим, митрополит Дабробосански, 1766–1772. – Богословлjе, т. ХІV. Београд, 1939, 53–63. 8 After Спространов, E. Опис на ръкописите в библиотеката на Рилския манастир. София, 1902 (manuscript 1/36); see also Райков, Б., Х. Кодов, Б. Христова. Опис на ръкописите в библиотеката на Рилския манастир. София, 1986, т. 1, 108 (manuscript 66). 9 Stefanović, D., M. Velimirović. Op. cit. 10 About this see Куюмджиева, C. Ранновъзрожденска българска музика – паметници и певчески репертоар. Йасаф Рилски. София, 2003. 11 This term and the following are according to Williams, E. V. John Koukouzeles’ Reform of Byzantine Chanting for Great Vespers in the Fourteenth Century. Ph.D., Yale University, New Haven, CT, 1968. 12 About the exegesis see Stathis, G. T. An Analysis of the Sticheron Ton hlion kruyanta by Germanos, Bishop of New Patras (The Old ‘Synoptic’ and the New ‘Analytical’ Method of Byzantine Notation). – In: Studies in Eastern Chant. Vol. 4. Ed. by M. Velimirović. New York, 1979, 177–228. 13 Иванов, Й. Български старини от Македония. София, 1931, 173. 14 The manuscript of the Dictionary is housed in the National library “Sts. Cyril and Methodius” in Sofia. 15 Иванов, Й. Цит. съч., 173. 16 Someone Dionisios Hieromonk of the Simonopeter monastery on Mount Athos is known as the writer of two musical manuscripts of the library of Rila monastery, 6/18 and 6/19; the two manuscripts represent two parts of the same Anthology written in 1731. See more about them in Куюмджиева, C. Ранновъзрожденска българска музика . . . See also manuscript Dohiariou 334, a Mathematarion from 1762 in: Στάθης, Γ. Θ. Τὰ χειρόγραφα Βυζαντινῆς μουσικῆς – Ἅγιον Ὄρος. Κατάλογος περιγραφικὸς τῶν χειρογράφων κωδίκων Βυζαντινῆς μουσικῆς τῶν ἀποκειμένων ἐν ταῖς Βιβλιοθήκαις τῶν ἱερῶν Μονῶν καὶ Σκητῶν τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους. Ἀθῆναι. Τ. Α΄ 1975, 392. 17 About the cherubika of the 14th and 15th centuries see Conomos, D. Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. Thessaloniki, 1974. About the cherubika of the 19th century see Куюмджиева, C. Рилската певческа школа през Възраждането. Канд. дис. София, 1980. 18 For the basic tones of the Byzantine music see Floros, C. Einführung in die Neumenkunde. Heinrichshofen, 1980, 70. 19 It is also true about the cherubikon repertory оf the previous age – from the 14th century onwards. Only a notated incipit in Slavic of this chant is known according to manuscript Athens 928, a bilingual Anthology from the end of the 15th century. The Slavic incipit is notated on f. 93r. It is written on the right margin of the cherubikon in Greek in mode 2, see Стефановиħ, Д. Стара српска музика. 2 тома. Београд, 1974, т. 1, 67–75; т. 2, ІІІ. 20 Stefanović, D., M. Velimirović. Op. cit.

159

S tudies on D istinguished M en of L etters

21 B. Кънчов. Сегашното и недавното минало на град Велес. – B: Избрани произведения, т. ІІ. София, 1970, 226. 22 Notated manuscripts in Slavic in late Byzantine notation are not known to originate from the Serbian lands of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century except the ones from the Hilandar monastery, see Петровиħ, Д. Осмогласник у музиćкоj традициjи jужних словена. Београд, 1982.

160

Part 4

 

 

STUDIES ON BULGARIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH CHANT

13 M E L I S M AT I C C H A N T S I N T H E S O U R C E S U P TO T H E F I F T E E N T H C E N T U RY R E L AT E D TO BULGARIAN CHURCH MUSIC

I shall start with two specifications. Firstly, what does “melisma”, and respectively, “melismatic chant” mean? Several definitions are read in the dictionaries: melisma is a group of notes or tones sung on one syllable of text; a passage of multiple notes sung to one syllable; melodic motives or entire melodies sung on one syllable; and finally, every melodic embellishment or ornamentation. Discussing medieval Bulgarian chants, I shall have in mind these meanings. The following criteria have to be taken into consideration when we relate sources to Bulgarian music: the sources have to be written by Bulgarians no mind where; they have to be written in lands where the compact Bulgarian population lived, that is, they were designed for the liturgical practice of this population; they have to contain or designate something related to Bulgaria; and they have to be written in Bulgarian language. It should be stressed, however, that sources in Greek are also related to Bulgarian music: during the Middle Ages the Greek language had no ethnical connotation in Slavic Orthodox countries:1 it was perceived as being a cultural language of great Antiquity and as the religious language of Eastern Christian civilization. Bulgaria was the first Slavic state in the East adopting Christianity in 864. She also was the state saving the Slavic literary heritage of the two holy brothers Cyril and Methodius after their death, respectively in Rome and in Velehrad. Some of the most distinguished pupils of the two brothers arrived to Bulgaria about 886 after their exile from Western Europe bringing the Slavic books with. Clement, Naum and Constantin were accepted by the Bulgarian Tsar Boris with a great honor. The written books in Old Bulgarian language became an equivalent of the existing up to that time literature in the three sacred languages – Hebrew, Latin and Greek. As such the Old Bulgarian language managed to become a basis for the religious culture of the other Eastern countries that accepted Christianity a little bit later and used the Slavic language – Russia, Serbia and Walacho-Moldavia. Bulgaria accepted the Eastern Christian liturgical model from Byzantium. The acceptance of this model suggested a tremendous work. In the field of church music this means the acceptance of the following: monophonic vocal music (it remains a basic one up to the middle of the nineteenth century), liturgical books DOI: 10.4324/9781003377238-17

163

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

with hymnographic texts, musical styles (syllabic, syllabo-neumatic and melismatic), musical kinds (psalmody and hymnody), musical genres (troparion, sticheron, koinonikon, kontakion, kanon, etc.), way of performance (choral, soloistic, antiphonal, responsorial, etc.), notational systems (recitative of Lectio solemnis and melodic), musical theory with its most important modal component of the oktoechos system, intonational vocabulary of which the chants were compiled (figuras-formulas or theseis), compositional techniques (centon and melody-type), musical terminology, and last but not least, some poet-composers (John of Damascus, Andrew of Crete, Theodore the Studite, Joseph the Hymnographer, Theophanos Graptos and many others). The liturgical books designed for chanting are evidence of how all this was accepted. The comparative studies of parallel chants in Greek and in Slavic show that the Bulgarian men of letters have made a selection among the chants established using the basic principles of both the correlation between texts and melodies (contrafacta and contraposita principles) and of translation (isosyllaby – counting the syllables, and homotony – the position of accents). The study of the Old Bulgarian sources reveals some specifications in terms of notational systems, the compilation of the chant books and of intonation musical fund. The study of notations for instance shows that the Slavs and respectively the Bulgarians first, used a limited number of neumes; also, some of the neume combinations are not known from the Byzantine sources. The study of the main chant books reveals a more archaic practice of compilation. For instance, the Sticherarion has not been compiled of Menaion, Triodion-Pentekostarion and Oktoechos, as many of the Greek full Sticheraria are: all of the notated Sticheraria in Slavic and respectively in Old Bulgarian consist either of Menaion or of Triodion-Pentekostarion and rarely of both Menaion and Triodion-Pentekostarion.2 The lack of the full notated Sticherarion in Slavic could be considered as one of the peculiarities of the adoption of the Byzantine liturgical model in Slavic Orthodox countries. Obviously in Bulgaria, where the books in Slavic were compiled earliest and transmitted to the other Slavic countries, the process of compilation of the full notated Sticherarion was interrupted very early and the compilation of such one in Slavic has not been accomplished.3 The study of the modal system reveals also peculiarities.4 Unlike the Greek practice of writing the eight modes in one system only – four authentic and four plagal, there are two systems: the first one is the same as in the Greek sources – the modes are designated as authentic and plagal; in the second one the modes are designated from one to eight in consequence. There is no consistency in the use of the one or the other system. It is established, however, that the latter one – the writing of the modes in consequence – prevailed in the early practice of Jerusalem. Now to take a look at the melismatic chants that could be referred to Bulgarian music. Up to the fifteenth century the theta notation prevailed in Bulgarian sources.5 Theta notation, as it is well known, is a quasi notation that has got a broad dissemination in the Orthodox world.6 The sources in this notation are related to the Studite Typikon and its various redactions. The main sign theta of this notation, 164

M elismatic C hants R elated to B ulgarian C hurch M usic

known also as thema and thematismos, represents a stenographic equivalent of melodic options with melismatic character. Its performance was left to the singers: the latter had to make their choice among these options and also, to comply with the place of chant in the liturgy. At least 15 Bulgarian manuscripts are known in this notation from the eleventh through the fifteenth centuries. Most of them come from the southwestern Bulgarian lands and show a connection with the earliest Bulgarian shrift, the Glagolitic one. The manuscripts are of the type of the main hymnographic books – Menaia, Triodia-Pentekostaria and Oktoechoi. The sign theta is written either alone or along with double oksia or dipli, double varia and apostrophos. Very often it is put either above the nomina sacra, like God, Son, Father, Nazareth, Virgin, etc., or above prepositions. The places with this sign required a melismatic performance. Let us see two such examples. The first one is the so-called manuscript Triodion of Orbelja from the second half of the thirteenth century.7 The manuscript is a full Triodion – Lenten and Flower, that is, Pentekostarion. Its origin is connected with the literary school in Ochrid. An inscription says that it was written by priest Peter. There are 42 combinations with the sign theta in 36 chants. Four modulations are marked in some chants, which is very rarely for the sources in theta notation. The melismatic chanting of some places is evidenced by the so-called “liturgical pronunciation” written systematically in the text: the vowels of the given syllable are written repeatedly as they should have been sung in worship, like “ибо-о-о” (meaning “because”), “-же-е-е” (of “темже”, meaning “to them”), etc. The second example is Dragan’s Menaion (Zographos Trephologion), written also in the second half of the thirteenth century. It is a festal Menaion containing chants from the traditional notated repertory of the Menaion part of the Sticheraria. The manuscript has always been housed at the library of the Bulgarian Zografos Monastery on Mount Athos.8 Its origin is connected with the southwestern Bulgarian lands. An inscription reads that someone Dragan has written the manuscript. According to the repertory included, Dragan should have been very well acquainted with the tradition of both the hymnography and the calendar of saints, including Slavic saints, celebrated at the time.9 Theta notation is put above many texts. For instance, in last two stichera in mode 2 for the service on October 14, the service for St. Petka of Epivat, known also as St. Petka of Tirnovo, of Belgrade and of Jasi, the sign theta is in combination with double varia and double oksia or dipli.10 The two stichera follow the photagogikon after the ninth ode of the kanon. The theta-signs are put above the word “темже” (“to them”). The second syllable, “-же”, is written in a liturgical pronunciation, that is, with the repetition of the vowel “-e-” in a way as it should have been sung: “тем-ж-e-e и мo-лим ся”, “тем-же-e-e пo длъ-гоу”, etc. The text in the second sticheron suggests greater melismatic ornamentation since the vowel “-e-” is written more times than the former. The Menaion of Dragan contains also eight fully notated pieces. According to the church calendar they are identified as follows: the first apostichon of the office for Hagiomartyr Anthimus of Nicomedia on September 3, glory of aposticha for the eve of the feast of prophet Zacharias on September 5, glory of aposticha for the 165

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

eve of the feast of St. Basil the Great on January 1 (Obrezanie Gospodne), a sticheron for Theophany on January 6, the first litany sticheron for the eve of Hypapante on February 2 (Sretenie Gospodne), and three refrains to the troparia for the ninth ode of the kanon for the same feast. The chants are notated in an archaic palaeobyzantine notation that was in use up to the last quarter of the twelfth century. The neume combinations are unique – they are not found in the corresponding manuscripts in Greek. It is interesting to know why just these chants were fully notated. There are no indications that their text was thought of to be notated: many words are written in abbreviation, which is not typical for the notated texts. The latter, at least from the mid-eleventh century on, are written in full, without any abbreviations. It could be suggested that the notation in Dragan’s Menaion was additionally put. This notation is compared with the kondakarion notation of the five Old Russian Kondakaria from the eleventh – thirteenth centuries defined as Asmatika containing the melismatic chants for the two choirs in big city’s cathedrals.11 It is a question, however, of how the notated chants in the Dragan’s Menaion were performed – their notation remains still enigmatic. As I have said manuscripts in Greek are also related to Bulgarian music, including bilingual one – Greek-Bulgarian. Some splendid Sticheraria from the thirteenth – fifteenth centuries are preserved in the library of the Church Historical and Archival Institute at the Bulgarian Patriarchate in Sofia.12 Their origin is linked with the Bachkovo monastery, the second biggest Bulgarian monastery, built in 1083 by Gregorios and Apasios Pakurianos.13 Their notation is middle Byzantine used up to the middle of the fourteenth century.14 Without doubt sources in this notation were in the practice of some Bulgarian literary centers, like the Bachkovo monastery. The manuscripts contain the traditional syllabo-neumatic repertory of the middle Byzantine Sticheraria at the time and I am not going to discuss them. I shall point out another manuscript in Greek with importance to Bulgarian music. This is the well-known manuscript Kastoria 8 from the first half of the fourteenth century.15 It is suggested that the manuscript was written for one of the churches in the town of Kastoria (Kostur in Slavic). During the Middle Ages a compact Bulgarian population lived in this town. The foundation of the most of the churches goes back to the reign of the Bulgarian Khan Persian of the first half of the ninth century. The esteem to Bulgarian rulers in the city is evidenced especially during the thirteenth century when the images of the Bulgarian Tsar Michael Asen the Second, son of the Bulgarian Tsar Ioan Asen the Second, and his mother Irene Komnene Dukaina, were painted on the outside wall of the Church “St. Archangels Metropolitans”. Kastoria 8 is an Asmatikon with the repertory for the two choirs in the churches, and as such it contains entirely melismatic chants: koinonika, hypakoe, troparia, etc.16 The notation is unique: in terms of the small signs it is middle Byzantine but in terms of the great hyronomic signs (called hyperstases in this manuscript) it is unique and is also compared with the kondakarion notation in the mentioned five Old Russian Kondakaria. Melismatic chants related to Bulgarian music, are also the chants designated as “Bulgarian”. All of them are in Greek. They appear in the new class of chant 166

M elismatic C hants R elated to B ulgarian C hurch M usic

books, the Akolouthiai-Anthologies. The latter are notated in late Byzantine notation and are related to the revised Jerusalem Typikon, known as the newSabaitic Typikon as well. Most of the “Bulgarian” chants are in manuscripts written between 1340 and 1360. Their origin is linked with the monasteries St. John Prodromos near Serres, Virgin Mary Kosinitza near Drama, Dormition of Virgin Mary near Kumanovo, St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, Hilandar, Koutloumusiou, Iviron, Konstamonitou and several other monasteries on Mount Athos.17 There are ten different such chants in various copies. Some of them have found an established place in musical manuscripts and this led to the conclusion that they were among the constant repertory of liturgical chants. “Bulgarian” chants are in four genres, all of which are of melismatic repertory designated for some of the most solemn parts of worship: polyeleoi, kratemata or teretismata, koinonika and cherubika. The rubrics call them “vulgarikon” (“Bulgarian”), “vulgarikon ke dysikon” (“Bulgarian and Western”), “vulgara” (“Bulgarian woman”) and “vulgaritsa” (diminutive of Bulgarian woman). The designations “vulgara” and “vulgaritsa” prevail.18 Most of the Bulgarian chants are of the polyeleos genre. There are six different “Bulgarian” polyeleoi written to different verses of both polyeloi psalms – 134 and 135. They are ascribed to John Glykys, the supposed teacher of St. John Koukouzeles, John Lampadarios Kladas, Nikolaos Koukoumas and John Koukouzeles himself. The Bulgarian kratemata are two. One of them is ascribed to Dimitri Dokeianos, a supposed pupil of John Koukuozeles, and bears a unique rubric: “By Dokeianos, mode 1, imitating a Bulgarian lament tune”.19 The other kratema, designated as “vulgaritsa” is anonymous but in the sources from the eighteenth century on is linked with the name of Koukouzeles. Of the koinonikon genre is known one Bulgarian piece written on the text of psalm 148, verse 1a “Praise the Lord”. It is attributed to Venediktos who is identified with a priest from the town of Rethimnon in Northern Crete. Of the cherubikon genre is known also one chant designated as “vulgaritsa”. It is anonymous, which is unusual for this genre (see about these pieces more in part IV.3. in this book). Last example of melismatic repertory that I shall present here comes from the Tirnovo literary and hymnographic school (the town of Tirnovo was the last Bulgarian capital before the fall of the country under Turkish domination in 1396). This is the so-called Palauzov‘s copy of the Synodikon of Tsar Boril from the end of the fourteenth century. It contains texts against the Bogomils. The original of the Synodikon was written in 1211 and it does not survive. The Synodikon is known according to two later copies. The Palauzov’s copy is the earlier one. It is suggested that the redaction of this copy was done by the last Bulgarian patriarch Euthimios. The entire text is in Bulgarian. There are, however, four notated chants in Greek in late Byzantine notation. They belong to the melismatic repertory. Their text in Bulgarian is written in both above the main text and the margin with the note: “Here the singers chant with voice”. Before the first notated text at least one more musical text should have been written because it is read: “τοῦ αὐτοῦ” (“by the same”), which is related, as it is known, to the author of the music. Because of the missing folia before the first notated text, the author remains unknown.20 There 167

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

is no equivalent of the notated texts in the Synodikon. The fact that these texts are included in a book that is not designed for chanting suggests that they probably were performed in special services or in the liturgy when the heretics were branded. It is known that in the fourteenth century numerous heresies spread in the Balkans – Bogomils, Varlaamites, Pavlikjans, etc. Chants against heresies and heretics are revealed in musical manuscripts, though very rarely. For instance, in manuscript from the eleventh – twelfth century the rubric says: “Stichera against the Manichean” (Sinai Gr. 1243); in another manuscript from the first half of the fifteenth century we read: “Korones against Latins”, “By the same [Korones] against Varlaamos and Akindinos” (Philotheos 122). The named Korones is Ksenos Korones, one of the most distinguished and authoritative authors of the generation of St. John Koukouzeles from the first half of the fourteenth century.21 Such chants could be considered as a kind of “political” ones sung officially in the church during the Middle Ages. To sum up in conclusion. The sources discussed that are related to Bulgarian music and contain melismatic chants are in Bulgarian and Greek. They are linked to the Studite Typikon and its various redactions and to the revised Jerusalem Typikon. Respectively, they are notated in different kinds of notation that were in use up to the fifteenth century, and are included in different types of chant books. The melismatic chants were performed from a very early time. Chants in theta notation could be considered among the earliest such chants. The main signs that are encountered in the fund of the theta notation, such as thema, double oksia or varia, double varia and apostrophos, are revealed in the earliest list of neume signs, called “melodemata” in the tenth-century manuscript Lavra Г. 67. It is established that these signs belong to the palaeobyzantine Chartres notation.22 Many chants in this notation were sung melismatically. According to Egon Wellesz the melismatic chants of the Byzantine Church had in the main the same shape in the ninth century as in the thirteenth.23 In any case the melismatic chants suggest the presence of excellent singers who knew very well both the liturgical practice and the art of chanting.

Notes 1 Dimitri Obolensky speaks about Byzantine-Slavic commonwealth, see Obolensky, D. The Byzantine Commonwelth: Eastern Europe 500–1453. London, 1971. 2 The notated Slavic Hirmologia differ also from Greek ones in terms of the arrangement of its repertory. Unlike the Greek Hirmologia, which are in the kanon order (KaO), most of the Slavic Hirmologia are in the odo order (OdO). It is suggested that the latter was in use in the old Jerusalem practice. About the two arrangements see Velimirović, M. Byzantine Elements in Early Slavic Chant (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Vol. 4. Subsidia, 2 vols.). Copenhagen, 1960. 3 It is known a notated Russian Sticherarion, compiled by Triodion-Pentekostarion and is called Triodion-Sticherarion: manuscript Hilandar 307 from the 12th century. It is notated in znamennaja notation comparable with the palaeobyzantine Coislin notation, see Strunk, O. Essays on Music in the Byzantine World. Ed. by Kenneth Levy. New York, 1977, 220–230.

168

M elismatic C hants R elated to B ulgarian C hurch M usic

4 The great part of the musical terminology was translated into Bulgarian in a very early time. The designation “искър”was used for the plagal mode. The earliest manuscript where the latter is encountered is the famous Sinai Euchologion from the 11th century written in Glagolitic, the earliest Slavic alphabet that was in use in Bulgaria already in the 9th century. The greater part of the Sinai Euchologion is at the library of St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai, Sinai Slav. 37 + Sinai Slav. 1/N; four sheets of it are in two libraries in Sankt Petersburg: the library of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 24.4.8, fund “И. И. Срезневский”, and the National library, Глаг. 2 + Глаг. 3. 5 About the theta notation in Bulgarian sources see Кожухаров, С. Палеографски проблеми на тита-нотацията в среднобъларските ръкописи от 12–13 век. – В: Славянска палеография и дипломатика. Т. 1. София, 1980, 225–246. 6 See Raasted, J. A Primitive Palaeobyzantine Musical Notation. – Classica and Medieavalia, 23, 1962, 302–310. 7 The manuscript is housed at the Russian National Library in Sankt Petersburg – F.п.I.102. 8 Its greater part is there under the signature 85.І.8. 9 The manuscript is considered as the first example of compilation of Bulgarian Festal Menaion. Services for Bulgarian saints are included along with services of well-known Christian saints. Such are the services for the saints Cyril and Methodius, John of Rila, Tsar Peter, Michael Warriors and Petka of Tirnovo. The relics of all of the mentioned saints were gathered together in Tirnovo, the new Bulgarian capital after the Byzantine domination in Bulgaria (1018–1187), see Кожухров, С. Търновската книжовна школа и развитието на химническата поезия в старата българска литература. – В: Търновска книжовна школа. Т. 1. София, 1974, 227–310. 10 It is published in Иванов, Й. Български старини от Македония. София, 1931, 431. 11 About this see Floros, C. The Origins of Russian Music. Introduction to the Kondakarian Notation. Ed. by N. Moran. Frankfurt am Main, 2009, 18–20. 12 The manuscripts are under the following signatures: 812, 813, 818 and 913. It is known that there was a big scriptorium at the Bachkovo monastery. Probably the manuscripts were used at the places where the bilingual population (Bulgarian-Greek) attended the churches. Such a place was the Bachkovo monastery itself. An inscription in manuscript 818 testifies that it was used by Bulgarians. The inscription reads (f. 38v): „Покусих перо тръстено” (“I tried my reed pen”). According to its palaeographical characteristics the inscription is linked with the handwriting of Andronik-Andrej, a pupil of Patriarch Euthimios, who was at the Bachkovo monastery by the end of the 14th and the beginning of the 15th century. 13 It is not known whether they were brothers and what was their origin – Georgians, Armenians or other? 14 I am using the determination of the notation stages according to the “Fathers” of Byzantine musicology, see Wellesz, E. A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography. Oxford, 1961, 262: palaeobyzantine (early Byzantine) notation – 9th-12th century; middle Byzantine (round) – 12th-14th century; and late Byzantine (Koukouzelian) – 14th-19th century; see also Floros, C. Einführung in die Neumenkunde. Heinrichshofen, 1980, 35. 15 The manuscript contains 83 folia. Both the beginning and the end of the manuscript are missing, see Floros, C. The Origins of Russian Music . . ., 256–260. 16 Ibidem; see also Doneda, A. Hyperstases in MS Kastoria 8 and the Kondakarion Notation: Relationships and Interchangeability. – In: Palaeobyzantine Notations. Vol. II. Ed. by Christian Troelsgård, and Gerda Wolfram. Hernen, 1999, 23–36. 17 About them see Kujumdzieva, S. “Bulgarian” Chants in Musical Manuscripts. – In: Eastern Christian Studies, 29. Ed. by C. Troelsgård, G. Wolfram. Leuven, 2022, 35–59.

169

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

18 The first two attributions are related to three polyeleoi (psalms 134:11c and 135:19a and 21а). The other two are related to the rest three polyeleoi, the kratemata, the koinonikon and the cherubikon. 19 Many lament pieces are devoted to the Virgin who laments her son on the Cross. The earliest known such piece preserved is the 6th-century kontakion for the Holy Friday by Romanos the Melode “Mary at the Foot of the Cross”, see Đurić, M. T. The Man of Sorrow and the Lamenting Virgin. The Example of Markov Manastir – In: Зборник радова Византолошког Института, XLIX. Beograd, 2012, 303–331 (310). 20 It is housed at the National library in Sofia “Sts. Cyril and Methodius” under the shelfmark 289. 21 About this see Куюмджиева, С. Стихирарът на Йоан Кукузел. Формиране на нотирания възкресник. София, 2004, 72. 22 Floros, C. The Origins of . . ., 48. 23 Wellesz, E. A History of . . ., 332.

 

170

14 I N D I C AT I O N S O F M U S I C A L PERFORMANCE FROM THE F I F T E E N T H C E N T U RY

The period of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries is characterized by a renewal of the development of Eastern chant in the Balkans. It is not by chance that this epoch is discussed as an “Ars nova”.1 The new revised liturgical ordo of Jerusalem was established along with the revival of hesychasm, a movement for spiritual renewal. The hesychasts believed that God could be reached through a pure devotion. They paid special attention to the word, which became a means of expression to reach God. Its “divine beauty” had been sought out. The style of “weaving of words” (in Slavic “плетение словес”) was developed. The aim was first, the accommodation of the sacred texts to the revised liturgical ordo, and second, the reestablishment of the authenticity of the sacred texts of the Holy Fathers, which was lost in the preceding century during the Latin occupation of Byzantium (1204–1261). That is why the work focused on “the correction of books” (in Slavic “исправление книг”). Also, the aim was the unity of the Orthodoxy to be fostered at a time when the common fear of Islamic invasion increased. Hesychast ideas and style are revealed in music of that time. Features of the hesychast style are displayed in the new class of musical books that were compiled by the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Akolouthiai-Anthologies, the order of services. For the first time musical theories, the so-called papadiki, are included at the beginning of these books. An extremely careful attitude to the musical “word” is revealed in these theories. The musical “word” is compared with a grammar. “As in grammar – wrote the fifteenth-century theoretician Manuel Chrysaphes – the union of 24 letters forms words in syllables, in the same way the signs of the sounds are united scientifically and form the melody”.2 Knowledge of the signs of hyronomia or the great neumatic signs became very important. The great signs represented the stenographic symbols of musical formulas, called theseis, of which the chants were composed. They constituted the musical vocabulary. In the fourteenth century these signs are presented in the so-called Didactic Poem included at the end of musical theories. Through the centuries the most popular such Poem remains one by St. John Koukouzeles. It is composed of about 60 formulas; its text is made up of the names of the great neumatic signs and its melody of their music. According to Manuel Chrysaphes, the Poem was composed “as a rule and norm”,3 that is, it had to keep the purity of DOI: 10.4324/9781003377238-18

171

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

what had been established, to preserve the music from any distortion. The Poem appeared to be a kind of “intonation Dictionary” of musical “words” at the time. The meaning of the theseis representing the musical words is commented further in the three famous musical treatises of the fifteenth century by Manuel Chrysaphes, Hieromonk Gabriel of Xantopoulos and John Laskaris.4 Manuel Chrysaphes distinguishes in his treatise “singing according to paralage” (a kind of solfedgio – tone by tone) from “singing according to theseis” (melodic formulas). He stresses that the singing according to theseis is more important from that of paralage. Hieromonk Gabriel noted that “the hyronomiai discern whether they (the theseis) are correct or not”.5 The hesychast style is revealed also in the highly melismatic repertory called “kalophonic” meaning “beautiful-sounding”. The kalophonic style could be considered as an analogous to the ornamental style of “weaving of words” in literature. Rubrics above many chants say that they were “kalopismos”, that is, they were embellished or beautified. For some of them is specified that they are to be chanted “λεπτότατον”, a direct analogy of the designation “по лепоте” in Slavic, meaning “on beauty” or “very fine”. In many cases the embellishment represents an elaboration of traditional originals. The function of this elaboration and, respectively, of the most “beautified” settings, was to cover the liturgical actions, which had been augmented according to the new liturgical ordo of Jerusalem. It was at this point where the intersection between the revised Jerusalem ordo and hesychasm may be seen to a very great degree. Many highly melismatic compositions based on meaningless syllables, like “te-ri-re”, “te-ru-re”, “a-nane”, “a-nu-na-ne”, etc., called teretismata or kratemata were created and inserted in the services. These pieces in their turn speak about the special attention, which was paid to the musical “word”. The explanation of their appearance is in the light of the hesychasm: according to the seventeenth-century monk Gerasim of Cyprus “te-re-re” was an angelic singing symbolizing God’s resurrection and mankind’s salvation. Recall here that the hesychasts considered themselves as an antitype of the angels on the earth. With the aim of accommodation to the new liturgical and stylistic demands at the time, the role of professional singers increased greatly.6 From the fourteenth century onwards singers started to be painted on church walls and on the sheets of manuscripts. They were placed next to the high church dignitaries and almost always in the first line. Singers are depicted wearing special hats on their heads and showing different signs with their fingers. It could be said that these are the great hyronomic signs. The singers were considered as a sort of “guard” of tradition keeping its intonation purity. The new revised ordo, together with hesychast ideas, spread to all Balkan Orthodox countries. The extent sources testify that Bulgaria was one of the first to accept them. The school of Tirnovo (the town of Tirnovo was the capital of Bulgaria at that time) was the main center where the new ideas reached their peak. The activity of the Tirnovo school regarding “correction of books” is projected in the field of hymnography and music. The work of this school became a model for 172

I ndications of M usical P erformance F rom the 1 5 th C entury

Figure 14.1  Rila Glagolitic sheet Rila Glagolitic sheet: back side with the musical notes.

the other Slavic Orthodox countries. Many books, which were written in Tirnovo, spread to Serbia, Walachia and Moldova, Russia and Ukraine. This is the so-called “Second South Slavic Influence” that went out from Bulgaria and spread to the west and to the north of her lands.7 One of the most valuable Bulgarian musical sources of the fifteenth century, which mirrors the presented tendencies mentioned above from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in the field of Balkan Orthodox music, is an old Glagolitic fragment containing a kind of musical theory. The fragment is found in the library of the largest Bulgarian monastery and one of the largest on the Balkans, the monastery of Rila.8 It consists of one parchment sheet from the eleventh century with sermons by Ephrem the Syrian. On its reverse side are written musical notes by a later hand, referring to the late Byzantine musical system that had entered the musical books by the beginning of the fourteenth century. We shall call them the Rila musical notes. More than 20 neume signs together with some of their combinations are discussed. A great attention is paid to their performance. From this point of view the source is a unique document of musical performance of the late Byzantine period. In addition, some very interesting terms are used. The most basic among them is “quiver in the throat” (“тресене в гърло”): “quiver slowly 173

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

Figure 14.2  “Quiver in the throat” and “razlag” Rila Glagolitic sheet: “quiver in the throat” and “razlag”.

Figure 14.3  Cheroubikon song in mode plagal 1 Rila Glagolitic sheet: the cheroubikon song, mode plagal 1.

174

I ndications of M usical P erformance F rom the 1 5 th C entury

in the throat”, “quiver faster in the throat”, “with quiver”, etc. This term refers to the melodic movement in seconds. The writer explains that the combinations with the great hyronomic signs parakalesma and heteron parakalesma, the meaning of which is “I implore”, “I cry”, require a “throat” sound performance. Special attention is paid to the combination of these signs with the sign piasma, a combination that is encountered very often in the notated chants in the Akolouthiai. We read that these signs have one “razlag”. The latter term and also, “according to razlagom”, refers probably to a kind of melodic articulation of a given thesis or melodic formula. We learn also that the singing of the signs elaphron (descending third) and aporrhoe (two consecutive descending seconds) is connected with the effect of “nasal” performance. The signs of the consecutive descending and ascending intervals designated in Greek as “somata” (“bodies”), are translated into Bulgarian with the word “плът” (“flash”); the signs of interval leaps, „pneumata” (“spirits”), are translated with “дух” (“spirit”). The writer had probably studied the church singing according to particular melodic idioms because he gives a particular cherubikon hymn in first plagal mode as an example commenting how to perform its opening. The author of this hymn is identified as Ksenos Korones. The writer further knew very well both the system of the intonation formulas or ehemata introducing the modes and the modulations. He says that in order to move from one mode to another, one should descent or ascend by means of some particular sounds – “flash” or “spirit”; also, that the “second mode below and eight mode are in the same place”, etc. He uses two indications of the modes – the plagal-authentic distinction and the numerical one from 1 to 8. The latter indication is considered more archaic going back to Jerusalem. It is this indication using by the Orthodox Slavs down to the present day. The term “полуглас” (“with half a voice”) also speaks about more archaic practice because the same term is known from the Hagiopolites treatise: under the name “hemitona” it refers to one of the four classes of neumatic signs discussed in the latter treatise. It is established that this treatise presents the late stage in the development of the palaeobyzantine musical system that was in use in the Holy city and is encountered in manuscripts up to the end of the twelfth century.9 Who was the writer of the Rila musical notes? The Bulgarian theologian Ivan Goshev suggests that he was “a monastic psalt (singer) skilled in writing and singing”.10 It is very likely that the writer was indeed a psalt because, on the one hand, without doubt the performance practice at the time was very well known to him, and on the other, he paid a significant attention to the musical performance. The sheet on which the musical notes were written down, was found in the inside cover of the book “Andrianti”, written in 1473 by one of the most talented writers of the fifteenth century, Vladislav the Grammarian. Hence, it is very likely that Vladislav was the writer of the musical notes. Who else would have written on a sheet put in his own manuscript? Vladislav was a monk in a rank of djak, which means Grammarian (reader and writer) but also an experienced church singer. He was born c. 1420 in Novo Bardo, which is today in Kosovo. Vladislav was an adherent of

175

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

the traditions of Tirnovo literary and hymnographic school. He spent most of his life in the Zhegligovo monastery, dedicated to the Dormition of the Virgin Mary, known also as Matejche, in the region of Black Mountain near Kumanovo not far away from Skopje. Vladislav spent his last years in the Rila monastery but we do not know when exactly he moved there. The handwriting with which the musical notes are written is very close to Vladislav’s handwriting. He obviously had the habit of putting notes in the margins in his manuscripts: the latter contain various explanations, additions and corrections of some passages written in his hand. If Vladislav was the writer of the musical notes, the question arises as to where they were written – in the Zhegligovo monastery where he spend some time or in the Rila monastery when he moved there? He would have been in Rila in 1469 when the relics of St. John of Rila were transferred there from Tirnovo. The transfer of the relics of St. John of Rila was permitted by the Sultan and became a spectacular manifestation with the participation of many people who had crossed half the Bulgarian territory to join it. This was the occasion when the third date of commemoration of St. John of Rila entered the Bulgarian church calendar – July 1 (the other two are August 18, his falling asleep in 946, and October 19, the transfer of his relics from Rila monastery to the capital Tirnovo in 1195). Vladislav would have been a witness to the return of the relics from Tirnovo to Rila in 1469 because he described it very vividly and in detail in a lengthy poem. It is established that when Vladislav came to Rila monastery he brought almost all of his books that he had written up to that time. A substantial hymnographic school existed at the monastery. Certainly, the church singing was maintained on a very high level there. A unique cycle of kanons devoted to the memory of St. John of Rila was composed in all eight modes. Study of musical sources of the fifteenth century shows that Rila musical practice was very close to that of the Zhegligovo monastery and it is not by chance that Vladislav moved from Zhegligovo to Rila. Both monasteries have maintained close relationships. Such relationships were also established between these two monasteries and the two monasteries along the Mesta and Struma rivers, those of St. John the Forrunner near Serres and The Virgin Mary Kossinitza near Drama. Bulgarian cultural traditions in all these monasteries were very strong. There are many manuscripts written in these monasteries from the fourteenth century onwards containing various chants in the genres of polieleoi, kratemata and communion hymns designated as “Bulgarian” or “Bulgarian woman”. In 1345 the region of Serres was conquered by the Serbian Tsar Stephen Dušan. A compact Bulgarian population, however, remained living there. After Dušan’s death in 1355 the region passed into possession of his wife Elena, known also as Elena the Bulgarian: she was a sister of the Bulgarian Tsar Ioan Alexander. Elena reigned to 1365. After that year she gave the region to her son Stephen Uroš the Fifth. Elena is among the most famous ktitors (donors) of the monastery of Zhegligovo. During the fifteenth century two composers with the nickname the “Serb” worked in the latter monastery – Nikola and Isajah.11 Vladislav the Grammarian 176

I ndications of M usical P erformance F rom the 1 5 th C entury

was in the monastery when they were there and probably knowing both of them. An argument for that is found in his manuscript of 1456 where one reads: “This book is copied in Mlado Nagorichino, in the house of Nikola Spanchevich . . .” The latter is identified with the composer Nikola the Serb. The other composer, Isajah, is designated in manuscripts as domestikos (conductor). He was a very good acquaintance with another famous man of letters from the fifteenth century, Dimitar Kantakuzin with whom Vladislav had a close relationship. Evidence of this is a Kantakuzin’s Message written to Isajah after 1469. In this Message Kantakuzin discusses the state of the Orthodox church in the Balkans. He is indignant at the “real mess” in worship after the fall of the Balkan Orthodox countries to the Ottomans. Kantakuzin discusses also the question of church singing. He writes that in one place is served and sing in one way, and in another – in a different way, and that the ministers are ignorant and do not know what to sing in the church – neither in the Liturgy, nor in Vespers, nor in Orthros.12 Study of the Rila musical notes shows a great palaeographical closeness to two manuscripts of the fifteenth century of the Akolouthiai type. It is very likely that both of them were written either in the Zhegligovo monastery or somewhere nearby.13 Both are bilingual. Their texts are written in Greek and in Slavic in the following way: the Greek and the Slavic texts are written below the same melody; the same melody is notated twice – first in Greek and then – in Slavic. One of the two manuscripts is now kept at the Athens National library, 928.14 It was compiled either by Isajah the Serb or by Nikola the Serb. One reads in it some of the same terms that are encountered in the Rila musical notes. For instance, the two instructive formulas of the kind of da capo, that usually were sung either by the domestikos or by some of the soloists, “lege” and “palin”, meaning “say” or “sing” and “repeat”, are given in Slavic in the same translation in both sources: “глаголюще” and “пакыже”; in the Athens manuscript the Old Bulgarian, and respectively, the Old Church Slavonic musical term “искрь”, which means plagal mode, is recovered from the early Slavic terminology of the eleventh century: for the first time this term in Slavic is encountered in the famous Glagolitic Euhologion from the St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai. Also, the earliest known notated chant in the Orthodox Balkans in praise of the popular Bulgarian and South Slavic saints John of Rila, Prochor of Pchinja and Joakim of Osogovo (last two both are commemorated on January 15) is revealed in the Athens manuscript. The names of the three cited saints are put next to the names of some of the most distinguished Christian saints – Basil the Great (January 1), Gregory Theologian (January 25) and John Chrysostom (November 13). The chant is a refrain to the polyeleos in mode 1 – “Прийдете вси земленородни” (“Come all ye born on the earth”).15 It is attributed to Isajah the Serb and is in a strophic form: the same notated melody is sung with different texts written below it according to the compositional technique of contrafacta.16 177

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

The other manuscript is now in the Belgrade National library, 93. Until 1735 it was housed in the Metropolitan church St. John Prodromos in Skopje and it is not known to have been in any other place. Neither is known when it was taken to Belgrade. In 1941 the manuscript was destroyed during the bombardment of the city. Twelve pages of it survived only. The first six of them contain late Byzantine musical theory (papadike). The theory is written in Slavic and is the only medieval Slavic theory originating from the Orthodox Balkans. It represents a concise variant of the traditional Greek theory included in the Akolouthiai from the fourteenth century on. Expressions from the vernacular speech are used, such as: “испред” (in front), “отсгор” (above), “надвор” (outside), “изнадвор” (out of), etc. The Slavic theory is followed by full theory in Greek. The neumatic signs are listed according to the late Byzantine classification dividing them into “emphona” (the small signs with an interval meaning), “aphona” (“voiceless”, the great hyronomic signs) and “argie” (“signs for rest” or the rhythmic signs). Study of the three sources – the Rila musical notes, the Athens and the Belgrade manuscripts – reveals a great kinship between them. First, in palaeographic aspect, and second, in terms of the musical indications. In addition, the following common indications could be cited. In the Belgrade manuscript is read: “Блажен муж [this is the incipit of the first psalm of Great Vespers, “Makarios anir” in Greek] пак на други стих спадни три гласа” (“descend on the other verse with three sounds”); in the Rila notes is written: “спадни два гласа от едном” (“descend two sounds from one”), “спадни апострофи” (“descend with apostrophoi”), etc. The two kinds of the interval signs – for the consecutive movement and for leaps – have the same indications in the Rila musical notes and in the Belgrade manuscript: “flash” and “spirit”. We read in the Rila musical notes for the three signs, elaphron (descending third), chamile (descending fifth) and apporhoe (two consecutive descending seconds): “Cие трие. Ни плът, ни дух ест” (“These three are neither flash, nor spirit”). This indication actually is wrong according to the papadiki or musical theories in Greek: it refers to last sign only – the aporhoe. We read in the Greek theories that the aporhoe is neither “soma” because it does not indicate a consecutive movement, nor “spirit” – it does not indicate a leap either. The same “mistake” we read in Belgrade manuscript. The resemblance between the three sources confirms that the musical practice in Rila monastery and the area around Skopje was very close. It could be concluded that the Rila musical notes were almost certainly written by Vladislav the Grammarian and in all probability, this was done when he moved to the Rila monastery after 1469. The source contains practical indications for performance and remains a unique document of a “living” musical practice. This practice is fully oriented towards the new trends that were established in the fourteenth century in connection with the new revised ordo of Jerusalem and the hesychasm paying special attention to theseis, the musical words. The Rila musical notes, finally, remains a document showing efforts to maintain the church singing on a high level at a very tough time when the Balkan Orthodox countries had lost their political freedom. 178

I ndications of M usical P erformance F rom the 1 5 th C entury

Figure 14.4  Elaphron, hamile and apporohe Rila Glagolitic sheet: the three signs elaphron, chamile and apporhoe. The indication reads: “These three are neither soma (‘плът’), nor pneuma (‘дух’)”.

Notes 1 Williams, E. John Koukouzeles’ Reform of Byzantine Chanting for Great Vespers in the Fourteenth Century. Ph.D., Yale University, New Haven, CT, 1968; Lingas, A. Hesychasm and Psalmody. – In: Mount Athos and Byzantine Monasticism. Ed. by A. Bryer, M. Cunningham. Variorum, 1996, 155–168; Moody, I. Ars Nova: New Art and Renewed Art. – In: Journal of the International Society of Orthodox Church Music. Vol. 3. Ed. by I. Moody, M. Takala-Roszczenko. Joensuu, 2018, 230–235. 2 According to Conomos, D. The treatise of Manuel Chrysaphes, the Lampadarios (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Corpus scrptorum de re musica. Vol. 2). Wien, 1985, 39. 3 Ibidem, 52. 4 Respectively “On the theory of the art of chanting and on certain erroneous views that some hold about it”, “On the signs of chant and other useful matters”, “Herminia and Parallage of Musikis Technis”. 5 Hannick, C., G. Wolfram, eds. Gabriel Hieromonachos (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae: Corpus scriptorum de re musica. Vol. 1). Wien, 1985, 73. 6 About the singers see Moran, N. Singers in Late Byzantine and Slavonic Painting. Leiden, 1986; Бакалова, Е. Образите на Йоан Кукузел и византийската традиция за представяне на певци. – Музикални хоризонти, 18–19, 1981, 69–243. 7 During the 15th century the Serbian Resava school arose as a continuation of the Tirnovo school in terms of the new liturgical and stylistic parameters. During the 16th and 17th centuries the Resava spelling became a norm for the Bulgarian man of letters in western and central Bulgarian lands. 8 The musical notes are written on the so-called Macedonian Glagolitic sheet, a parchment fragment found in the cover of the 15th-century Cyrillic manuscript kept in the library of the Rila monastery. They were found by the Russian Slavist Vasilij Grigorovich-Barsky in 1845 who took the fragment and moved it to Russia. It is now

179

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

housed in the library of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Sankt Petersburg under the number 24.4.15. See about it: Ильинский, Г. А. Македонски глаголический листок. Отрывок глаголического текста Ефрема Сирина XI века. – В: Памятники старославянского письма. Т. 1, вып. 6. Санкт Петербург, 1909, 16–17; Гошев, И. Рилски глаголически листове. София, 1956, 121–122; Лазаров, С. Средновековен славянски трактат по музика. – В: Търновска книжовна школа. Т. 2. София, 1980, 555–572; Lazarov, S. A Medieval Slavonic Treatise on Music. – In: Studies in Eastern Chant. Vol. V. Ed. by Dimitri Conomos. Crestwood, 1990, 153–186; Тончева, Е., Е. Коцева. Рилски музикални приписки от XV в. – Българско музикознание, 2, 1983, 3–44; Куюмджиева, С. За българската музика през XV в. – Palaeobulgarica, 2, 1983, 14–38. 9 The Hagiopolites treatise is known according to various manuscripts from the 14th century on. One of the most famous of them is Parisianus Gr. 360 from the 14th century, see Raasted, J. The Hagiopolites: A Byzantine Treatise on Musical Theory. – Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Age Grec et Latin, 45, 1983; Floros, C. Einführung in die Neumenkunde. Heinrichshofen, 1980, 45. 10 Гошев, И. Op. cit., 121–122. 11 See about them Стефановиħ, Д. Стара српска музика. Београд, 1975. The question about the nickname the “Serb” of Isajah and Nikola is very interesting. Without doubt it refers to Serbian ethnicity. In all probability it was given because the two authors worked in a foreign ethnical milieu – not Serbian (like for instance Theophanes the Greek who was Greek by his origin, born in Constantinople, but he moved to Russia and worked there). The region of Zhegligovo monastery where Isajah and Nikola worked is located in the southwestern Bulgarian lands, where a compact Bulgarian population lived. 12 The text in Slavic reads: „ .  .  .в истину очи мои видеста .  .  . в нове поставлена клирика и невежда що пети в църкви, ниже знающа що ест божественаа литургия, в ниже вечерние пение, ни утренее, обаче в него место бе пое оно, в ового же место друго, и в другаго место ино . . .”, see Данчев, Г. Посланията на Димитър Кантакузин. – Studia Balcanica, 8, 1974, 45–48. 13 Both manuscripts are evidence for late Byzantine musical practice. The earliest document of such musical practice in Slavic is the Palauzov’s copy of the Synodikon of Tsar Boril written by the end of the 14th century in Tirnovo school probably under the redaction of Patriarch Euthimios. Four musical texts in late Byzantine notation are included in it. See about them Тончева, Е. Музикалните текстове в Палаузовия препис на Синодика на цар Борил. – Известия на Института за музика, т. XII, 1967, 57–161. 14 For this manuscript see Стефановиħ, Д. Стара српска музика .  .  ., 21–23, 30; Jakovljević, A. Hronologija atinskog rukopisa 928 i vizantijski kinonikon kira Stefana. – Zvuk, 2. Beograd, 1973, 165–173; Яковљевиħ, А. Нова транскрипциja двоjезичног псаломника са неумама (Атина, Народна библиотека Грчке МС 928, ф. 64r, глас 8). – Археографски прилози. Београд, 2, 1980, 197–200; Тончева, Е. Полиелейни припели в ръкопис Атина № 928 (Исайева антология) и отношението им към Търновската химнографска традиция. – В: Търновска книжовна школа. Т. 5. София, 1994, 641–664. 15 It is published in Стефановиħ, Д. Стара српска . . ., 103–107. 16 Contrafacta technique – the adaptation of a melody to different texts; the other compositional technique is contraposita – the adaptation of a text to different melodies.

  180

15 “B U L G A R I A N” C H A N T S I N MUSICAL MANUSCRIPTS REVISITED

Chants designated as “Bulgarian” (“βουλγαρικόν”, “ἡ βουλγάρα”, “βουλγαρίτσα”, etc.) in musical manuscripts stemming from the Balkans were introduced for the first time into the history of music by the late prof. Miloš Velimirović in his paper read at the congress of the International Musicological Society in Copenhagen in August 1972.1 Prof. Velimirović presented six such chants in various copies from the fourteenth to the nineteenth century. In 1978 Krasimir Stanchev and Elena Toncheva presented one more “Bulgarian” chant.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 chant repertory of liturgical chant.3 Manuscripts containing “Bulgarian” chants are revealed 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 Sankt Petersburg National libraries, the Vatican Apostolic library in Rome, the Bodleian library in Oxford, etc.4 Although some basic studies on these chants have been published, many 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 Byzantine-Slavic music. We believe that the focus on these questions could bring us nearer to the basic problem, namely clarifying the meaning of the ethnonym “Bulgarian” about which much speculations exists. In this contribution I am going to present all the chants that we know to be designated as “Bulgarian” until now, and discuss some of the questions posed. Chants designated as “Bulgarian” appear systematically in the new books of chant compiled by the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth 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.5 It demonstrates the universality of Eastern Christian culture and with this its DOI: 10.4324/9781003377238-19

181

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

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 practices allows the 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”6 – constantly changing and 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 as a whole, chants that were performed in both cathedrals and monasteries were gathered together for the first time.7 The rubrics in these manuscripts are extremely detailed and accurate. The 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 riches its zenith. This fact seems to be determined by the emergence of musical theories, which systematically appeared in musical manuscripts from the fourteenth century on. Accuracy could also be seen in terms of the authorship of chants: the names of the authors placed above the chants demonstrate a real musical creativity for the first time. Due to the accuracy we are able to learn much about the musical repertory: how a piece should be sung – by a soloist or by 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 “σερβικόν” (Serbian), “βλαχικόν” (Wallachian), “φραγκικόν” (Frankish), “περσικόν” (Persian), “ταταρικόν” (Tatar) or just “ἐθνικόν” (ethnical). 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 fourteenth 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 182

“ B ulgarian ” C hants in M usical M anuscripts R evisited

had no ethnical connotation in Slavic Orthodox countries. Such connotation is from the nineteenth century, the epoch of the late National Revival in these countries. Ten different “Bulgarian” chants are currently known. Most of them appear in manuscripts by the middle of the fourteenth century, written between 1340 and 1360. Some are in many copies up to the nineteenth century. “Bulgarian” chants that are known until now are of four genres: polyeleoi, kratemata (teretismata), communions and cherubika. All these genres are designated for the most solemn parts of worship: the polyeleoi are performed during Orthros on feast days and on Sunday; the kratemata are performed during every part of festal worship: they were created for the solemnity of the service when high dignitaries and priests take part; the communions and cherubika songs are performed on high points of the Divine Liturgy during the times of, respectively, communion and of the Great Entrance.8 Most of the “Bulgarian” chants are of the polyeleos genre. It is well known that “polyeleos” means merciful. The meaning comes from the refrain of the psalm 135, “Because His mercy is eternal”. There are six different “Bulgarian” polyeleoi written to different verses of the two polyeleoi psalms, 134 and 135. They are the following.

Figure 15.1  Psalm 135:21a – “Bulgarian” MS Athens 2622, mid-14th century, f. 185v: polyeleos, psalm 135:21a, mode plagal 2. The rubric reads: “Another called Bulgarian”.

183

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

Chant 1 is written to the text of psalm 135, verse 21a, “Καὶ δόντι τὴν γῆν αὐτῶν κληρονομίαν, ἁλληλούϊα” (“And He gave their land for inheritance, alleluia”), mode plagal 2.9 The “Bulgarian” chant is on the second part of the text – “κληρονομίαν, ἁλληλούϊα”. The rubrics link it with two designations: “βουλγαρικόν” (Bulgarian) and “δυσικόν” (western). Among the most significant manuscripts from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, in which this polyeleos is included, are two manuscripts from the Athens National library, 2622, dated between 1341 and 1360, and 2406 from 1453. Both manuscripts have been written in the large monastery St. John Prodromos near the town of Serres. The rubric in Athens 2406 reads (f. 108v): “ἕτερον λεγόμενον βουλγαρικὸν καὶ δυσικόν” (“Another, called Bulgarian and western”). Under the rubric “Another western” the same chant is revealed in two other manuscripts from the fourteenth century – Theol. Gr. 185 from the Vienna National library, a manuscript written probably somewhere in the region of Thessaloniki (f. 150v), and Palat. Gr. 243 from the Vatican Apostolic library in

Figure 15.2  Psalm 135:19a – “Bulgarian woman” MS Dujchev Gr. 9, 16th century, f. 84v: polyeleos, psalm 135:19а, mode 1. The rubric reads: “By Glykys the Western, called Bulgarian woman”.

184

“ B ulgarian ” C hants in M usical M anuscripts R evisited

Rome (f. 176v–177r). The same chant is revealed in manuscript from the “Ivan Dujčev” Center 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 (f. 261r?). It reads: “τοῦ Γλυκ[έως] λεγόμ[ενον] δυσικ[όν]” (“by Glykys, called western”).10 Chant 2 is to the text of psalm 135, verse 19a, “Τὸν Σηὼν βασιλέα τῶν Ἀμορραίων” (“Zion, the king of the Amorites”), mode 1 (the same text is read in psalm 134, verse 11a).11 This chant – as the first one – is known according to various manuscripts from the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth centuries – the aforementioned Athens 2622, Athens 2444 from the fifteenth century, Lavra I-173 from 1436, Dujčev Gr. 9 from the sixteenth century and others. Some of the manuscripts containing this chant originate from the monastery of Kosinitza near the town of Drama, which is not far away from St. John Prodromos monastery near Serres. Both monasteries are in the region located in the mouth of the two large rivers Struma and Mesta. After 1912 the whole region of Serres and Drama has remained on the Greek side of the border, in its northeastern part. The rubrics in almost all the manuscripts call the chant “ἡ βουλγάρα” (“Bulgarian woman”) and ascribe it again to John Glykys. The rubrics read (according to Athens manuscript 2622, f. 189r): “Γλυκέως τoῦ δυσικοῦ, λεγόμενον ἡ βουλγάρα” (“By Glykys the Western, called Bulgarian woman”). Only in one manuscript from the Hilandar monastery on Mount Athos – 97 from the first half of the fifteenth century – is read (f. 139r): “βουλγαρικόν” (“Bulgarian”). Among the manuscripts containing this chant is a manuscript from the end of the fifteenth century, written in the

Figure 15.3  Psalm 134:13b – “Bulgarian woman” MS Sinai 1559, 16th century, f. 124v-125r: polyeleos, psalm 134:13b, mode 1. The inscription on the left reads: “The called Bulgarian woman”.

185

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

monastery Dormitian of the Mother of God, known also as Matejče and Zhegligovo monastery.12 It is situated near the town of Kumanovo in the so-called Black Wood region of Skopje. The manuscript is now at the National library of Athens – 928.13 The rubric above the “Bulgarian” polyeleos reads: „βρουγάρα. δυσικόν. Γλυκαίου τοῦ δυσικοῦ” (“Bulgarian woman. Western. By Glykys the Western”). Chant 3 is written to the text of psalm 134, verse 13b, „Καὶ τὸ μνημόσυνόν σου εἰς γενεὰν καὶ γενεὰν“ (“And the memory of You is from generation to generation”), again in mode 1.14 Тhis is the most popular “Bulgarian” polyeleos. It is revealed in numerous copies from the fourteenth through the nineteenth century. Its designation is “ἡ βουλγάρα” (“Bulgarian woman”). 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 fifteenth century from the library of the Iviron monastery on Mount Athos – 974,15 the same piece bares the designation “βουλγαρίτσα”, which is diminutive of “Bulgarian woman”. It is again ascribed to John Glykys. From the second half of the seventeenth century the same chant is systematically ascribed to John Koukouzeles. Some of the rubrics indicate the two authors, Glykys and Koukouzeles. We read: “Bulgarian woman, a work by John Glykys although others say that it is by Master Koukouzeles”. One of the earliest “double” attributions of the chant is found in a manuscript from the first half of the seventeenth century from the Vatican Apostolic library in Rome, Barb. Gr. 283.16 We read: “Bulgarian woman. [It is] a work by John Glykys. Others say it is by the Master”, that is, John Koukouzeles. It is worth knowing that in the same Vatican manuscript the names of two authors from the second half of the sixteenth century prevail – Gavriil Monk of Anchialos and Constantine Protopsaltes of 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 twelfth – end of the fourteenth century) and that in the fourteenth century it was an archbishopric.17 Eventually, the name of Glykys linked with this chant dropped and the rubrics just say: “Bulgarian woman by John Koukouzeles”.18 The same polyeleos is revealed in another manuscript from the mid-fifteenth century written at the monastery St. John Prodromos near Serres, now kept at the Athens National library – 2401. In the latter manuscript it is ascribed to another author – Lampadarios. We read (f. 108v): “Τοῦ Λαμπαδαρίου τὸ λεγόμενον βουργάρα” (“By Lampadarios, called Bulgarian woman”). Lampadarios is identified with John Lampadarios Kladas, a distinguished composer from the second half of the fourteenth century, a follower of John Glykys and John Koukouzeles. The same chant is ascribed to the fourth author – Nikolaos Koukoumas, a contemporary of Koukouzeles. It is obvious that the melody of this chant, attributed to four different authors, Glykys, Koukouzeles, Kladas and Koukoumas, has become very popular. Such melodies are called “traveling”.19 In terms of the small intervallic neumes the melodies of the four authors are the same or very similar to one 186

“ B ulgarian ” C hants in M usical M anuscripts R evisited

another. Differences between the melodies are seen in the use of the great hyronomic signs – there are signs indicating preference of performance. That means that the differences between the melodies of the authors were most likely in terms of the selection of different hyronomic signs required a different method of ornamentation, which in turn presumed a different manner of performance. Chant 4 is to the text of psalm 135, verse 13a, “Εἰς διαιρέσεις“ (“In division”), mode 4.20 It bares the following rubrics: “Another, called western, called also Bulgarian” in manuscript Athens 2406 (f. 107v–108r); “Another western Bulgarian” in the mentioned Vienna manuscript Theol. Gr. 185 (f. 149v–150r); and “Another Bulgarian” in a manuscript from the Vatican Apostolic library – Palat. Gr. 243 from the 14th century (f. 175v) designated also as “συνοπτικόν” (“short”). Chant 5 is to the text of psalm 134, verse 11c, “Καὶ πάσας τὰς βασιλείας Χαναάν“ (“And all the kingdoms of Canaan”), 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 fourteenth century, and as said above, it is suggested that this manuscript was written somewhere in the region of Thessaloniki. The “Bulgarian” chant is also ascribed to John Glykys. The rubric reads (f. 142r): “ἕτερον δυσικὸν τοῦ Γλυκεωτάτου” (“Another western by the most Sweet [that is, John Glykys]”). Chant 6, the last “Bulgarian” polyeleos, is written to the text of psalm 134, verse 1, “Δοῦλοι Κύριον“ (“Slaves of God“), mode 1. This chant is also known according to only one manuscript. The manuscript is written at the monastery Dochiariou on Mount Athos by Kosma the Macedonian in 1686 – 324.21 The polyeleos cycle in this manuscript starts with the “Bulgarian” chant. The rubric above the latter says: “Πολυέλεος τῆς βλουγάρας κὺρ Ἰωάννου τοῦ Κουκουζέλη ἦχος α΄” (“The polyeleos of the Bulgarian woman by John Koukouzeles, mode 1”). This is the only rubric that literary match the name of the chant, introduced in the legend in the late Bulgarian National Revival that Koukouzeles wrote a piece entitled “Polyeleos of the Bulgarian woman”.22 According to the fifteenth-century anonymous 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 has been 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. Kosma 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 of the first half of the fifteenth century in which the most popular “Bulgarian” polyeleos (chant 3) is included with the attribution “vulgaritsa”, a diminutive designation of the “Bulgarian woman”. Kosma was a teacher and conductor, author 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 Kosma are not known after this date and it could be considered as one of the 187

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

possible years of his death. Among various works by Kosma, 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 choirs. Such a piece in mode 1 Kosma 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 eulogy devoted to some local district employee. It testifies to the esteem and respect that Kosma expresses to dignitary who served in the area – judging by his nickname “Macedonian” – in which his birthplace was very possibly located. At least three important conclusions could be drawn as to the attribution cited in the Kosma’s manuscript: 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 early dated “Bulgarian” polyeleoi attributed to Koukouzeles; and thirdly, this is the only “Bulgarian” polyeleos whose attribution is in Genetiv case – “of the Bulgarian woman”. Yet here I shall just say that in another manuscript written by Kosma in the mid-seventeenth 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 (f. 43r): “Bulgarian woman, by the Western, mode 1”.28 That means that Kosma distinguishes two melodies on the text of psalm 134 composed on 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 this fact 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 the Anthologies in the fourteenth 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. The first kratema designated as “Bulgarian” – chant 7 – is in Athens manuscript 2599.29 It is included in its part written in 1352. The manuscript originates from the monastery St. John Prodromos near Serres. The chant is in mode 1 and bares a unique rubric, which reads: “Τοῦ Δοκειανοῦ, ἦχ[ος] α΄, μιμούμενος βουλγαρικὸν σκοπ[ὸν] θρήνου” (“By Dokeinos, mode 1, imitating Bulgarian lament tune”). The text consists of meaningless syllables “te-ri-re”, “te-ru-re”, “to-to-to”. The great hyronomic sign parakalesma, meaning “I cry”, 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. The second kratema – chant 8 – is revealed in manuscript from the Koutlumousiou monastery on Mount Athos – 399 from the mid-fourteenth century. It is anonymous in mode plagal 1.30 The rubric reads: “Κράτημα λεγόμενον βουλγαρίτσα” 188

“ B ulgarian ” C hants in M usical M anuscripts R evisited

(“Kratema called vulgaritsa”). This designation is close to the one in manuscript Iviron 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 is revealed in the Vienna manuscript Phil. Gr. 194 from the fifteenth century. The designation there is “βουλγαρικόν”. In manuscripts from the sixteenth century onwards the same kratema with the same designation “βουλγαρικόν” is ascribed to John Koukouzeles: for instance, the manuscript Iviron 964 from 1562 or Ksyropotamou 287 from 1724. The former manuscript is the earliest dated manuscript in which a “Bulgarian” chant is linked with the name of Koukouzeles. One chant of the communion genre designated as “Bulgarian” is known – chant 9.31 It is included in manuscript Athens 963 from the beginning of the seventeenth century written on the island of Crete. The chant is for communion designed for Sundays written to the text of psalm 148, verse 1a „Αἰνεῖτε τὸν Κύριον“ (“Praise the Lord”). It is in mode 1. The rubric calls the chant “Bulgarian woman” and ascribes it to “Mr. Venediktos”. It reads: “Τοῦ κὺρ Βενεδίκτου ἡ βουργάρα” (“By Mr. Venediktos, Bulgarian woman”). The author is identified as Venediktos, priest of Rethymnon.32 In manuscript no. 144 of the eighteenth century from the library of the Hilandar monastery on Mount Athos a cherubikon song with designation “western” is included (f. 234r). It is in mode plagal 2 and is ascribed to John Glykys. The rubric reads: “By John Glykys. The Western”. As we have seen from the polyeloi chants this designation is connected with both the ethnonym “Bulgarian” and the name of Glykys as an author of “Bulgarian”/“western” polyeleoi. The cherubika songs with the designation “western” are usually attributed to two authors – Glykys and Agaton Korones, a contemporary of Koukouzeles. These cherubika have been transmitted in manuscripts from the fourteenth century onwards, without essential changes in their melodies.33 It is interesting to note that the cherubika designated as “western” are included in manuscripts, which also include “Bulgarian” polyeleoi. The “western” cherubikon in the Hilandar manuscript is of melismatic kind and has tropic syllables – a stylistic form linked to the reformative work of Koukouzeles. Its first part, “Οἱ τὰ χερουβείμ”, 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 cherubikon song increased enormously in the history of Bulgarian music after the discovery of a cherubikon designated as “vurgaritsa”, a diminutive form of “Bulgarian woman”, in manuscript 86 from the Athonite monastery Konstamonitou.34 “Bulgarian” chant 10 is in the same mode as the “western” cherubikon, plagal 2. The manuscript Konstamonitou 86 is from the first half of the fifteenth century with an extensive repertory of the area of Thessaloniki: many chants are designated as “θεσσαλονικαῖον” (from Thessaloniki). It is one of the few manuscripts in which are included two different theoretical musical poems (Ison, oligon, etc., known also in medieval musicology Didactic poems) that appear in manuscripts in the fourteenth century – by John Glykys and by John Koukouzeles. It is already well 189

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

known that these Poems employed the vocabulary of late Byzantine music – its figures and formulas. The “Bulgarian” cherubikon song is included at the end of the manuscript (f. 294r). It is anonymous and is introduced with the rubric: “Βουργαρίτσα, ἀρχὴ τοῦ λέγετου” (“Vurgaritsa, beginning of mode legetos”). The chant is the only cherubikon in the entire manuscript. The latter contains extensive kalophonic treatments of hirmoi, stichera, kontakia, communions, polychronia or acclamations for long life, etc. by various authors. The same designation “vurgaritsa” were cited above according to manuscripts from two other monasteries on Mount Athos: Iviron 974 containing “Bulgarian” polyeleos, and Koutlumousiou 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 cherubikon. To sum up. There are four attributions that are linked to “Bulgarian” chants: “Bulgarian”, “Bulgarian and western”, “Bulgarian woman” and its diminutive form “vulgaritsa”/“vurgaritsa”. 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 cherubikon. 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 in Aegean Macedonia, St. John Prodromos near Serres and Virgin Mary Kosinitza near Drama, as well as the nearby area around Thessaloniki; then to Zhegligovo Monastery in the Black Wood region of Skopje in southwestern Macedonia and to five monasteries on Mount Athos: Hilandar, Konstamonitou, Dochiariou, Koutlumousiou and Iviron. In the fourteenth century St. John Prodromos monastery near Serres is particularly significant.35 It was built in the last quarter of the thirteenth century. In the early fourteenth century it received patriarchal status. The Emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos patronized the monastery. According to John Koukouzeles’ Vita the same Andronikos was also his own patron. The monastery was among the richest and the best monasteries in terms of its literary school in the East. It had 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 at the National library of Athens: 2458, the earliest dated Anthology from 1336, and 2406 from 1453, one of the richest Anthologies in terms of its repertory containing works by numerous composers and poets.36 There was also a large scriptorium in the other monastery, Kosinitza near Drama. The Zhegligovo monastery or Matejche near Kumanovo was an important cultural and educational center in the fifteenth century as well. The areas around the three monasteries were with proven Bulgarian populations, even 190

“ B ulgarian ” C hants in M usical M anuscripts R evisited

after their being included within the political boundaries of Serbia in 1345, when Serbian Tsar Stephen Dušan took the region of Macedonia from Bulgaria. There was a strong Slavic presence in the rest of the monasteries where the manuscripts with “Bulgarian” chants were probably written – Hilandar, Konstamonitou, Dochiariou, Koutlumousiou and Iviron. Konstamonitou was ruled primarily Slavic abbots for 25 years in the first half of the fifteenth century, when the manuscript, which includes the “Bulgarian” cherubikon 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 diminituve “vulgaritsa” (“vurgaritsa”). Miloš Velimirović suggested that this ethnonym “tells something Bulgarian about the piece – either in its origin or in its way of performance”.38 Elena Toncheva suggested that the designation was given in relation to 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 lament.39 There are many attributions in musical manuscripts, which indicate a particular place, such as a country, city, region, monastery or church. We read: “As sung in Mount Athos” (“hagiorethikon”), “As sung in the majestic monastery of Vatopedi” (“vatopedinon”), “As sung in Constantinople” (“constantinopoliton” or “politikon”), “As sung in the Great Church ‘Hagia Sophia’ (“hagiosophitikon”), etc. Such designations support the one and the other opinion: they could refer both to a different way of performance associated primarily with the preference of great hyronomic signs of performance or of 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 fourteenth century. Yet, these designations are etymologically connected with words such as “bugarshtitsa”, which means “I sang sadly” 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 favors this interpretation, points 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 various other speculations. It is clear that many questions in this respect 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 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 Western”, which implies that he came from the west (a village west of Constantinople or a village located on the western border of the Empire?). 191

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

There are five authors whose names are linked with “Bulgarian” chants: John Glykys, considered to have been the teacher of John Koukouzeles, John Lampadarios Kladas and Nikolaos Koukoumas, followers of Koukouzaeles, Koukouzeles himself, albeit in manuscripts from a later time, Dimitri Dokeianos, the possible pupil of Koukouzeles, and kir Venediktos of Rethimnon. We could assume with certainty that these authors were not only composers but also singers (the nickname Glykys for instance means “sweet” – probably it comes from a sweet singing voice). Also, we can assume that chants attributed to them were 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 performance41). Moreover, if we take into consideration that it was precisely in the fourteenth 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 among the most significant spiritual and social class, and hence the most zealous guardians of tradition, or at least they knew how to reproduce and to transmit it. In notated books numerous chants were included, which until that time had been transmitted orally. They were probably performed by renowned church singers. The chants were recorded in books and were designated as being their own works, which was a sign of something like equality between author and performer. Surely “Bulgarian” chants had been a living tradition before they were notated by the middle of the fourteenth century. Polyeloi and kratemata for instance regularly appear in the Anthologies from the fourteenth century onwards. The four genres, in which “Bulgarian” chants are revealed, polyeleoi, kratemata, communions and cheroubica, are sung in eight modes. In manuscripts, however, “Bulgarian” chants are given only in some of the modes. Most of them – six – are in mode 1: four polyeleoi, one of the two kratemata and the communion; one polyeleos is in mode 4; the other kratemata is in mode plagal 1; and one polyeloi and the cherubikon are in mode plagal 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 fourteenth century).43 This could be an indirect argument that “Bulgarian” chants notated in manuscripts from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries had been recorded from oral practice but written down according to the musical system of the relevant time. Among the singers of the fourteenth century Koukouzeles is held in the highest esteem. His name, however, was not linked with chant designated as “Bulgarian” until the second half of the sixteenth century. That does not mean that he did not perform “Bulgarian” chants. But could mean that “Bulgarian” chants are not immediate records of his performance – chants could be recorded by those who have performed them – Glykys, Kladas, Koukoumas and Dokeianos. All of them are among Koukouzeles’ closest associates and followers. There is something else, however, which should not be missed. The name of Koukouzeles is revealed connected with “Bulgarian” chants relatively late. That means that more than two 192

“ B ulgarian ” C hants in M usical M anuscripts R evisited

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 are attributed to him at different places at different times and by different writers. It can be also no coincidence that the time when they started systematically attributing works to him, was the period of the Balkan National Revival of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the period when accuracy became more important than ever. “Bulgarian” chants could be considered as an argument about the links of Koukouzeles with Bulgaria – something, which up to now has not 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 on places with concentrated Bulgarian populations and labeled as such (“Bulgarian” chants), and on the other, by the dissemination of such works by writers of possible Bulgarian origin. It is interesting to note that after the death of the Serbian Tsar Stephen Dušan 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 who was a sister of the Bulgarian Tsar Ioan Alexander and is known also as Elena the Bulgarian. 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 fourteenth century the importance of women in the Byzantine Empire grew enormously. Besides, it was Elena along with her son, the Tsar Stephen Uroš the Fifth, who founded the Zhegligovo monastery in the Black Wood of Skopje. To sum up in conclusion. “Bulgarian” chants are found in manuscripts originating from places where compact Bulgarians lived and where the Bulgarian presence was particularly strong. These places were the two monasteries St. John Prodromos and Kosinitza on the lower reaches of the rivers Mesta and Struma in Aegean Macedonia, the Matejche monastery in the Black Wood of Skopje, some monasteries on Mount Athos, such as Hilandar, Iviron and Koutlumousiou, and 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 Kosma the Macedonian, Gavriil Monk of Anchialos and Constantine Protopsaltes of Anchialos. The majority of the “Bulgarian” chants are in manuscripts written in a sophisticated and highly professional manner. “Bulgarian” chants are particularly valuable in that they show a creative presence at a time when Bulgaria was deleted from the map of free nations during the fifteenth – nineteenth centuries and the foundations of Orthodox culture were shaken. Despite some studies on them they 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 following: “Bulgarian” chants are included in one 193

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

of the most representative notated books of the time – the Anthologies; they were performed in one of the most solemn parts of worship – the Divine Liturgy; and were attributed to some of the most authoritative authors, such as Glykys, Kladas, Dokeianos, Koukoumas and later on – Koukouzeles. That means that the repertory designated as “Bulgarian” had its own “profile” and was highly appreciated. Writers could choose from this repertory 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 leaves in Eastern Christian music, attesting to it being one of the great creative contributions to this music on the highest spiritual and professional level.

Notes 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, 197–208. 2 Станчев, К., Е. Тончева. Българските песнопения във византийските аколутии. – Българско музикознание, 2, 1978, 39–70. 3 Kujumdzieva, S. “Bulgarian” Chants in Musical Manuscripts. – In: Byzantine Chant, Radiation and Interaction. Ed. by C. Troelsgård, G. Wolfram (= Eastern Christian Studies. Vol. 29). Leuven, 2022, 35–59. 4 See for instance the following publications: Jаковљевић, А. Инвентар музичких рукописа манастира Хиландара. – В: Хиландарски зборник, 4. Београд, 1978, 193–234; Тончева, Е. За полиелей „българката” – възможно взаимодействие между църковен и фолклорен певчески професионализъм? – Музикални хоризонти, 12–13, 1989, 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. – Palaeobulgarica, 3, 1998, 21–51; Куюмджиева, С. Българска музика в Хилендар. София, 2008; Куюмджиева, С. Бележки и коментари за някои ранни химнографски ръкописи от Ватикана. – В: Богослужебните книги – познати и непознати. София, 2008, 43–155; Στάθης, Γ. Θ. Τὰ χειρόγραφα Βυζαντινῆς μουσικῆς – Ἅγιον Ὄρος. Κατάλογος περιγραφικὸς τῶν χειρογράφων κωδίκων Βυζαντινῆς μουσικῆς τῶν ἀποκειμένων ἐν ταῖς Βιβλιοθήκαις τῶν ἱερῶν Μονῶν καὶ Σκητῶν τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους. Ἀθῆναι. Τ. Α 1975, Т. В 1976, Т. Г 1993. 5 About this see Taft, R. Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of Byzantine Rite. – Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 42, 1982, 179–194. 6 The term is of Bradshow, P. V. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. 2d ed. New York, 2002, 101. 7 About the Akolouthiai-Anthology see Williams, E. John Koukouzeles’ Reform of Byzantine Chanting for Great Vespers in the Fourteenth Century. Ph.D., Yale University, New Haven, CT, 1968. 8 About 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. Washington, D.C., 1985. 9 It is pointed out by M. Velimirović and Stanchev-Toncheva in their cited above publications on “Bulgarian” chants.

194

“ B ulgarian ” C hants in M usical M anuscripts R evisited

10 About the cited manuscripts see Velimirović, M. Byzantine Composers in MS Athens 2406. – In: Essays Presented by Egon Wellesz. Ed. by J. Westrup. Oxford, 1966, 7–18; Touliatos-Banker, D. Checklist of Byzantine Musical Manuscripts in the Vatican Library. – Manuscripta. March, vol. 31, N 1, 1987, 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 methods du cataloguage des manuscrits de la collection du center Dujchev”. Thessalonique, 1992, 283–292; Džurova, A., K. Stančev, V. Atsalos, V. Katsaros. Checklist de la collection de manuscrits grecs conserve au centre de recherches slavo-byzantines „Ivan Dujćev” aupres de l’Universite „St. Clement d’Ohrid” de Sofia. Thessalonique, 1994; Getov, D. Catalogue of the Greek Liturgical Manuscripts kept in the Library of the Ivan Dujćev 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. Ashgate, 2010. 11 It is pointed out by Velimirović and Stanchev-Toncheva. 12 See about this monastery Стефановић, Д. Стара српска музика. Београд, 1975. 13 About this manuscript see Стефановић, Д. Стара српска музика . . .; Jakovljević, A. Δίγλωσση παλαιογραφία καὶ μελωδοὶ ὑμνογράφοι τοῦ κώδικα τῶν Ἀθηνῶν 928. Λευκωσία, 1988. 14 It is also pointed out by Velimirović and Stanchev-Toncheva, op. cit. 15 See about this manuscript Stathis, G. Op. cit., vol. 3. 16 See about this manuscript Куюмджиева, С. Бележки и коментари . . ., 108–111. 17 Гонис, Д. Търново и крайбрежните митрополии. – В: Търновска книжовна школа. Т. 5. Велико Търново, 1994, 455–471. 18 See for instance manuscripts Koutloumusiou 446 from 1757, f. 60r and Iviron 951 from the second half of the 17th century, f. 30r in Stathis, G. Op. cit., vol. 3, p. 907 and 1036; also manuscripts Ksyroptomou 307 from 1767/1770, f. 119r in Stathis, G. Op. cit., vol. 1, 109. 19 The term is of M. Velimirović, see Велимирович, М. „Българските“ песнопения . . ., 200. 20 It is pointed out by Velimirović and Stanchev-Toncheva. 21 See Stathis, G. Op. cit., vol. 1, 369. 22 Сарафов, П. Ръководство за теоретическото и практичееското изучаване на восточната църковна музика. София, 1912, 141; Тодорова, Ж. Йоанн Кукузель – великий реформатор православного песнопения. – В: Вклад болгарского народа в мировую сокровищницу культуры. София, 1968, 107–126. 23 The English text of Koukouzeles’ Vita is published in: WilIiams, E. John Koukouzeles’ Reform . . . 24 Сарафов, П. Ръководство . . ., 143–216. 25 Динев, П. Духовни музикални творби на Иван Кукузел. София, 1938. 26 About Kosma see Куюмджева, С. – Козма Македонец и Гавриил Македонец в музикалните ръкописи през XVII – началото на XIX в. – Музикални хоризонти, 1, 2000, 27–33. 27 Manuscript Ksyropotamou 229, from the first half of the 18th century, f. 169v, see Stathis, G. Op. cit., vol. 1, 187. 28 Ibidem, vol. 3. 29 It is pointed out by Velimirović and Stanchev-Toncheva. 30 The chant is pointed out by Stanchev-Toncheva. 31 It is pointed out by Stanchev-Toncheva. 32 Станчев, К., Е. Тончева. Българските . . ., 47. 33 Conomos, D. Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika . . . 34 See about this manuscript Stathis, G. Op. cit., vol. 1, 667.

195

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

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, 310–319; Džurova, A., K. Stanchev, V. Atsalos, V. Katsalos. “Checklist” . . . 36 Velimirović, M. Byzantine Composers . . . 37 Pavlikianov, C. The Medieval Slavic Archives of the Athonite Monastery of Kastamonitou. – Cyrillomethodianum, XX, 2015, 153–216 (156). 38 Велимирович, М. „Българските“ . . ., 197. 39 Тончева, Е. Полиелейни мелодии, означени като български . . . 40 Велимирович, М. „Българските“ . . ., 202; Станчев, К., Е. Тончева. Българските . . ., 43–44. 41 See about this Treitler, L. Homer and Gregory: The Transmission of Epic Poetry and Plainchant. – Musical Quarterly, IX, 1974, 333–373; Idem. “Centonate” Chant: Ubles Flickwerk or E pluribus unus? – Early Music, 4, 1984, 135–208. 42 About the singers in Byzantine Empire see Moran, N. Singers in Late Byzantine and Slavonic Painting. Leiden, 1986. 43 See about this Куюмджиева, С. Ранните осмогласници. Извори, богослужение и певчески репертоар. София, 2013.

 

196

16 THE TRANSITION FROM M O N O P H O N I C TO P O LY P H O N I C CHURCH MUSIC The Case of Bulgaria

The period from the second half of the seventeenth until the beginning of the twentieth centuries is known in Bulgarian history and in the history of some Balkan and Central European countries with similar development (for example, Greece, Serbia, Romania, Poland and the Czech Republic) as the National Revival or the period of transition from the Middle Ages to Modern Times. Like the Western Renaissance, some of the most significant events of human civilization that are related to the changes in the whole public, political, socio-cultural and spiritual life took place during this time. The formation of nations as a new type of society with a high level of social integration was a result of these changes. Church music played a significant role in the formation of the new Bulgarian society and, respectively, of the new culture. It went through considerable development while remaining purely vocal. Its main achievement was the establishment of polyphonic music: after ten centuries of a monophonic existence (observed from the end of the ninth century, the time from which the earliest Bulgarian source with notation originates), polyphonic music appeared. It was a long process through which Bulgarian secular music with its writing and theory, instruments and literature, performance and institutions came into being. It was also a process through which Bulgarian music entered modern European culture. Several stages mark this process. They are well projected in the field of church music. Up to the 1840s, the latter was the only field of music with a richly documented written tradition. The musical sources outline the following stages in the development of Bulgarian church music during the considered time: 1) from the second half of the seventeenth century up to 1770; 2) from 1770 to c. 1820; 3) from c. 1820 to the 1840s; 4) from the 1840s to 1878; and 5) from 1878 onwards. Each of these stages has its own specifications in terms of generation of composers, notation, chant books, and repertory. They will be pointed out in the course of the discussion of the musical development below. Before doing this, some important points regarding the socio-cultural aspect should be stressed. Firstly, during the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century Bulgarian church music went through the same development as the other Balkan DOI: 10.4324/9781003377238-20

197

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

Orthodox countries that shared the same historical faith and used in their churches both their national and the Greek languages. The latter was perceived as the language of the high civilization of Antiquity and of worship, of culture and of administration. The use of the Greek language had no ethnic implications. This is one of the reasons that until almost the middle of the nineteenth century, many of the musical manuscripts were written in Greek. In the 1840s, when the national language became one of the major characteristics of the Bulgarian people exemplifying the national integration, the Slavic language replaced Greek in the church musical literature.1 Secondly, the formation of the nations was realized in a struggle for spiritual and political independence. Bulgaria attained such independence in the last quarter of the nineteenth century after her liberation from Turkish domination in 1878. Thirdly, unlike during the Western Renaissance, the Bulgarian church was the leading institution during the greater part of the National Revival (up to the middle of the nineteenth century). The Orthodox religion was one of the strongest ideological forms that preserved nationality during the Turkish domination. The church was the only institution in which Christian people – in a situation of foreign religious domination – could feel their national independence. That is why the struggle for national liberation, which started as a struggle for spiritual and cultural emancipation, was directed by the church and the people linked to it (primarily clergymen). The shift in the focus of spiritual and cultural life from the church to a secular institution was a long process. And fourthly, the ideas of the West-European Enlightenment strongly influenced Bulgarian cultural development. Actually, these ideas define the path to spiritual independence. The latter manifested itself in the form of a movement for both the establishment and recognition of an independent church as well as education and enlightenment. The beginning of the first stage in the development of church music is determined according to the work of the first whole generation of composers in the second half of the seventeenth century, which appears after the Balkan Orthodox countries fell under Turkish domination in the fifteenth century. The new trends in church music became evident in the activity of Chrysaphes the New, Germanos of New Patras, Balasios Hiereos, Petros Bereketes, Kosma the Macedonian and others. The major characteristic of the musical development up to 1770 is the systematic notation of the pieces, which had been transmitted orally up to that time (for instance, chants for the Great Entrance for Saturday Vespers, for Sunday Morning, for the Mornings during the Holy Week).2 By 1770 the whole necessary repertory performed in the churches was written down in neumes in musical manuscripts.3 Also, this generation started interpreting some of the pieces of the older repertory in order to make them easier for learning. This was a compositional procedure known as “exegesis”, that is, interpretation or explanation. The established written tradition for the whole chant repertory was a result of the ideas of the West-European Enlightenment, which conditioned the aim of explicitness. It required a written practice. People who knew musical writing were considered highly educated. This trend was further developed in the above determined second stage – since 1770. 198

T he T ransition F rom M onophonic

The activity of the second generation of composers spread out from the latter year. The most famous leader of this generation was Petros Lampadarios of Peloponnese, a composer, theorist, singer and teacher. During the time of this generation the systematic translation of the church repertory from Greek into Slavic spread. In the beginning of the nineteenth century the greater part of the chant repertory was translated into Slavic. This generation also continued using the procedure of exegesis, applying it now to the whole chant repertory. The usage of this procedure caused changes in the notation. During the first two stages the late Byzantine notation, established in the Balkan Orthodox music by the beginning of the fourteenth century, was used. It developed into a more explicit style of writing: what was unclear was eliminated and specified by the insertion of more signs with intervallic value. As a whole, it was a process of transition from a stenographic to an analytical way of writing. The Christian religion during the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century was a strong integrated factor for all of the Balkan Orthodox Christians. This was one of the reasons that the new trends in the development of church music, pointed out above, manifested themselves in the musical production compiled on Mount Athos, the largest Orthodox monastic “republic” where men of letters from different nationalities lived and worked. Mount Athos became the center of resumed activities in the field of music. The compiled musical literature there spread to the various Orthodox countries. The relationship between the Bulgarian lands and Mount Athos during the eighteenth century was close.4 There were many Bulgarians who worked in different monasteries there, for instance, St. Pavlou, Gregoriou, Koutloumusiou, Ksyropotamou, St. Panteleimonos, Ksenofontos, Simonpeter, etc. Zografos was the Bulgarian monastery. Its cultural interrelationship with the Serbian Hilandar monastery was intensive at that time. During the eighteenth century Hilandar was managed and supported by Bulgarians because of its closer proximity to the Bulgarian lands than to the Serbian ones.5 The Russian traveler Vasilij Barski evidenced that in 1745 he found Bulgarian monks only there. Besides, Hilandar had convents in many Bulgarian towns: in Kazanlak, Stara Zagora, Klisura, Elena, Vratca and others.6 That is why the significance of Hilandar monastery in the development of the Bulgarian church music was very great. Several facts characterize the revival in the field of Bulgarian church music during the first two stages. The first one is the enhancement of musical education. During the Turkish domination from the fifteenth century onwards this education had declined: there are few extant notated musical manuscripts, which speaks of an increased oral method of transmission of the chant repertory. Teachers from different monasteries of Mount Athos were sent to teach church music by request of many Bulgarian towns, like Pirot, Vratca, Elena, Kazanlak, etc.7 The aim was to enhance the musical education. The new Athonite practice was spread to the largest Bulgarian spiritual and cultural center, Rila monastery as well. An inscription in a manuscript of Slepche, preserved in the library of Rila monastery, proves this (f. 13): “Вестнw боуды когда приходи патриархъ Атанасiа Пекскiи оу 199

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

манастиръ Рылскiи и сатва[р]ше лютою клетвоу ради клисара да не боудет по прежному обичаю, но да боудет по с[ве]тогорски . . . ” (“It should be known when the Patriarch Atanasij of Pech came to Rila monastery and ordered that the sexton has to act not according to the old manner but according to the one on Mount Athos . . .”).8 The second fact is the compilation of a notated musical literature both in Greek and in Slavic according to the new musical trends. Many manuscripts were written at that time. They are in Greek, bilingual in Graeco-Slavic and in Slavic. The manuscripts are of different types: Anthologies, Sticheraria, Hirmologia, Anastasimataria,9 etc. The Anthologies that remained the main chant books in the Balkan Orthodox churches from the time of their compilation in the fourteenth century, prevail. It is difficult to say where most of the manuscripts were written. Inscriptions, left in some of them, are very scanty. For instance, the inscription in an Anthology (Rila 6/18) testifies that the manuscript was written by the monk Dionisij of the village Makrilitca in the Simonopeter monastery on Mount Athos in 1731;10 two Sticheraria from the same library (6/20 and 6/21) bear the name of their owner: the priest Selevkij of Rila; in another Sticherarion (6/22), also from the library of Rila monastery, is read: “1807 ноемврiи ианоуарiи 20 покопих азъ Иеротеи сiю книгоу глаголемоую антолои стихирарски ценою гроша 20: биша тогда в Роусчоукъ” (“1807, November January 20, I, Hierotej, bought the whole book called Anthology of the Sticherarion for 20 groshes: I was at that time in town of Russe”). A bilingual inscription, left by the copyist Gavriil in an Anthology from the library of Hilandar (100) testifies that the manuscript was written in Zografos (f. 464r): “Ἐγράφη ἡ παροῦσα παπαδικὴ εἰς τóμους δύο διὰ χειρὸς κἀμοῦ τοῦ εὐτελοῦς καὶ ἀμαθοῦς Γαβριὴλ ἱερομονάχου καὶ οἱ μελωδοῦντες εὔχεσθαι ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν 5: 1771. Δεκεμβρίου εἰς τὰς γ΄ εἰς τὴν Μονὴν τοῦ Ζωγράφου: ωт ро́да бо́лгарска“ (“This papadike in two volumes was written by the hand of me, the unworthy and illiterate hieromonk Gavriil, and let us pray gloriously: 5: 1771 December, in the Zografos Monastery: from Bulgarian origin”).11 Manuscripts with a repertory in Slavic were written in different places. One of the earliest known such manuscript is from the library of the largest monastery on Mount Athos, the Great Lavra (E.10 Z-58).12 It is suggested that it originates from the end of the seventeenth century. The manuscript is a Sticherarion, containing an Oktoechos from the Anastasimatarion type in Slavic. Its Menaion part (fols. 92r–94r) includes chants for the service of St. Petka of Tirnovo celebrated on October 14. Chants in Slavic for St. Petka and for another popular Bulgarian Saint John of Rila, celebrated on October 19, are revealed in various Hilandar manuscripts both Slavic and bilingual Graeco-Slavic, dating from the second half of the eighteenth and/or the beginning of the nineteenth century (309, 311, 312, 565, 581 and 668).13 The chants included for the two mentioned saints are unique: their parallel is unknown in any of the consulted musical sources originating from the Balkans at the same time. The cited manuscripts also include a rich repertory in Slavic from the major chant books: the Anthology, the Sticherarion (Menaion, Triodion and Pentekostarion) and the Oktoechos of the Anastasimatarion type. It 200

T he T ransition F rom M onophonic

was one of these manuscripts (311) in which the first extensive musical theory in Slavic related to the Orthodox church music of that time was found.14 Many musical manuscripts were written in Rila monastery by the end of the eighteenth and the very beginning of the nineteenth century (for instance, 6/11, 6/13, 6/26, 6/34, 6/40, 6/67, 5/78, etc.).15 During the second half of the eighteenth century, the significance of this monastery became equal to that of the Athonite monasteries Zografos and Hilandar in the development of Orthodox music in the Balkans. In fact, this was one of the significant turning points in the cultural development on the Balkans – the shift of the cultural centers, including musical ones, from Mount Athos to the separate countries: already in the beginning of the nineteenth century the national centers were raised and had an impact on the cultural development inside the countries. Mansucripts linked with Rila monastery and, respectively, with the Bulgarian church music from the considered time, were found in the libraries of two Athonite monasteries: Ksenofontos (132, 142, 145, 152, and 170) and Dionisiatos (572).16 An inscription with the same content in two of them from the Ksenofontos monastery (142, f. Ar, and 152, f. 1r) gives reasons to assume that in all probability they were written in the Rila monastery: “Ἐκ τῶν τοῦ Ἡσαΐου Φιλιππίδου/1817 ἐν Ρίλλῃ” (“Of the things of Isaij Philipides/1817 in Rila”). The third fact in the history of Bulgarian church music is that many men of letters add to their names the nickname “singer”. This fact is unknown from the former period. It speaks about a new thoughtful attitude towards music. Also, it shows a new appreciation and veneration for the work of the people involved in music. The distinguished writer Partenij Pavlović for instance, who had worked among the Serbs in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, gives evidence of Bulgarians who lived there. He mentions the names of those who knew the “educated” or “scientific” music, that is, church music: “Филип jеромонах, проигумен Димич. Родилсjа в Катраници оу Боугарскоj, лет имат 47 . . . читати и поjати знает добро, а писати по-мало .  .  . ” (“Hieromonk Philip, proabbot Dimić. He was born in Bulgarian village Katranici, now at age 47 . . . he knows well reading and singing but less writing”).17 On the last page in a manuscript from the National library St. St. Cyril and Methodius in Sofia (354) an inscription with the year 1801 is read in which some monks from Rila monastery have added to their names the nickname “singer” in various forms of evaluation: Hilarion “пeвецъ чоудныи” (“marvelous singer”), Theophil “пeвецъ” (“singer”), Hierothej “пeвецъ добрыи” (“good singer”), Pahomij “пeвецъ добрыи” (“good singer”), Gerasim “пeвецъ” (“singer”), and Prokopij “пeвецъ добрыи” (“good singer”). The fourth fact, which characterizes the history of music from the considered time, is that the names of the first whole generation of Bulgarian men of letters involved in music as composers, writers, copyists and singers become known. The information obtained in manuscripts about them is again rather scanty. Some were mentioned above: Hieromonk Gavriil from Zografos monastery “of Bulgarian origin” (Zograf 100); Hieromonk Makarij from Hilandar monastery who translated from Greek into Bulgarian “with a great effort” (Hilandar 309); 201

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

“grandfather Toudor” who wrote an Anthology in 1772 in the Dormition of the Virgin monastery near the burnt village Bursko (Gr. 76 from the National Library in Sofia); Selevkij of Rila (Rila 6/20 and 6/21); Pamphilij of Rila who wrote two large Anthologies in 1818 (Rila 6/11 and 6/13), as well as the above mentioned singers, etc. The most distinguished among this generation are the Metropolitan Serafim of Bosnia and Hieromonk Joasaph proabbot of Rila. Their role in the development of the church music is significant not only for Bulgarian music but also for the music of all of Balkan Orthodoxy. Serafim was metropolitan of the Dobrobosnia eparchy, which had its seat in the town of Bosnia.18 According to some documents, he was a metropolitan from 1766 until 1772.19 The so-called Yale fragment from the library of Yale University indicates that it was he who sent an appeal to Peter Lampadarios of Peloponnese with a request to compose a repertory in Slavic.20 As a result, chants in Slavic from the Anastasimatarion appeared. Thirteen of these chants are preserved in the Yale fragment. The rubric in Greek above them reads: “With Holy God Anastasimatarion, which was set to music in the Slavic dialect by the most learned musician, kyr Petros Lampadarios of Peloponnese, according to the order of the old Anastasimatarion, at the request of the Very Reverend and Holy Metropolitan of Bosnia, kyr Serafim, for the use of the Slavs and for the memory of his soul”. It is suggested that the Yale fragment was written about 1770.21 Actually the systematic notation of the church chant repertory in Slavic started after Serafim’s appeal. Serafim spent the rest of his life in Rila monastery devoted to literary work.22 Some inscriptions preserved in the musical manuscripts from the monastery show that he was concerned with the music there. In a manuscript with his inscriptions from 1779 and 1781 (6/59), the only cherubikon chant in Slavic as yet known in Balkan Orthodox musical literature from the considered time is revealed. The cherubikon is ascribed to Dionisij of Veles. It is suggested that Serafim was born in a town in southwestern Bulgaria (Razlog or Bansko?) about 1720 and died in Rila monastery about 1800 (see more about Serafim in part III.4. in this book).23 Hieromonk Joasaph the proabbot of Rila is among the leading musicians from the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century.24 His compositions are found in about 14 manuscripts preserved in the library of Rila monastery, and in the libraries of the Athonite monasteries Ksenofontos and Dionisiatos. Joasaph’s original works are in Greek and in Slavic.25 They are in the forms of both psalmody and hymnody designed to be performed in Great Vespers, Orthros (Morning service), the three liturgies (of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and the Presanctified Gifts), and on special festive services (Easter, the Feast of the Holy Cross, Good Friday, etc.). Joasaph followed the new trends in Balkan Orthodox music in his work. His contribution in terms of the exegesis or of the interpretation of the old repertory is significant. Joasaph’s name is among the leading “exegetors” in the Balkan Orthodox music of his time. Hieromonk Neophyt of Rila, one of the greatest Bulgarian writers, composers, teachers, and scholars from the nineteenth century, gives evidence about Joasaph 202

T he T ransition F rom M onophonic

in his book “Description of the Bulgarian Holy Monastery of Rila”.26 Neophyt speaks about the church singing school in Rila monastery and its representatives from the end of the eighteenth and the very beginning of the nineteenth century. He describes the development of the Rila school since 1790 when the famous Athonite singer Joasaph “a perfect teacher in the old Athonite chanting” was invited to teach church music in the monastery.27 Joasaph taught there five years – until 1795. He was succeeded by hieromonk Hilarion. Hilarion was described as having “an inimitable voice”, “a music monster” and “a great astonishment for listeners”. In 1802 Hieromonk Joasaph, referred to as “Joasaph the Second” by Neophyt, was sent to Mount Athos to refine his church singing. It was he who later became known as Joasaph the proabbot of Rila. Joasaph spent ten years on Mount Athos. After returning to the monastery in 1812, he headed the singing school there.28 Joasaph taught about twenty pupils. It is suggested that Neophyt of Rila was among them. During the second quarter of the nineteenth century, Joasaph worked at various convents of Rila monastery in different Bulgarian towns. Last evidence about him is from 1852.29 This year may be taken as the year of his death. Judging by his activity, Joasaph must have been born c. 1780. The four facts outlined above are characteristic of the development of Bulgarian church music during the entire nineteenth century. In addition, some other facts appear, the specification of which will be pointed out below for each of the next stages. Several layers of repertory are revealed in musical manuscripts from the first two stages: firstly, a traditional one, which contains anonymous chants with designations showing different musical traditions: “old” and “new”, “urban” and “monastic”, “soloistic” and “choral”, etc.; secondly, an old-composed layer with pieces from the fourteenth- and fifteenth-centuries composers such as John Koukouzeles, John Glykys, Ksenos Korones, John Lampadarios Kladas, Manuel Chrysaphes, etc.; thirdly, a newly-composed first layer with pieces from the seventeenth- and eighteenth-centuries composers (up to 1770), such as Chrysaphes the New, Balasios Hiereos, Peter Bereketes, Germanos of New Patras, Kosma the Macedonian, etc.; and fourthly, a newly-composed second layer with compositions of the generation from 1770 onwards. In addition to these layers, one more, a unique fifth layer, is revealed: it is found in manuscripts originating from or linked with Rila monastery only and does not have any parallel in the known musical literature. Chants of this repertory are designed for all of the parts of worship. They are in both Greek and Slavic and most of them are ascribed to Joasaph of Rila. This repertory could be called the Rila repertory. The third stage in the development of Bulgarian church music (c. 1820 to the 1840s) is characterized by the facts of the adoption of the so-called New Method, its dissemination throughout the country and the compilation of the full repertory in Slavic according to this Method. The New Method was established after 1814 as a result of the work of the Three Teachers of the Patriarchal School of Music in Constantinople: Archimandrit Chrisantos of Madytos, Chourmousios the Chartophylax and Gregorios Lampadarios (later Protopsaltes). The 203

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

Three Teachers established a system of basic rules from a theoretical point of view for the perfect understanding and teaching of church music. In its essence it was a reform of the notation, which is presented in its full analytical form.30 The notation after 1814 is called and known as the New Method and also Chourmousian notation. It replaced the late Byzantine notation. Two innovations of the Chourmousian notation – among others – are particularly significant: the introduction of the monosyllabic chanting (called “parallage”) of ni, pa, vu, ga, di, ke, so, the equivalents of the Western solfegio do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, si, and the precision of the rhythmic signs, which brought the rhythm of the chants closer to the Western measurement of time.31 For the first time the exact pitch of the tone in Balkan Orthodox music was fixed. This, in turn, required a new way of learning and performing of church music and also, of its writing and transmission. It was in Rila monastery where the theory and practice of the New Method were taught for the first time in Bulgaria.32 According to the evidence of Neophyt of Rila, Joasaph the proabbot of Rila was the first teacher of this Method there. By 1816 Joasaph was sent to Constantinople to learn it. He was the pupil of Chourmousios himself. Returning to the monastery after six months, Joasaph brought with all the necessary books for his teaching. Thus, the New Method became familiar in Bulgaria at a comparatively very early time. The first manuscripts in Chourmousian notation were written in Rila monastery c. 1820. From there they spread throughout Bulgaria. The generation led now by Neophyt of Rila was in charge of translating the entire chant repertory from the former notation into this New Method notation. The names of Athanasij, Isaj, Averkij, Akakij, Cyril, Epifanij, Konstantij, Ksenophont, Josiph and others became known from the manuscripts. These musicians continued to interpret the old repertory by means of exegesis and also, to create their own original works. The musical manuscripts written by them are dated up to the end of the nineteenth century. They are in Greek, bilingual, Graeco-Slavic, and in Slavic. Unlike the former period, the manuscripts in Slavic now are the majority. Neophyt of Rila was born in the last decade of the eighteenth century (c. 1793) in the town of Bansko. Like Joasaph of Rila, he wrote compositions for all parts of the worship: for Vespers, Orthros, the three liturgies and for special services. One of his significant pieces is a large eulogistic chant in honor of St. John of Rila. The greater part of Neophyt’s pieces were gathered together in a manuscript written by him on the island of Chalcis in 1851, now in the library of Rila monastery (NR 115). This manuscript contains many marginal inscriptions written in his hand. Neophyt ambition, according to some inscriptions, was to set into print the chant repertory compiled by his contemporaries in Rila monastery. Unfortunately, this ambition remained unrealized. The great Bulgarian writer died in Rila monastery on January 4 1881. Neophyt was a typical Renaissance person involved in many activities related to both spiritual and secular life: he served in church and composed church chants, taught in secular schools and recorded secular songs, worked in the field of linguistics and prepared for print a Graeco-Bulgarian Dictionary, etc. 204

T he T ransition F rom M onophonic

Up to the 1840s the entire annual church chant repertory in Slavic was compiled in the proper chant books: Anthologies, Sticheraria, Anastasimataria, Hirmologia, etc. This repertory contains all of the layers outlined above. However, the repertory from the first three layers (up to 1770) is reduced at the expense of the one that appeared after 1770. In addition, the latter also transmits unique chants that were written or linked with Rila monastery. These chants represent the Rila second repertory layer. The repertory compiled at the Rila singing school transmits for the first time translated into Slavic chants by composers of all of the above-mentioned former generations from the fourteenth – fifteenth through the nineteenth centuries: John Koukouzeles, Ksenos Korones, John Lampadarios Kladas, Manuel Chrysaphes, Chrysaphes the New, Petros Bereketes, Petros Lampadarios, etc. A study of the repertory from the former period and of this created at the Rila singing school shows that the Rila monks knew the church chant theory and practice in details: they knew precisely the intonation fund and the modal organization of the whole repertory they worked with. The original chants created in Slavic by the Rila monks are for all parts of the worship. In fact, this is the first full repertory in Slavic created in Bulgaria, which covered the entire annual chant cycle of worship. The availability of a full notated chant repertory in Slavic put an end to its oral transmission, which was close to the popular traditional practice and therefore “folklorised”, and raised it to a high professional level. This repertory was introduced and taught in the new Bulgarian schools of which the earliest one was opened in the town of Gabrovo in 1835. In doing so, the teaching of church music went outside the churches and entered a secular institution for the first time. For the first time also, church music was taught along with other secular subjects, like geography for instance. It was among the major subjects in the new secular schools in many towns, like Koprivshtitca, Kalofer, Sliven, Plovdiv, Sofia, etc.33 The age from the 1840s, the beginning of the fourth stage in the development of Bulgarian church music, is characterized by many new activities. The dynamics in musical life became particularly intensive. The major facts now are the appearance of both secular and polyphonic music. The church chant practice in Slavic created in Rila monastery was disseminated throughout the whole country. The Rila musical manuscripts are preserved in the libraries of the other two big Bulgarian monasteries, Bachkovo and Troian. During the 1840s and 1850s the Rila chant practice was popularized in the Athonite monasteries Zografos and Hilandar. This was an opposite trend in the development of church music – the movement from the inside the country centers to Mount Athos. In 1853 for instance, the abbot of the Zografos monastery Hilarion “with all the brothers on the name of Christ” asks Neophyt of Rila to send “Bulgarian chants”, which are to be used in the services in Zografos. In 1858 he thanks him for sending the chants.34 Not a few manuscripts of the second half of the nineteenth century, which are now in the Hilandar library (556, 561, 588, etc.), show a connection with Rila and Zografos monasteries: they were written there. The manuscripts contain chants for the service of St. John of Rila, chants, designated as “Bulgarian”, and chants by Bulgarian composers Athanasij of Rila, Nikola Vasilev of Tirnovo, Kalistrat of Zografos, Christo Valkov, etc. 205

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

As it was said above, the Rila monks did not manage to set into print their chant books. The first printed church chant books in Slavic in the Chourmousian notation appear from 1847 onwards.35 They were compiled by secular people. All the necessary liturgical chant books were printed until 1870. The publishers were also compilers and composers: Nikola Triandafilov, Angel Ivanov Sevlievec, Todor Ikonomov, Ivan Genadiev and Dimitar Manchov.36 The repertory of these books contains both translated chants into Slavic by Greek composers from the compilers and original ones by the latter. Unfortunately, nothing was said about musical work in Rila monastery and not a single composition of any of the Rila monks was included in these volumes. The printed books were disseminated quickly throughout the country and the printed practice as a whole replaced the manuscript one. The musical work of the Rila monks gradually passed into oblivion after 1870. The number of secular teachers who taught church music increases during this stage. Some of them speak about the importance of teaching church music. Joakim Gruev, for instance, writes that learning church music was a “fashion” among pupils.37 In Grigor Palichev’s Vitae is read that “a great endeavor” was done for “the propagation of church singers”.38 The knowledge of church chant was a requirement for people applying for teaching positions in the new secular schools: teachers had to know church chanting and to prepare their pupils for the same as well. Up to the 1860s the level of education in the field of church music was very high. Actually, this was one of the two fields of music (the other was musical folklore) in which Bulgarians could show their musical skills. Pupils, participating in church services at feast days, had to present what they had learned at school. Peter Zlatev Gruev for instance, a teacher, composer, poet and church singer, went to a church with his pupils who sang in the church choir. The pupils were “nicely dressed” and “lined up”.39 The chanting was done under “excellent discipline” and was appreciated as “delightful”. Services like that were gradually converted into a kind of public concerts: people were going to the church not only to pray but also to listen to the performance of their children, relatives and friends.40 These festive services actually were the beginning of a new musical performance activity. A new festive system was established in the new secular schools: the final exam, the end of the school year, the feast of St. St. Cyril and Methodius, the celebration of some honorable person, etc. On these feasts both church and secular chants were performed.41 They conditioned the appearance of “mixed” chant books in which both church and secular songs were included. Such a manuscript, for instance, preserved in the National library in Sofia (1181), contains church chants, arithmetic, the so-called “general” chants, performed at different occasions, and folk chants. During the 1840s and 1850s the secular chants, like the church ones, were recorded in Chourmousian notation. It was a time when the center of musical life shifted from the church to secular institutions. It was a time also, when polyphonic music was spread. The last fact called for knowledge of western notation, theory, harmony, and music literature. Polyphonic music was often called the “new” music, the “European” music, and/or the “music in notes”. It was distinguished from the “old” 206

T he T ransition F rom M onophonic

monophonic music for which now the term Eastern church chant was coined and it has remained known as “music in neumes”. During the 1860s the interest in the latter has gradually diminished and it has lost its position both in teaching practice and in some urban churches.42 It ceased to be in the focus of music life as it was during last ten centuries in both monastic and urban churches. Polyphonic church music started to be introduced in both secular schools and larger urban churches and replaced the monophonic music. The substitution of monophonic for polyphonic music is actually a substitution of two different kinds of aesthetics – old (medieval) and new (modern). The new aesthetics led to the appreciation of music as an independent artistic art, that is, music which was no longer linked with religious and/or folklore rituals and was, respectively, freed from any conventions. During the 1860s polyphonic church chant was introduced in many big urban churches. There were two major ways in which it was established. The first one is related to the foreigners who settled in Bulgaria. For instance, in the 1860s a Catholic church in the town of Plovdiv and a Protestant church in the town of Samokov were opened. In the former the Italian Dominicus Francisk Marteleti served and in the latter – the American James Clarke. In both churches polyphonic church music was performed with an organ. In 1862 and 1866 two volumes of Western religious chants were published: “Holy Songs” and “Rules for Singing and Holy Songs with Their Tunes”. The second way in which polyphonic music was established is related to the first generation of the Bulgarians educated abroad who came back to their country: Dobri Chintulov, Naiden Gerov, Dobri Voinikov, etc. This generation graduated from both divinity and secular colleges and universities in Russia and in Western Europe. Their representatives already composed polyphonic pieces and used West European notation only. In 1870 Todor Hadzhistanchev founded the first Church Chant Society in the town of Russe which had to sing polyphonic music in church. The first polyphonic compositions by Bulgarians appeared. In 1865 Krastju Pishurka wrote the liturgical drama “The Funeral Service of Jesus Christ” performed in the church in the town of Lom. In 1870 Janko Mustakov wrote a piece with the same title, which was performed on Easter in the town of Svishtov. The most significant figure among this generation was Dobri Voinikov, a writer, teacher, and musician. He graduated from the French college “Bebeck” in Constantinople. Voinikov played the piano, flute, and guitar. Most of his compositions are in the field of secular music. He was one of the first who wrote music for his own plays, which were performed in the new Bulgarian theatre. In 1871–1873 Voinikov founded a mixed choir in the town of Gjurgevo (Romania) and wrote for it “The Liturgy of Gjurgevo” (it is preserved in manuscript).43 It was performed on different feast days in this town during 1874. The fifth stage in the development of church music (since 1878, the beginning of the free Biulgarian state) is characterized by the replacement of monophonic by polyphonic music in both the urban churches and schools and the search for a national musical style. By the end of the 1870s monophonic church music was already restricted to some urban churches and monasteries. The teachers, 207

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

according to the new school program accepted after the Liberation and unlike the former age, were not under obligation to chant in the church. Monophonic chant was excluded as a subject from the school programs. The modern West European notation replaced the neumatic one in Bulgarian schools, and up to the 1890s it gained priority throughout the country. Some people linked to the church made an attempt to enhance the popularity of the Eastern church chant by translating it into this notation. For instance, Peter Sarafov along with Angel Bukureshtliev translated the entire church repertory for Vespers, the Orthros, and the three liturgies and prepared it for print in 1893.44 Another translation was done by Manasij Poptodorov who published his translated books in 1895, 1896 and 1898. However, these attempts remained without result in terms of the purpose for which they were done. The “European” polyphonic music was of Russian origin. Russian church choral polyphonic chant was spread up to the end of the century. The Russian liberating army made a considerable contribution towards its adoption in the country. There were soldier church choirs in its corps. The choirs sang church music on Sundays and on other feast days: festal Masses and Thanksgivings were served. For the first time such a Mass and a Thanksgiving were served in the “Holy Trinity” cathedral in the town of Svishtov on June 15 1877. Many Russians remained to work in Bulgaria after the Liberation in 1878. They had to set up and conduct church choirs and also to train conductors for these choirs.45 In 1879, at the invitation of the newly founded Ministry of Education, the Bessarabian Bulgarian Nikolaj Nikolaev came from the town of Bolgrad to the new Bulgarian capital Sofia. He graduated in music in Russia and was one of the first professional musicians who worked in Bulgaria.46 Nikolaev founded a choir at the cathedral of Holy King (now the Metropolitan Cathedral St. Nedelja) and was appointed conductor there. In a period of 20 years similar choirs were set up in other towns in Bulgaria. This is where the singing of modern Bulgarian church music begins. The choirs were attached to the churches. In the churches they performed church music; out of the churches – a secular one. The church music performed in the churches was mixed: the Mass was performed in the manner of Russian polyphonic church music but the music for the Vespers and Orthros for both weekdays and feasts was performed in the manner of Eastern monophonic church chant. The chant repertory for the Mass was mainly by Russian composers: Dmitrij Bortnjansky, Artemij Vedel, Nikolaj Bachmetiev, Alexander Archangelsky, Peter Ilich Chaikovsky, etc. In 1898 one of the first Bulgarian Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom for a mixed choir by Athanas Badev was published. It was based on melodies of Eastern church chant: some of these melodies were harmonized for a mixed choir and others were creatively worked out. Athanas Badev was a representative of the generation of modern Bulgarian composers who contributed to the development of polyphonic church music in the age up to World War I.47 The new twentieth century, when the secularization in the field of music was already evident, raised the question of the national character of church music. There was a common agreement that modern Bulgarian church music should 208

T he T ransition F rom M onophonic

be based on a national traditional music. However, two quite different points of view were expressed in terms of which one is the national traditional music and which one is “the real Bulgarian church chant”.48 The first one argued the idea that the modern Bulgarian church music should be based on the repertory of the socalled “Bolgarskij Rospev” (“Bulgarian Chant”). This repertory became familiar in Bulgaria by the very beginning of the twentieth century.49 As a whole, it was a monophonic repertory. “Bulgarian Chant” was recorded on staff in Kievan square notation in Ukrainian and Russian manuscripts from the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries and covered the whole annual church chant repertory. The defenders of the “Bulgarian Chant” were secular people educated in the field of West European polyphonic music: Georgi Baidanov, Anastas Nikolov, Christo Shaldev, Dimitar Ivanov Tjulev, etc. These people were concerned about the artistic value of the new Bulgarian church music. Several business trips were arranged to Russia in order to gather together the repertory of “Bulgarian Chant” (records in this chant originating from Bulgaria are not known). A considerable work there was done by Anastas Nikolov. He gathered many “Bulgarian” chants for Vespers, the Orthros, the Liturgies, and for the Mass of the Dead.50 In 1905 Nikolov published a volume under the title “Old Bulgarian Church Chant according to the Old Russian Notated Manuscripts of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries”. The volume contains chants for Vespers and Mass. It is a question, however, of whether these melodies are authentic: the author harmonized them and did not point out the shelf marks of the manuscripts, which he took them from. The second point of view concerning the national character of Bulgarian church music argued the idea that the latter should be based on the Eastern church chant, that is, monophonic church music. The defenders of this view were people linked to the church, primarily clergymen: Manasij Poptodorov, Peter Sarafov, Peter Dinev, etc. According to them, Eastern church chant was the “real” Bulgarian chant because it had a long tradition in Bulgaria recorded in many chant books in neumes. The tradition of “Bolgarskij Rospev” was known in Ukraine and Russia only: until the end of the nineteenth century it remained unfamiliar in Bulgaria. Before World War I there was no “winner” in this discussion. The performance of church music became more and more restricted to the church and bound with rituals there in its mixed form. New secular choirs attached to various secular institutions were founded. The secular compositions definitely prevailed in their repertory. The Bulgarian church music works created were mainly compositions made up of harmonized melodies from both “Bolgarskij Rospev” and Eastern chant. The first work created on a high artistic level in the field of Bulgarian church music was written after World War I by the great Bulgarian composer Dobri Christov. He wrote a Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom on the occasion of the consecration of the Patriarchal Cathedral St. Alexander Nevsky in Sofia in 1924. This Liturgy is the most significant and representative accapella work in the whole Bulgarian choir literature of the first half of the twentieth century. It is notable for its compositional artistry, its richness of melodic invention and religious emotion. The Liturgy holds a prominent place among the finest masterpieces in the field 209

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

of European Orthodox music, such as the Liturgies of Peter Ilych Tchaikovsky, Sergei Rachmaninov and Alexander Grechaninov. However, the generation of composers after World War I, Dobri Christov’s contemporary generation, was fully turned to face the modern secular European music. For this generation the question about Bulgarian church music was not of interest and as a whole it was not a priority. In conclusion, Bulgarian church music went a long way of development from the second half of the seventeenth through the beginning of the twentieth century. It was a period of flowering, of many changes, transitions, and cultural “translations” of the whole Balkan Orthodox music: the transition from a stenographic into an analytical way of writing, the transition from a partly notated repertory into an entirely notated one, the “translation” of the latter into the new ChurchSlavic language, the “translation” of the old repertory into the system of the New Method, the “translation” of the New Method into the Church-Slavic language and, finally, the shift from monophonic to polyphonic church music with a new writing and performance. Bulgaria went through these changes and after centuries of development according to the model of Orthodox music theory and practice entered the modern European culture. Her unique church chant heritage, created in one of the most dynamic ages of human civilization, is a contribution to both Balkan and European music. It is a challenge of our time to appreciate it.

Notes 1 It was the Church-Slavic language that represented the Russian redaction of the Old Bulgarian language from the 17th century. Russian Church-Slavic was used in the Russian printed books, which were spread to Bulgaria and became familiar in Balkan Slavic countries. Russian Church-Slavic started to be adapted to their written practice. 2 About Byzantine and Slavic notations see Floros, C. Universale Neumenkunde, 3 Bde. Kassel, 1970. 3 The notation from the second half of the 17th century is often called “analytical”, see Stathis, G. An Analysis of the Sticheron Ton hlion kruyanta by Germanos, Bishop of New Patras [The Old ‘Synoptic’ and the New ‘Analytical’ Method of Byzantine Notation]. – In: Studies in Eastern Chant. Vol. IV. Ed. by M. Velimirović. NY, 1979, 177–228. 4 Many scholars speak about this, see Зографски, Д. Света гора – Зограф в миналото и днес. София, 1943,40; Болутов, Д. Български исторически паметници на Атон. София, 1961, 138; Гечев, M. Килийните училища в България. София, 1967, 14; Medaković, D. Manastir Hilandar u 18 veku. – В: Hilandarski zbornik. T. 3. Ed. by S. Radojćić. Beograd, 1974, 7–85, etc. 5 Тодоров, И. Хилендарският манастир като българско книжовно средище през Възраждането. – В: Кирило-Методиевски студии. T. 3. София, 1986, 163–180. 6 Ibidem. 7 Христов, С. Пиротският окръг и неговото население. – В: Народни умотворения. София, 1894, 304; Георгиев, Й. Град Вратца. – В: Народни умотворения. София, 1904, 33; Бобчев, С. Принос към историята на Българското възраждане. Поп Андрей Робовски. – В: Народни умотворения, 12. София, 1905, 1–7. 8 According to Ангелов, Б. Из старата българска, сръбска и руска литература, 2 тома. София, 1978, 202.

210

T he T ransition F rom M onophonic

9 The Anastasimataria contain a repertory for the resurrection services for Saturday Vespers and Sunday. 10 The most of the Rila musical manuscripts are preserved in the library of Rila monastery; Rila musical manuscripts are kept also in the major libraries in Sofia: the National library St. St. Cyril and Methodius, the Church Historical and Archival Institute at the Bulgarian Patriarchate and the Center for Slavo-Byzantine Studies “Ivan Dujčev” at the Bulgarian State University St. Kliment Ohridski, see Атанасов, А., С. Куюмджиева, В. Велинова, Е. Узунова, Е. Мусакова. Музикалните ръкописи в библиотеката на Рилския манастир. София, 2012; Атанасов, А., В. Велинова, Е. Узунова, И. Желев, С. Куюмджиева. Двуезични (гръцко-църковносавянски) музикални ръкописи в Рилския манастир. София, 2018. 11 According to Jakovljević, А. Inventar muzićkih rukopisa manastira Hilandara. – In: Hilandarski zbornik. Ed. by S. Radojćić. Beograd, 1978, 193–234. 12 About this manuscript see Matejić, M., D. Bogdanović. Slavic Codices of the Great Lavra Monastery. – Balcanica, 2: Inventaries and Catalogues. Sofia, 1989, 563–570; Petrović, D. Muzichki rukopis manastira Lavre (E-10 Z-58) iz XVII veka. – In: Prouchvanje srednevekovnih juzhnoslovenskih rukopisa. Beograd, 1995, 345–358. 13 The author has studied the cited Hilandar manuscripts according to their microforms at the Resource Center for Medieval Slavic Studies at the Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. I would like to acknowledge the Monks of Hilandar Monastery for their forethought in seeking ways to preserve and make accessible the manuscript treasures in their library and to thank my colleagues at the Hilandar Research Library and the Resource Center for Medieval Slavic Studies for their excellent working conditions and the care they show both the scholars visiting their library and materials in their keeping, see Kujumdzieva, S. Unknown Services for Bulgarian Saints. – Cyrilic Manuscript Heritage, 8, December 2000, 9. Published by the Hilandar Research Library and the Resource Center for Medieval Slavic Studies, Columbus, OH; see also Matejić, P., H. Thomas. Catalog. Manuscripts on Microform of the Hilandar Research Library, 2 vols. Columbus, 1992; Куюмджиева, С. Българска музика в Хилендар. София, 2008. 14 Stefanović, D. Crkvenoslovenski prevod prirućnika vizantijske neumske notacije u rukopisu 311 manastira Hilandara. – In: Hilandarski zbornik, 2. Ed. by S. Radojćić. Beograd, 1971, 113–130. 15 The first five manuscripts are in Greek and the last two are bilinqual, Graeco-Slavic, see Куюмджиева, С. Ранновъзрожденска българска музика – паметници и певчески репертоар. Йоасаф Рилски. София, 2003. 16 About these manuscripts see Στάθης, Γ. Θ. Τὰ χειρόγραφα Βυζαντινῆς μουσικῆς – Ἅγιον Ὄρος. Κατάλογος περιγραφικὸς τῶν χειρογράφων κωδίκων Βυζαντινῆς μουσικῆς τῶν ἀποκειμένων ἐν ταῖς Βιβλιοθήκαις τῶν ἱερῶν Μονῶν καὶ Σκητῶν τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους. Ἀθῆναι. Τ. B, 1976. 17 For an evidence of that see Ангелов, Б. Цит. съч., т. 1, 33; т. 2, 24, 123–124. 18 About the Metropolitan Serafim of Bosnia see Stefanović, D., M. Velimirović. Peter Lampadarios and Metropolitan Serafim of Bosnia. – In: Studies in Eastern Chant. Vol. 1. Ed. by M. Velimirović. London-New York-Toronto, 1966, 67–88; Kujumdzieva, S. The Musical Anthology of Metropolitan Serafim of Bosnia. – In: Gimnologija, 4: Festschrift for the 80 Anniversary of Miloš Velimirović. Ed. by N. Gerasimova-Persidskaja. Moscow, 2003, 131–148. 19 Dušanić, S. Serafim mitropolit dabrobosanski 1766–1772. – Bogoslovlje, 14. Beograd, 1939, 53–63. 20 Stefanović, D., M. Velimirović. Op. cit. 21 Ibidem. 22 Kujumdzieva, S. The Musical Anthology . . . 23 Ibidem; also Куюмджиева, С. Ранновъзрожденска българска музика . . . 24 Stathis, G. Τὰ χειρόγραφα . . ., T. B.

211

S tudies on B ulgarian O rthodox C hurch C hant

25 Stathis, G. T. Joasaph Riliotes et ses ‘Exegeseis’ a certaines compositions byzantines. – Paper read at the International Conference “Slavic Cultures and Balkans” held in Town of Varna, Bulgaria, 1976. 26 It was published in 1879. 27 After Динев, П. Рилската църковнопевческа школа в началото на 19 век и нейните представители. – Известия на Института за музика, 4. София, 1957, 3–89; Куюмджиева, С. Рилската певческа школа през Възраждането. Дисертация. София, 1980. 28 Ibidem. 29 Радев, И. Таксидиоти и таксидиотство по българските земи. Велико Търново, 1996, 255. 30 Баларева, А. Хорови прояви през Българското възраждане. – Българско музикознание, 1, 1983, 18–34; 2, 1983, 45–72. 31 Stathis, G. T. An Analysis . . . 32 Ibidem. 33 Динев, П. Рилската . . . 34 Груев, Й. Спомени. – Училищен преглед. София, 1906, 153. 35 According to Шишманов, И. Нови студии из областта на Българското възраждане. I. Васил Априлов, Неофит Рилски, Неофит Бозвели (= Българска академия на науките, 21). София, 1926, 292–293. 36 See about them Хърков, С. Печатните църковно-певчески сборници в музикалната практика на Българското възраждане. Дисертация. София, 1994. 37 About this problem see Куюмджиева, С. Рилската певческа школа . . . 38 According to Груев, Й. Спомени. Цит. съч., 153. 39 Пърличев, Г. Автобиография. – В: Народни умотворения, 11. София, 1894, с. 349. 40 According to Моцев, А., П. Динев. Петър Златев Груев. Културно-музикална и обществена дейност. – Известия на Института за музика, 10. София, 1964, 23–97. 41 Проданов, С., К. Проданова. Из музикалното минао на Габрово. Материали и спомени 1800–1944. София, 1982, 30–38; Баларева, А. Хорови прояви . . . 42 Динев, П. Църковното пение в България в най-ново време. – Църковен вестник, 28, 1961, 8. 43 Manuscript 1333 from the National library St. St. Cyril and Methodius in Sofia. 44 Сарафов, П. Ръководство за практическото и теоретическото изучаване на восточната църковна музика. София, 1912,14. 45 According to Динев, П. Първите църковно-хорови диригенти в България. – Църковен вестник, 35, 8–10. 46 Енциклопедия на българската музикална култура. София, 1967, 336. 47 Динев, П. Църковно-певчески сборник от духовно-музикални съчинения върху източно-църковни, старобългарски и други напеви, композирани и разработени от П. Динев. София, 1941, 2. 48 About this problem see Куюмджиева, С. “Болгарски роспев” през погледа на първите музикално-обществени дейци след Освобождението. – Българско музикознание, 1, 1982, 59–72. 49 The problem of “Bolgarskij Rospev” became known in Bulgaria after the translation of the Ivan Voznesensky’s book of 1891, see Вознесенский, И. Болгарский роспев или напеви на “Бог Господ” югозападной православной церкви. The book was translated from Russian into Bulgarian by Georgi Baidanov without mentioning the name of Voznesensky: Baidanov put his name as the author of the book and published it in 1899. The interest in the book, and respectively, in “Bulgarian Chant”, was extremely great. 50 According to Peter Dinev, the collected annual cycle of “Bolgarskij Rospev” by Anastas Nikolov remained incomplete, see Динев, П. Други известни църковни диригенти в България. – Църковен вестник, 26, 1964, 68.

212

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anfänge der slavischen Musik. Ed. by L. Mokrý. Bratislava, 1966. Arranz, M. Le Typicon du monastère du Saint-Sauveur à Messine (= Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 185). Roma, 1969. Arranz, M. La tradition liturgique de Constantinople au IX siecle et l’Euchologe slave du Sinai. – Studi sull’Oriente christiano, 4/2, 2000, 41–100. Arranz, M., N. D. Uspensky. The Office of the All-Night Vigil in the Greek Church. – St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 24/2, 1980, 83–115. Assemani, G. S. Bibliotheca orientalis Clementino-Vaticana. Rome, 1719. Atiya, A. S. The Arabic Manuscripts of Mount Sinai: A Handlist of the Arabic Manuscripts and Scrolls Microfilmed at the Library of the Monastery of St. Catherine, Mount Sinai. Baltimore, 1955. Atkinson, C. M. Further Thoughts on the Origin of the Missa Graeca. – In: De musica et canto. Studien zur Geschichte der Kirchenmusik und der Oper. Helmut Hucke zum 60. Geburtstag. Herausg. von P. Cahn, A.-K. Heimer. Hillesheim-Zürich-New York, 1993, 75–95. Baldovin, J. V. The Urban Character of Christian Worship (= Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 228). Roma, 1987. Baldovin, J. V. Liturgy in Ancient Jerusalem. Nottingham, 1989. Baldovin, J. F. Worship. City, Church and Renewal. Washington, DC, 1991. Baldwin, B. Dorotheos of Gaza. – In: Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Ed. by A. Kazhdan. vol. 1. New York-Oxford, 1991, 654. Baumstark, A. Festbrevier und Kirchenjahr der syrischen Jakobiten (= Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums. B. 3, 3–5). Paderborn, 1910. Baumstark, A. Denkmäler der Entstehungsgeschichte des byzantinischen Ritus. – Oriens Christianus, 2, 3d series, 1927, 1–32. Beck, H.-G. Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinische Reich. 2-te Aufl. München, 1977. Benešević, V. Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum graecorum, qui in monasterio Sanctae Catherinae in Monte Sina asservantur. I. Mss described by Ouspenski. III.1. Codices Nr. 1224–2150 signati. Petrograd, 1911 and 1914. Bershin, W. Griechisch-lateinisches Mittelalter. Von Hieronymus zu Nikolaos von Kues. Bern-München, 1980. Bertoniere, G. The Historical Development of the Easter Vigil and Related Services in the Greek Church (= Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 193). Roma, 1972.

213

B ibliography

Bertoniere, G. The Sundays of Lent in the Triodion: The Sundays without a Commemroation (= Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 253). Roma, 1997. Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity. Ed. by K. Parry, D. J. Melling, D. Brady, S. Griffith, J. F. Healey. Oxford, MA, 2000. Bradshaw, P. F. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. New York-Oxford, 1992; 2d ed. New York, 2002. Brightman, F. E. Liturgies Eastern and Western. Oxford, 1896. Brubaker, L., J. Haldon. Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (ca. 680–850): The Sources. Ashgate, 2001. Burkitt, F. C. The Jacobite Service for Holy Saturday. – Journal of Theological Studies, 24, 1923, 424–427. Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents. Published by Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 5 vols. Ed. by J. Thomas, A. C. Hero. Washington, DC, 2000, electronic version: www.doaks.org/etexts.html. Canart, P. Codices Vaticani graeci. Codices 1745–1962. Part 1. Vaticana, 1970; Codices olim Basiliani seu Collegii S. Basilii de Urbe, nunc. Vat. Gr. 1963–2123. Inventarium et index rerum confecta annis 1697–1699 [Sala Cons. Mss.44]; Codices Vaticani Graeci 1963–2053, seu pars codicum olim Collegii S. Basilii de Urbe Inventarium post annum 1786 confectum [Sala Cons. Mss. 326]; Inventarium codicum Graecorum Bibliothecae Vaticanae a 1501 ad 2402 auspice Leone XIII P.O.M., I.B.card. Pitra, S.R.E. Bibliothecario confectum a I. Cozza Lizi Abate s. Mariae Cryptaeferratae, Scriptore Bibl. Vaticanae [Sala Cons. Mss. 324]. Catholic University of America. New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. Washington, DC, 1967. Clark, K. W. Checklist of Manuscripts in St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinai. Washington, DC, 1952. Conomos, D. Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. Thessaloniki, 1974. Conomos, D. The Late Byzantine and Slavonic Communion Cycle: Liturgy and Music. Washington, DC, 1985. Conomos, D. The Treatise of Manuel Chrysaphes, the Lampadarios (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Corpus Scriptorum de re musica. Vol. 2). Vienna, 1985. Crocker, R. Liturgical Material of Roman Chant. – In: New Oxford History of Music. Vol. 2: The Early Middle Ages to 1300. Ed. by R. Crocker, D. Hiley. Oxford-New York, 1990. Dévai, G. Akathistos Prooemia in Byzantine Musical Manuscripts in Hungary. – In: Studies in Eastern Chant. Ed. by E. Wellesz, M. Velimirović. Vol. 1. New York, 1966, 1–8. Devreese, R. Codices Vaticani graeci. T. 3. Codices 604–866. Vaticana, 1950, 286–287. Doneda, A. Hyperstases in MS Kastoria 8 and the Kondakarion Notation: Relationships and Interchangeability. – In: Palaeobyzantine Notations. Ed. by C. Troelsgård, G. Wolfram. Vol. 2. Hernen, 1999, 23–36. Dostal, A. Origins of the Slavonic Liturgy. – Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 19, 1965, 67–89. Drillock, D. Early Slavic Translations and Musical Adaptations of Byzantine Liturgical Hymnody. – St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 44/3/4. Crestwood, 2000, 375–407. Duchesne, L. Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution. London, 1923. Đurić, M. T. The Man of Soros and the Lamenting Virgin: The Eaxample of Markov Manastir. – Зборник радова Византолошког Института, 49, 2012, 303–331. Dušanić, S. Serafim mitropolit dabrobosanski 1766–1772. – Bogoslovlje, 14. Beograd, 1939, 53–63.

214

B ibliography

Dyer, J. Sources of Romano-Frankish Liturgy and Music. – In: The Cambridge History of Medieval Music. Ed. by T. F. Kelly, M. Everist. 2 vols. Cambridge, 2018, Vol. 1, 92–122. Džurova, A., K. Stanchev, V. Atsalos, V. Katsaros. “Checklist” de la collection de manuscrits grecs conserve au centre de recherches slavo-byzantines “Ivan Dujcev” aupres de l’Universite “St. Clement d’Ohrid” de Sofia. Thessalonique, 1994. Eliseeva, А. Deux Anthologies de chant du monastère de Putna: nouvelles découvertes dans les archives du Musée d’Etat d’Histoire de Moscou, in print. Fenwick, R. K. The Anaphoras of St. Basil and St. James (An Investigation into Their Common Origin) (= Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 240). Roma, 1992. Filonov Gove, A. The Slavic Akathistos Hymn: A Comparative Study of a Byzantine Kontakion and Its Old Church Slavonic Translation. Ph.D., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1967. Filonov Gove, A. The Evidence for Metrical Adaptation in Early Slavic Translated Hymns (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Series Subsidia. Vol. 6). Copenhagen, 1978, 211– 246. Floros, C. Das Kontakion. – Deutscher Vierteljahrschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte, Jg. 34, 1960, 84–106. Floros, C. Universale Neumenkunde. 3 Bde. Kassel, 1970. Floros, C. Einführung in die Neumenkunde. Heinrichshofen, 1980. Floros, C. The Origins of Russian Music: Introduction to the Kondakarion Notation. Frankfurt am Main, 2009. Follieri, H. Initia Hymnorum ecclesiae Graecae. – Studi e testi, 4, 1963, 214. Follieri, E., I. Dujćev. Un’ acolutia inedita per i martiri di Bulgaria dell’anno 813. – Byzantion, 33, 1964. Follieri, E., O. Strunk. Triodium Athoum. Cod. Monasteri Vatopedi 1488 (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Series Principalis. Vol. 9). Copenhagen, 1975. Frøyshov, S. S. R. The Early Development of the Liturgical Eight-Mode System in Jerusalem. – St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 51/2/3, 2007, 139–178. Frøyshov, S. S. R. Greek Hymnody. – In: The Canterbury Dictionary of Hymnology. Ed. by J. R. Watson, E. Hornby. Norwich, 2013. Frǿyshov, S. S. R. The Resurrection Office of First-Millennium Jerusalem Liturgy and Its Adoption by Close Peripheries, Part II: The Gospel Reading and the Post-Gospel Section. – In: Sion, mère des églises: melanges liturgiques offerts au Père Charles Athanase Renoux. Ed. by M. D. Findikyan, D. Galadza, A. Lossky. Münster, 2016, 109–149. Gardner, J. von. Russian Church Singing. Vol. 1. Orthodox Worship and Hymnography. Crestwood, 1980. Gardthausen, V. E. Catalogus codicum graecorum sinaiticorum. Oxford, 1886. Gastoué, A. Introduction a la paléographie musicale Byzantinae. Catalogue des manuscrits de musique Byzantine de la bibliothque Nationale de Paris. Paris, 1906. Gastoué, A. Le Sanctus et le Benedictus. – Revue du chant gregorien, 38, 1934, 163–168; 39, 1935, 12–17, 35–39. Getov, D. Catalogue of the Greek Liturgical Manuscripts Kept in the Library of the Ivan Dujćev, Centre for Slavo-Byzantine Studies (= Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 279). Rome, 2008. Getov, D., M. Yovcheva. The Unedited Oktoechos Canons for Prophets and Martyrs in the Byzantine and Slavic Tradition. – Byzantinoslavica, 66/1–2, 2008, 139–166. Giannelli, C. Codices Vaticani graeci. Codices 1485–1683. Rome, 1950.

215

B ibliography

Glibetić, N. A New 11th Century Glagolitic Fragment from St Catherine’s Monastery: The Midnight Prayer of Early Slavic Monks in the Sinai. – Археографски прилози, 37. Београд, 2015, 11–49. Guide to Microfilms of Vatican Library Manuscript Codices Available for Study in the Vatican Film Library at St. Louis University. Compiled by B. J. Chanell, L. J. Daly, T. G. Tolles. Under the direction of C. J. Ermatinger. St. Louis, Missouri, 1993. Haelst, J. van. Cinq textes provenant de Khirbet Mird. – Ancient Society, 22, 1991, 297– 317. Hannick, C. Studien zu den Anastasima in den sinaitischen Handschriften. Wien, 1969. Hannick, C. Kyrillos und Methodius in der Musikgeschichte. – Musices Aptativ Liber Annuarius, 1, 1984–1985, 168–177. Hannick, C. Das musikalische Leben in der Frühezeit Bulgariens. – Byzantinoslavica, 49, 1988, 23–38. Hannick, C. Das “Slovo na prenesenie mostem Sv. Klimenta” als liturgiegeschichtliche Quelle. – In: Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 231. Roma, 1988, 27–236. Hannick, C. Das altslavische Hirmologia: Edition und Kommentar. Freiburg im Brisgau, 2006. Hannick, C., G. Wolfram, eds. Gabriel Hieromonachos (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Corpus scriptorum de re musica. Vol. 1). Wien, 1985. Harris, S. The Communion Chants in Thirteenth-Century Byzantine Musical Manuscripts. – In: Studies in Eastern Chant. Ed. by M. Velimirović. Vol. 2. London, 1971, 51–67. Harris, S. Psalmodic Traditions and the Christmas and Epiphany Troparia as Preserved in 13th-Century Psaltika and Asmatika. – In: Cantus Planus. Budapest, 1990, 205–211. Hero, A. C. A Women’s Quest for Spiritual Guidance. Brooklyn, MA, 1984. Hero, A. С. The Life and Letters of Theoleptos of Philadelphia. Brooklin, MA, 1994. Hintze, G. Das byzantinische Prokeimena Repertoire. Untersuchungen und kritische Edition (= Hamburger Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft. H. 9). Hamburg, 1973. Høeg, C. The Oldest Slavonic Tradition of Byzantine Music. – In: Proceedings of the British Academy. Vol. 39. London, 1953, 38–66. Hopin, R. Medieval Music. New York, 1978. Huglo, M. La tradition occidentale des melodies byzantines du Sanctus. – In: Der kultische Gesang der abendländischen Kirche. Aus Anlass des 75. Geburtstages von D. Johner. Ed. by F. Tack. Cologne, 1950, 40–46. Hunger, H. Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. T. 1. Wien, 1961. Husmann, H. Die syrischen Handschriften des Sinai-Klosters, Herkunft und Schreiber. – Ostkirchlichen Studien, 24, 1975, 281–308. Husmann, H. Ein Syro-Melkitisches Tropologion mit altbyzantinischen Notation Sinai Syr. 261 (= Götinger Orientforschungen. Bd. 9). Wiesbaden, 1975. Inventory of Microfilms and Photographs in the Collection of Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Compiled by C. Troelsgård. Copenhagen, 1992. Iversen, G. Splendor Patris. On Influence and Genre Definition: Victorine Proses Reflected in the Sanctus. – In: Cantus Planus. Budapest, 1992, 427–445. Jakobson, R. The Byzantine Mission to the Slavs. – Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 19, 1965, 257–265. Jakovljević, A. Hronologija atinskog rukopisa 928 i vizantijski kinonikon kira Stefana. – Zvuk, 2. Beograd, 1973, 165–173.

216

B ibliography

Jakovljević, А. Inventar muzićkih rukopisa manastira Hilandara. – In: Hilandarski zbornik. Ed. by S. Radojćić. Beograd, 1978, 193–234. Janakakis-Merakos, S. Simple and Kalophonic Settings of “Pasa pnoe”. – Report, read at the 17th International Byzantine Congress. Washington, DC, 1986. Jeannin, J., J. Puyade. L’Oktoechos syrien. – Orientalia Christiana, 3, 1913, 82–104. Jeffery, P. The Sunday Office of Seventh-Century Jerusalem in the Georgian Chant Books (Iadgari): A Preliminary Report. – Studia Liturgica, 21, 1991, 52–75. Jeffery, P. The Earliest Chant Repertories Recovered: The Georgian Witnesses to Jerusalem Chant. – Journal of the American Musicological Society, 47, 1994, 1–39. Jeffery, P. The Earliest Oktoechoi: The Role of Jerusalem and Palestine in the Beginning of Modal Ordering. – In: The Study of Medieval Chant: Paths and Bridges, East and West. In Honor of Kenneth Levy. Ed. by P. Jeffery. Oxford, 2001, 147–211. Jeffery, P. A Window of the Formation of the Medieval Chant Repertories: The Greek Palimpsest Fragments in Princeton University MS Garrett 24. – In: Cantus Planus. Vol. 2. Budapest, 2003, 1–23. Jordan, R. H. The Monastery of the Theotokos Evergetis, Its Children and Grandchildren. – In: The Theotokos Evergetis and Eleventh-Century Monasticism. Ed. by M. Mullet, A. Kirby. Belfast, 1994, 215–245. Jordan, R. H. John of Phoberou: A Voice Crying in the Wilderness. – In: Strangers to Themselves: The Byzantine Outsider. Ed. by D. C. Smythe. Ashgate-Variorum, 2000, 61–75. Jovčeva, M. Slavic Liturgy in Great Moravia and Its Hymnographic Components. – In: The Cyril and Methodius Mission in Europe – 1150 Years since the Arrival of the Thessalonian Brothers in Great Moravia. Brno, 2015, 250–258. Jung, A. The Settings of the Evening and Morning Psalms According to the Manuscript Sinai 1255. – In: Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Age Grec et Latin, 47. Copenhaque, 1984, 3–63. Jung, A. The Kathismata in the Sofia Manuscript Kliment Ohridski Cod. Gr. 814. – Cahiers de l’Institut du moyen-age grec et latin, 61, 1991, 49–77. Jungmann, J. The Early Liturgy. Notre Dame, 1959. Kamil, M. Catalogue of All Manuscripts in the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. Wiesbaden, 1970. Klentos, J. The Synaxarion of Evergetis: Algebra, Geology and Byzantine Monasticism. – In: Work and Worship at the Theotokos Evergetis 1050–1200. Ed. by M. Mullet and A. Kirby. Belfast, 1997, 329–355. Krausmüller, D. The Monastic Communities of Stoudios and St. Mamas in the Second Half of the 10th Century. – In: The Theotokos Evergetis and Eleventh-Century Monasticism. Ed. by M. Mullett, A. Kirby. Hollywood, 1994, 67–85. Kujumdzieva, S. Dynamics between Written and Oral Church Music. – In: Cantus Planus. Budapest, 1992, 283–292. Kujumdzieva, S. Methodological Notes on the Description of Musical Manuscripts Written in Greek at the “Ivan Dujčev” Research Center for Slavo-Byzantine Studies. – In: Actes de la table ronde: “Principes et méthodes du cataloguage des manuscrits grecs de la collection du centre Dujćev”. Thessalonique, 1992, 91–115. Kujumdzieva, S. Versions and Redactions of Psalm 140. – In: Musica Antiqua Europae Orientalis. Vol. 10. Bydgoszcz, 1997, 151–167. Kujumdzieva, S. The Akathistos Once Again. – In: Cantus Planus. Budapest, 1998, 369–390. Kujumdzieva, S. The Byzantine-Slavic Sanctus: Its Liturgical and Musical Context. – Studia Musicologica, 39, 2–4. Budapest, 1998, 223–232.

217

B ibliography

Kujumdzieva, S. Unknown Services for Bulgarian Saints. – Cyrilic Manuscript Heritage, 8, (December, 2000, 9. Published by the Hilandar Research Library and the Resource Center for Medieval Slavic Studies, Columbus, OH. Kujumdzieva, S. Viewing the Earliest Old Slavic Corpus Cantilenarum. – Palaeobulgarica (Старобългаристика), 2, 2002, 83–101. Kujumdzieva, S. Changing the Sticherarion: Tradition and Innovations. – In: Musica Antiqua Europae Orientalis. Bydgoszcz, 2003, 33–51. Kujumdzieva, S. The Musical Anthology of Metropolitan Serafim of Bosnia. – In: Gimnologija, 4: Festschrift for the 80 Anniversary of Miloš Velimirović. Ed. by N. Gerasimova-Persidskaja. Moscow, 2003, 131–148. Kujumdzieva, S. Remodeling the Oktoechos: Purpose and Meaning (Based on Materials from the 12th through the 16th Century). – In: Cantus Planus. Budapest, 2003, 67–89. Kujumdzieva, S. Eastern Church Chant on the Crossroads of Various Traditions. – In: Историjа и мистериjа музике. У част Роксанде Пеjовиħ. Београд, 2006, 69–81. Kujumdzieva, S. The Tropologion: Sources and Identifications. – Bulgarian Musicology, 3–4, 2012, 9–23. Kujumdzieva, S. The Hymnographic Book of Tropologion. London-New York, 2018. Kujumdzieva, S. “Bulgarian” Chants in Musical Manuscripts. – In: Eastern Christian Studies. Leuven, 2019, 35–57. Kujumdzieva, S. The Tropologion Vaticanus Graecus 771. – In: Cantus Planus. Venice, 2022, 567–583. Lake, K., S. Lake, eds. Dated Greek Minuscule Manuscripts to the Year 1200. 10 vols. Boston, MA, 1934–1945. Lazarov, S. A Medieval Slavonic Treatise on Music. – In: Studies in Eastern Chant. Ed. by D. Conomos. Vol. 5. Crestwood, 1990, 153–186. Leeb, H. Die Gesänge im Gemeindegottesdienst von Jerusalem (= Wiener Beiträge zur Theologie. B. XXVIII). Wien, 1970. Levy, K. The Byzantine Sanctus and Its Modal Tradition in East and West. – Anales Musicologiques, 6, 1958–1963, 7–67. Levy, K., C. Troelsgård. Byzantine Chant. – In: The New Grove of Music and Musicians. Ed. by S. Sadie. 2nd ed. vol. 4. New York, 2001, 734–756. Lingas, A. Hesychasm and Psalmody. – In: Mount Athos and Byzantine Monasticism. Ed. by A. Bryer, M. Cunningham. Variorum, 1996, 155–168. Lingas, A. Sunday Matins in the Byzantine Cathedral Rite: Music and Liturgy. Ph.D., The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 1996; Taylor & Francis Group, London, published 2021. Mary, Mother, Arch. K. Ware. The Festal Menaion. London, 1969. Mary, Mother, Arch. K. Ware. The Lenten Triodion. London-Boston, 1978. Matejić, M. Hilandar Slavic Codices: A Checklist of the Slavic Manuscripts from the Hilandar Monastery (Mount Athos, Greece) (= The Ohio State University Slavic Papers, 2). Columbus, 1976. Matejić, M., D. Bogdanović. Slavic Codices of the Great Lavra Monastery. – In: Balcanica, 2: Inventaries and Catalogues. Sofia, 1989. Matejić, P. Watermarks of the Chilandar Slavic Codices: A Descriptive Catalog. Sofia, 1981. Matejić, P., H. Thomas. Catalog: Manuscripts on Microform of the Hilandar Research Library. 2 vols. Columbus, OH, 1992.

218

B ibliography

McKinnon, J. W. The Emergence of Gregorian Chant in the Carolingian Era. – In: Antiquity and the Middle Ages: From Ancient Greece to the 15th Century. Ed. by J. McKinnon. New Jersey, 1991, 88–119. McKinnon, J. W. Compositional Planning in the Roman Mass Proper. – Studia Musicologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 39, Fasc. 2/4. Budapest, 1998, 241–245. Medaković, D. Manastir Hilandar u 18 veku. – В: Hilandarski zbornik, 3. Ed. by S. Radojćić. Beograd, 1974, 7–85. Moody, I. Ars Nova: New Art and Renewed Art. – In: Journal of the International Society of Orthodox Church Music. Ed. by I. Moody, M. Takala-Roszczenko. Vol. 3. Joensuu, 2018, 230–235. Moran, N. The Ordinary Chants in Byzantine Mass (= Hamburger Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft), 2 vols. Hamburg, 1975. Moran, N. Singers in Late Byzantine and Slavonic Painting. Leiden, 1986. Mullet, M. Introduction: The Monastery of the Theotokos Evergetis. – In: The Theotokos Evergetis and Eleventh-Century Monasticism. Ed. by M. Mullet, A. Kirby. Belfast, 1994, 1–16. Music in Early Christian Literature. Ed. by J. McKinnon. Cambridge, 1987. Myers, G. The Blagoveschenski Kondakar: A Russian Musical Manuscript of the 12th Century. – In: Cyrillomethodianum, 11. Thessaloniki, 1987, 103–127. Nardini, L. Transmission of Repertories/Contamination of Styles: The Case of Liturgical Music in Southern Italy (9th–13th Century). – Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America: Luncheon Seminary, New York, 6 October 2004. Nardini, L. Alience in Disguise: Byzantine and Gallican Chants in the Latin Liturgy. – Plainsong and Medieval Music, 16, 2007, 145–172. New Finds of Sinai. Ed. by P. G. Nikolopoulos et al. Athens, 1999. Nicol, D. M. Тhe Byzantine Lady: Ten Portraits 1250–1500: Eirene-Eulogia Choumnaina Palaiologina, Princes and Abbess, Died c. 1355. Cambridge, 1994, 59–68. Nikiforova, A. The Tropologion Sin. Gr. NE/MГ 56–5 of the Ninth Century: A New Source of Byzantine Hymnography. – In: Scripta & E-Sripta. Vol. 12. Sofia, 2013, 157–185. Obolensky, D. The Byzantine Commonwelth: Eastern Europe 500–1453. London, 1974. Ocneanu, G. Evstatie’s Cheroubic Hymn Compositions: His Cheroubic Hymn in Mode III. – Composition and Chanting in Orthodox Church: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Orthodox Church Music. Joensuu, 2009, 115–141. Olivier, J.-M. Repertoire des bibliotheques et des catalogues de manuscrits grecs de Marcel Richard. 3rd ed. Corpus Christianorum. Turnhout, 1995. Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Ed. by A. Kazhdan. 3 vols. New York-Oxford, 1991. Palikarova Verdeil, R. La musique Byzantine chez les Bulgares et les Russes (du IXe au XIVe siècle) (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Series Subsidia. Vol. 3). Copenhagen, 1953. Papathanasiou, I., N. Boukas. Early Diastematic Notation in Greek Christian Hymnographic Texts of Coptic Origin: A Reconsideration of the Source Material. – In: Byzantine Notations. Ed. by G. Wolfram. Vol. 3. Louven-Paris-Dudley, 2004, 1–25. Parenti, S. La celebrazione delle ore del Venerdì Santo nell’Eucologio G. в. X di Grottaferrata. – Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, 44, 1990, 81–126. Parenti, S. Mesedi – Μεσώδιον. – Orientalia Christiana Analecta: Crossroads of Cultures. Studies in Liturgy and Patristics in Honor of Gabriele Winkler, 260. Roma, 2000, 543–556. Patrich, J. Sabas, Leader of Palestinian Monasticism. Washington, DC, 1995.

219

B ibliography

Patterson Ševčenko, N. Icons in the Liturgy. – Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 45, 1991, 45–49. Patterson Ševčenko, N. Canon and Calendar: The Role of a Ninth Century Hymnographer in Shaping the Celebration of the Saints. – In: Byzantium in the 9th Century: Dead or Alive? Ed. by L. Brubaker. Variorum, 1998, 101–115. Pavlikianov, C. The Medieval Slavic Archives of the Athonite Monastery of Kastamonitou. – Cyrillomethodianum, 20, 2015, 153–216. Pennington, A. Evstatie’s Song Book of 1511: Some Observations. – In: Revue des Etudes Sud-Est Europeenes, 9/3. Bucharest, 1971, 565–583. Pennington, А. Seven Akolouthiai from Putna. – In: Studies in Eastern Chant. Ed. by M. Velimirović. Vol. 4. New York, 1979, 112–134. Peria, L., J. Raasted, eds. Sticherarium Ambrosianum (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae, Series Principalis. Vol. 11). Copenhagen, 1992. Petrović, D. Оsmoglasnik u musičkoj tradicii južnih slovena. Beograd, 1982. Petrović, D. Muzichki rukopis manastira Lavre (E-10 Z-58) iz XVII veka. – In: Prouchvanje srednevekovnih juzhnoslovenskih rukopisa. Beograd, 1995, 345–358. Popović, S. Are Typika Sources for Architecture? The Case of the Monasteries of the Theotokos Evergetis, Chilandari, and Studenica. – In: Work and Worship at the Theotokos Evergetis 1050–1200. Ed. by M. Mullet, A. Kirby. Belfast, 1997, 266–284. Raasted, J. A Primitive Palaeobyzantine Musical Notation. – Classica and Medieavalia, 23, 1962. Raasted, J., ed. Hirmologium Sabbaiticum (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Series Principalis. Vol. 8). Copenhagen, 1968–1970. Raasted, J. Musical Notation and Quasi Notation in Syro-Melkite Liturgical Manuscripts. – In: Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen Age Grec et Latin, 31a, 11–37; 31b, 53–77. Copenhague, 1979. Raasted, J. The Hagiopolites: A Byzantine Treatise on Musical Theory. – Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Age Grec et Latin, 45. Copenhagen, 1983. Raasted, J. Formulaism and Orality in Byzantine Chant. – In: Cantus Planus. Budapest, 1992, 231–241. Raasted, J. The Princeton Heirmologion Palimpsest. – Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Age Grec et Latin, 62, 1992, 219–232. Raasted, J. The Hagiopolites in 15th Century Italy: A Note on Manuscript Terminology. – Bolletino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, 46, 1992/1993. Raasted, J. Koukouzeles’ Revision of the Sticherarion and Sinai Gr. 1230. – In: Spolia Berolinensia: Berliner Beiträge zur Medievistik. B. 7, Laborare fraters unum: Festschrift Lazslo Dobszay zum 60. Geburtstag. Herausg. von J. Szendrei, D. Hiley. HildesheimZürich, 1995, 261–277. Raasted, J. Theta Notation and Some Related Notational Types. – In: Palaeobyzantine Notations. Vol. 1. Ed. by J. Raasted, C. Troelsgård. Hernen, 1995, 57–62. Raasted, J. Koukouzeles’ Sticherarion. – In: Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens. Vol. 2: Tradition and Reform. Ed. by C. Troelsgård. Athens, 1997, 9–21. Raasted, J. Kontakion Melodies in Oral and Written Tradition. – In: The Study of Medieval Chant: Paths and Bridges, East and West: In Honor of Kenneth Levy. Ed. by P. Jeffery. Cambridge, 2001, 273–281. Renoux, C. Jerusalem dans le Caucase: Anton Baumstark verifie. – Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 265, 2001, 305–321. Schiro, I. Analecta hymnica graeca e codicibus eruta Italiae inferioris. 13 vols. Rome, 1966–1983.

220

B ibliography

Schneider, H. Die biblischen Oden im christlichen Altertum. – Biblica, 30, 1949, 28–65, 239–272. Senn, F. C. Christian Liturgy. Minneapolis, 1997. Shartau, B. Manuscripts of Byzantine Music in Denmark. – In: Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-age grec et latin, 48. Copenhagen, 1984, 15–104. Solovey, M. M. The Byzantine Divine Liturgy: History and Commentary. Washington, DC, 1970. Širli, A. The Anastasimatarion. Bucarest, 1986. Speck, P. Byzantium: Cultural Suicide? – In: Byzantium in the Ninth Century Dead or Alive? Ed. by L. Brubaker. Variorum, 1996, 73–84. Spinks, B. The Sanctus in the Eucharistic Prayer. Cambridge, 1991. Stathis, G. T. Joasaph Riliotes et ses ‘Exegeseis’ a certaines compisitions byzantines. – Paper read at the International Conference “Slavic Cultures and Balkans” held in Town of Varna, Bulgaria, 1976. Stathis, G. T. An Analysis of the Sticheron Τον ηλιον κρυψαντα by Germanos, Bishop of New Patras (The Old “Synoptic” and the New “Analytical” Method of Byzantine Notation). – In: Studies in Eastern Chant. Ed. by M. Velimirović. Vol. 4. New York, 1979, 177–227. Stefanović, D. Crkvenoslovenski prevod prirućnika vizantijske neumske notacije u rukopisu 311 manastira Hilandara. – In: Hilandarski zbornik, 2. Ed. by S. Radojćić. Beograd, 1971, 113–130. Stefanović, D. An Additional Checklist of Hilandar Slavonic Music Manuscripts. – In: Хиландарски зборник, 7. Београд, 1989, 163–176. Stefanović, D., M. Velimirović. Peter Lampadarios and Metropolitan Serafim of Bosnia. – In: Studies in Eastern Chant. Ed. by M. Velimirović. Vol. 1. New York, 1966, 67–89. Steiner, R. On the Verses of the Offertory Elegerunt. – In: The Study of Medieval Chant Paths and Bridges: Paths and Bridges, East and West: In Honor of Kenneth Levy. Ed. by P. Jeffery. Cambridge, 2001, 283–301. Strunk, O. Specimina Notationum Antiquiorum (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Series Principalis. Vol. 7). Copenhagen, 1966. Strunk, O. Tropus and Troparion. – In: Speculum Musicae Artis. Festgabe für Heinrich Husmann. Ed. by H. Becker, R. Gerlach. Münich, 1970, 271–272. Strunk, О. Essays on Music in the Byzantine World. Ed. by K. Levy. New York, 1977. Tachiaos, A.-E. Cyril and Methodius of Thessalonica: The Acculturation of the Slavs. Thessaloniki, 1989. Taft, R. Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of Byzantine Rite. – Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 42, 1982, 179–194. Taft, R. Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding. Washington, DC, 1984. Taft, R. The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West. Collegeville, 1986. Taft, R. The Byzantine Rite. Collegeville, MN, 1992. Taft, R. The Synaxarion of Evergetis in the History of Byzantine Liturgy. – In: The Theotokos Evergetis and Eleventh-Century Monasticism. Ed. by M. Mullett, A. Kirby. Holywood, 1994, 274–293. Taft, R. The Liturgy in Byzantium and Beyond. Variorum, 1995. Taft, R. Anton Baumstark’s Comparative Liturgy Revisited. – In: Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 265: Comparative Liturgy Fifty Years after Anton Baumstark (1872–1948). Roma, 2001, 191–232.

221

B ibliography

Taft, R. Divine Liturgies – Human Problems in Byzantium, Armenia, Syria, and Palestine. Variorum. Ashgate, 2001. Taft, R. Christian Liturgical Psalmody: Origins, Development, Decomposition, Collapse. – In: Psalms in Community: Jewish and Christian Textual, Liturgical, and Artistic Traditions. Ed. by H. W. Attridge, M. Fassler. Atlanta, 2003, 7–33. Tarnanidis, J. C. The Slavonic Manuscripts Discovered in 1975 at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai. Thessaloniki, 1998. Temchinas, S. Primojo slavisko apegyno structures rekonstrukcija. Vilnius, 2001. Thibaut, J.-B. Etude de musique byzantine. La notation de St. Jean Damascene ou Hagiopolite. – Известия Русского археологического института в Константинополе. Т. III. Санкт Петербург, 1898, 138–179. Thodberg, C. Der byzantinische Alleluiarionzyklus – Studien im kurzem Psaltikonstil (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Series Subsidia. Vol. 3). Copenhagen, 1966. Thomas, J. P. Documentary Evidence from the Byzantine Monastic Typika for the History of the Evergetine Reform Movement. – In: The Theotokos Evergetis and Eleventh-Century Monasticism. Ed. by M. Mullet, A. Kirby. Belfast, 1994, 246–273. Thomas, J. The Imprint of Sabaitic Monasticism on Byzantine Monastic Typika. – Orientalia Liturgica Analecta: The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to the Present, 98, 2001, 73–83. Tillyard, H. J. W., ed. The Hymns of the Oktoechos (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae, Series Transcripta). Part 1. Vol. 3. Copenhagen, 1940; part 2, Vol. 5, Copenhagen, 1949. Tillyard, H. J. W., ed. The Hymns of the Pentecostarium (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Series Transcripta. Vol. 7). Copenhagen, 1960. Touliatos-Banker, D. The Byzantine Orthros. – Byzantina, 9, 1977, 323–385. Touliatos-Banker, D. The Byzantine Amomos Chant of the 14th and 15th Centuries. Ph.D., The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 1979. Touliatos-Miles, D. H. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Musical Manuscripts of the National Library of Greece. Ashgate, 2010. Treitler, L. Homer and Gregory: The Transmission of Epic Poetry and Plainchant. – Musical Quarterly, 9, 1974, 333–373. Treitler, L. “Centonate” Chant: Ubles Flickwerk or E pluribus unus? – Early Music, 4, 1984, 135–208. Triodion und Pentekostarion nach slavischen Handschriften des 11. – 14. Jahrhunderts. Ed. by M. Momina, N. Trunte. Paderborn-München-Wien-Zürich, 2004. Troelsgård, C. The Exaposteilaria Anastasima with Round Notation in Manuscript Athos, Ibiron 953. – In: Studi di musica bizantina in onore di Giovani Marzi. Ed. by A. Doda. Cremona, 1995, 15–28. Troelsgård, C. Melodic Variations in the Original Manuscripts (Apolytikia and Exaposteilaria). – In: Cantus Planus. Budapest, 1998, 601–611. Troelsgård, C. Chant Papyri and the “Jerusalem Tropologion”: An Important Group of Source for the Study of the Formation of the Earliest Orthodox Christian Chant Repertories. – In: Unity and Variety in Orthodox Music: Theory and Practce. Joensuu, 2013, 20–29. Troelsgård, C. Songs for the Theotokos: Pieces of Papyrus and the Early Byzantine Theotokia: Pieces of Papyrus and the Early Byzantine Theotokia. – In: Cantus Planus. Budapest, 2013, 5–24. Velimirović, M. Byzantine Elements in Early Slavic Chant: The Hirmologion (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Series Subsidia. Vol. 4). Copenhagen, 1960.

222

B ibliography

Velimirović, M. Byzantine Composers in MS Athens 2406. – In: Essays Presented by Egon Wellesz. Ed. by J. Westrup. Oxford, 1966, 7–18. Velimirović, M. The Musical Works of Theoleptos, Metropolitan of Philadelphia. – In: Studies in Eastern Chant. Ed. by M. Velimirović. Vol. 2. London-New York-Toronto, 1971, 155–165. Velimirović, M. The Melodies of the Ninth-Century Kanon for St. Demetrius. – In: Russian and Soviet Music: Essays for Boris Schwarz. Ed. by H. Brown. Ann Arbor, 1984 [1985], 9–34 (Bulgarian translation in: Българско музикознание, 1, 1987, 45–63; Russian translation in: Mузыкальная культура средневековья. T. 1, 1991, 3–20). Velimirović, M. Christian Chant in Syria, Armenia, Egypt, and Ethiopia. – In: The New Oxford History of Music. Ed. by R. Crocker, D. Hiley. Vol. 2. Oxford-New York, 1990, 3–66. Wade, A. The Oldest Iadgari: The Jerusalem Tropologion, V-VIII Century. – Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 50, 1984, 451–456. Wagner, P. Einführung in die gregorianischen Melodien. Wiesbaden, 1962. Waneck, N.-M. The Phenomenon of the So-Called “Missa Graeca” Chants Assessing New Hypotheses Regarding Their Emergence and Dating. – Clavibus Unitis, 7/2, 2018, 3–12. Wegman, H. A. J. Christian Worship in East and West. New York, 1985. Welesz, E. A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography. Oxford, 1961. Wellesz, E. The Akathistos: A Study of Byzantine Hymnography. – Dumbarton Oaks Papers. Vol. 9–10, 1956, 141–175. Wellesz, E. The Akathistos Hymn (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Series Transcripta. Vol. 9). Copenhagen, 1957. Werner, E. Hebräische Musik. – Musikwerk. H. 20, 1961. Werner, E. The Sacred Bridge. Vol. 1. London-New York, 1959; Vol. 2. New York, 1984. Williams, E. John Koukouzeles’ Reform of Byzantine Chanting for Great Vespers in the Fourteenth Century. Ph.D., Yale University, New Haven, CT, 1968. Winkler, G. Der armenische Ritus: Bestandsaufnahme und neue Erkenntnisse sowie eine kürzere Notizen zur Liturgie der Georgier. – Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 251. Roma, 1996, 265–298. Winkler, G. The Armenian Night Office II: The Unit of Psalmody, Canticles, and Hymns with Particular Emphasis on the Origins and Early Evolution of Armenia’s Hymnography. – In: Studies in Early Christian Liturgy and Its Context. Ashgate, Variorum, 1997, 475–551. Winkler, G. Das theologische Formelgut über den Schöpfer, das ομοουσος, die Inkarnation und Menschwordung in den georgischen Troparien des Iadgari im Spiegel der christlichorientalischen Quellen. – Oriens Christianus, 84, 2000, 117–178. Winkler, G. Anhang zur Untersuchung: “Über die Entwicklungsgeschichte des armenischen Symboliums” und seine Bedeutung für die Wirkungsgeschichte der antiochenischen Synoden von 324–325 und 341–345. – Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 271. Roma, 2004, 107–159. Wolfram, G., ed. Sticherarium Antiquum Vindobonense (= Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Series Principalis. Vol. 10). Vienna, 1987. Wolfram, G. Severus of Antioch. – In: The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Vol. 23. Ed. by S. Sadie. 2nd ed. London-New York, 2001, 176–177. Wolfram, G. Der Codex Ochrid 53. Ein Sticherarion aus dem Einflussbereich Konstantinopels. – In: Palaeobyzantine Notations. Ed. by G. Wolfram. Vol. 3 (= Eastern Christian Studies, 4). Leuven-Paris-Dudley, MA, 2004, 227–243.

223

B ibliography

Wright, W. Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838. Vol. 1. London, 1870. Аверинцев, С. С. Западно-восточный генезис литературных канонов византийского Средневековья. – В: Типология и взаимосвязи средневековых литератур Востока и Запада. Москва, 1974. Ангелов, Б. Старобългарски текстове. – Известия на Архивния институт при БАН, 1, 1957, 267–303. Ангелов, Б. Из старата българска, сръбска и руска литература, 2 тома. София, 1978. Атанасов, А., С. Куюмджиева, В. Велинова, Е. Узунова, Е. Мусакова. Славянски музикални ръкописи в Рилския манастир. София, 2012. Атанасов, А., В. Велинова, Е. Узунова, И. Желев, С. Куюмджиева. Двуезични (гръцкоцърковносавянски) музикални ръкописи в Рилския манастир. Пловдив, 2018. Афанасьева, Т. И. Литургии Иоанна Златоуста и Василия Великаго в славянской традиции (по служебникам XI-XV века). Москва, 2015. Бакалова, Е. Образите на Йоан Кукузел и византийската традиция за представяне на певци. – Музикални хоризонти, 18–19, 1981, 69–243. Бакалова, Е. Житието на св. Петка в късносредновековното изкуство на Балканите. – Родина, 2, 1996, 57–84. Баларева, А. Хорови прояви през Българското възраждане. – Българско музикознание, 1, 1983, 18–34; 2, 1983, 45–72. Бобчев, С. Принос към историята на Българското възраждане. Поп Андрей Робовски. – В: Народни умотворения. Т. 12. София, 1905, 1–7. Богдановиħ, Д. Kаталог кирилских рукописа манастира Хиландара. Београд, 1978. Божилов, И. Княжение словьньско или Σκλαβοαρχοντια. – Старобългарска литература, 28–29, 1994, 23–28. Божилов, И. Българите във Византийската империя. София, 1995. Болутов, Д. Български исторически паметници на Атон. София, 1961. Верещагин, Е. Ильина книга. Древнейший славянский богослужебный сборник. Факсимильное воспроизведение рукописи. Билинеарно-спатическое издание источника с филолого-богословским комментарием. Подг. Е. М. Верещагин. Москва, 2006. Велимирович, М. „Българските“ песнопения във византийските музикални ръкописи. – Известия на Института за музика, 18, 1974, 197–203. Вознесенский, И. Болгарский роспев или напеви на “Бог Господ” югозападной православной церкви. Киев, 1891. Стайнов, П., В. Кръстев, Р. Кацарова. Енциклопедия на българската музикална култура. София, 1967. Генов, Я. Антифонарът в Средновековието и съвременността: сравнително изследване. Цикълът Quadragesima. Дисертация, София, 2008. Георгиев, Е. Кирил и Методий. Истината за създаването на българската и славянската писменост. София, 1969. Георгиев, Й. Град Вратца. – В: Народни умотворения. София, 1904. Гечев, M. Килийните училища в България. София, 1967. Гонис, Д. Търново и крайбрежните митрополии. – В: Търновска книжовна школа. Т. 5. Велико Търново, 1994, 455–471. Гошев, И. Нови данни за историята и археологията на Бачковския манастиp. – В: Годишник на Софийския унивеpситет, Богословски факултет. Т. 8. София, 1930– 1931.

224

B ibliography

Гошев, И. Старобългарската литургия (според български и византийски извори от IX-XI в.). – Годишник на Софийския университет, Богословски факултет. Т. 9. София, 1931–1932, 1–77. Гошев, И. Св. братя Кирил и Методий. – Годишник на Софийския университет, Богословски факултет. Т. 15. София, 1938, 56–77. Гошев, И. Правилата на Студийския манастир. – Годишник на Богословския факултет. Т. 17. София, 1940. Гошев, И. Заветът на св. Иван Рилски в светлината на старобългарското и византийското литературно предание от ІХ-ХІV в. – Годишник на Духовната академия. Т. 4. София, 1955, 473–477. Гошев, И. Рилски глаголически листове. София, 1956. Груев, Й. Спомени. – Училищен преглед. София, 1906. Гюзелев, В. Студийският манастир и българите през средновековието. – В: Зборник радова Византолошког института, ХХХІХ. Београд, 2001/2002, 53–67. Данчев, Г. Посланията на Димитър Кантакузин. – Studia Balcanica, 8, 1974, 45–48. Димитрова, М. Богослужебната книга миней като музикален извор: гръцки и славянски нотирани минеи от ХІ – ХІІІ в. – В: Пети достоит. Сборник в памет на Стефан Кожухаров. София, 2003, 601–620. Динев, П. Духовни музикални творби на Иван Кукузел. София, 1938. Динев, П. Църковно-певчески сборник от духовно-музикални съчинения върху източно-църковни, старобългарски и други напеви, композирани и разработени от П. Динев. София, 1941. Динев, П. Обширен възкресник с полиелеи, величания, катавасии и подобни. Ч. II. София, 1949. Динев, П. Рилската църковнопевческа школа в началото на 19 век и нейните представители. – Известия на Института за музика, 4. София, 1957, 3–89. Динев, П. Църковното пение в България в най-ново време. – Църковен вестник, 23, 17 юни 1961, 8–10. Динев, П. Първите църковно-хорови диригенти в България. – Църковен вестник, 35, 21 октомври 1961, 8–10. Динев, П. Други известни църковни диригенти в България. – Църковен вестник, 26, 4 юли 1964, 6–8. Динеков, П. Константин-Кирил Философ. – В: Кирило-Методиевска енциклопедия. Т. 2. София, 1995, 388–423. Дмитриевский, А. Описание литургических рукописей, хранящихся в библиотеках православный Востока. Т. 3, ч. 2. Санкт Петербург, 1917. Добрев, И. Климентовото химнографско творчество и Октоихът. – В: 1080 години от смъртта на св. Наум Охридски. София, 1993, 107–123. Душаниħ, C. Серафим, митрополит Дабробосански, 1766–1772. – Богословлjе, 14. Београд, 1939, 53–63. Желтов, M. Стихиры воскресного октоиха в древнем тропологии. – Христианское чтение, 3, 2018, 94–111. Зографски, Д. Света гора – Зограф в миналото и днес. София, 1943. Начев, B., Н. Ферманджиев. Писахме да се знае. София, 1984. Иванов, И. Светите братя Кирил и Методий – дипломати и пазители на вярата на Църквата. – В: Благовестие и мисия. Мисионерско и просветителско дело на светите братя Кирил и Методий и свети Климент Охридски. София, 2018. Иванов, Й. Български старини от Македония. София, 1931.

225

B ibliography

Иванова-Константинова, К. Два неизвестни азбучни акростиха с глаголическа подредба на буквите в среднобългарски празничен миней. – В: Константин-Кирил Философ. Доклади от симпозиума, посветен на 1100 годишнината от смъртта му. София, 1971, 341–365. Иванова, К. Житието на Петка Търновска от Патриарх Евтимий (Източници и текстологически бележки). – Старобългарска литература, 8, 1980, 13–37. Иванова, К. Български, сръбски и молдо-влахийски кирилски ръкописи в сбирката на М. П. Погодин. София, 1981. Никодим, M., Г. Попйонков. Типик. София, 1980. Ильинский, Г. А. Македонски глаголический листок. Отрывок глаголического текста Ефрема Сирина XI века (= Памятники старославянского письма. Т. 1, вып. 6). Санкт Петербург, 1909. Йовчева, М. Композиция на неделните служби в Солунския октоих. – Palaeobulgarica, 4, 1997, 37–72. Йовчева, М. Новооткрити химнографски произведения на Климент Охридски в октоиха. – Palaeobulgarica, 3, 1999, 3–25. Йовчева, М. Солунският Октоих в контекста на южнославянските октоиси до ХІV в. – В: Кирило-Методиевски студии, 16. София, 2004. Йовчева, М. Древнеславянский Октоих: реконструкция его состава и структуры. – В: Beiträge einer internationalen Tagung. Bonn, 7.–10. Juni 2005. Herausg. von H. Rothе, D. Christians. Paderborn, 2007, 50–73. Йовчева, M. Старобългарската химнография. – В: История на българската средновековна литература. София, 2008, 102–124. Йовчева, М., М. Димитрова. Евхологични текстове. – В: История на българската средновековна литература. София, 2008, 160–165. Карастоянов, Б. Два новооткрити нотирани извора за балканската певческа практика на славянски език през XVI в. – Българско музикознание, 2, 1985, 3–13. Карастоянов, Б. Нотирани канони за Кирил и Методий в руски служебен миней от ХІІ в. – В: Втори международен конгрес по българистика. Т. 21. София, 1989, 364–371. Кирмицакис, А. Нови сведения за “българските” песнопения във византийските ръкописи. – Palaeobulgarica, 3, 1998, 21–51. Кожухаров, С. Неизвестно произведение на старобългарската поезия. – Старобългарска литература, 1, 1971, 289–323. Кожухров, С. Търновската книжовна школа и развитието на химническата поезия в старата българска литература. – В: Търновска книжовна школа. Т. 1. София, 1974, 227–310. Кожухаров, С. Нотни начертания в Орбелския триод. – Български език, 4, 1974, 324– 344. Кожухаров, С. Палеографски проблеми на тита-нотацията в средновековните ръкописи от ХІІ-ХІІІ век. – В: Славянска палеография и дипломатика. Т. 1, София, 1980, 228–247. Кожухаров, C. Песенното творчество на старобългарския книжовник Наум Охридски. – Литературна история, 12, 1984, 3–19. Кожухаров, С. Търновска (Евтимиевска) служба за св. Петка Епиватска. – В: Проблеми на старобългарската поeзия. София, 2004, 109–140. Кожухаров, С. Служба за Йоан Сучавски. – В: Кожухаров, С. Проблеми на старобългарската поезия. Т. 1. София, 2004, 183–206.

226

B ibliography

Крашенинникова, О. Древнеславянский Октоих св. Климента архиепископа Охридского. По древнерусским и южнославянским спискам ХІІІ – ХV веков. Москва, 2006. Куюмджиева, С. Рилската певческа школа през Възраждането. Дисертация, София, 1980. Куюмджиева, С. “Болгарски роспев” през погледа на първите музикално-обществени дейци след Освобождението. – Българско музикознание, 1, 1982, 59–72. Куюмджиева, С. За българската музика през XV в. – Palaeobulgarica, 2, 1983, 14–38. Куюмджиева, С. Какво са пели Кирил и Методий през ІХ в.? – Музикални хоризонти, 4, 1985, 4–14. Куюмджиева, С. Между писмената църковна музика и фолклора. – Музикални хоризонти, 12–13, 1989, 166–176. Куюмджиева, С. Воззвателните стихове в балканската православна музика (по ръкописи от XIV до началото на XIX в.). Дисертация. София, 1996. Куюмджева, С. Козма Македонец и Гавриил Македонец в музикалните ръкописи през XVII – началото на XIX в. – Музикални хоризонти, 1, 2000, 27–33. Куюмджиева, C. Ранновъзрожденска българска музика – паметници и певчески репертоар. Йасаф Рилски. София, 2003. Куюмджиева, С. Стихирарът на Йоан Кукузел. Формиране на нотирания възкресник. София, 2004. Куюмджиева, С. Българска музика в Хилендар. София, 2008. Куюмджиева, С. Бележки и коментари за някои ранни химнографски ръкописи от Ватикана. – В: Богослужебните книги – познати и непознати. София, 2008, 43–155. Куюмджиева, С. Триодът Vaticanus Graecus 771. – В: Пение мало Георгию. Сборник в чест на 65-годишнината на проф. дфн Георги Попов. София, 2010, 521–536. Куюмджиева, С. Означените като български песнопения в православните музикални ръкописи от XIV до XIX в. – В: Стара българска музика. София, 2011, 99–116. Куюмджиева, С. Ранните осмогласници. Извори, богослужение и певчески репертоар (по ръкописи до ХІІІ в.). София, 2013. Куюмджиева, C. Имало ли е старобългарски трополог? – В: Старобългарска литература, 51, 2015, 11–38. Куюмджиева, C. Химнографското творчество на св. Климент Охридски в контекста на ранните ръкописи на гръцки език до XIII в. – B: Св. Климент Охридски в културата на Европа. София, 2018, 108–126. Кънчов, В. Сегашното и недавното минало на град Велес. – B: Избрани произведения. Т. ІІ. София, 1970. Лавров, П. А. Материалы по истории возникновения древнейшей славянской письмености. Hague-Paris, 1966. Лазаров, С. Няколко сведения за музикалната дейност на Кирил и Методий. – Българска музика, 6, 1956, 20–23. Лазаров, С. Синодикът на цар Борил като музикално-исторически паметник. – Известия на Института за музика. Т. VII, 1960, 5–77. Лазаров, С. Средновековен славянски трактат по музика. – В: Търновска книжовна школа. Т. 2. София, 1980, 555–572. Лозовая, И. E. Древнерусский нотированный Параклитик конца ХІІ – начала ХІІІ века: предварительные заметки к изучению певческой книги. – B: Герменевтика древнерусской литературы. Т. 6, ч. 2. Москва, 1993, 407–432.

227

B ibliography

Лозовая, И. E. Древнерусский нотированный Параклит в кругу Ирмологиев ХІІ века – первой половине ХV в.: мелодические варианты и версии в роспеве канонов. – B: Гимнология. Вып. 1, кн. 1. Москва, 2000, 217–239. Лозовая, И. E. О системе пения седмичных канонов Октоиха в ранней литургической традиции. – B: Гимнология. Вып. 4. Москва, 2003, 52–68. Мансветов, И. Церковный устав. Москва, 1885. Маринов, Я., С. Георгиева. Молдавската певческа школа през XVI в. Антологията ЦИАИ 816. – В: Ab Oriente Lux. Музика на православния Изток. София, 2018, 97–117. Марти, Р. Кирило-Методиевската традиция в чуждо облекло (Ролята на латиницата в Кирило-Методиевата мисия и в България). – В: Кирило-Методиевски студии. Т. 25. София, 2016, 58–73. Метревели, Е. П., Ц. А. Чанкиева, Л. М. Хевсуриани. Древнейшей иадгари. Тбилиси, 1980. Минчева, А. Киевски листове. – В: Кирило-Методиевска енциклопедия. Т. 2. София, 1995, 248–260. Момина, М. О произхождении греческой триоди. – В: Палестинский сборник. Вып. 28. Ленинград, 1986, 112–121. Моцев, А., П. Динев. Петър Златев Груев. Културно-музикална и обществена дейност. – В: Известия на Института за музика, 10. София, 1964, 23–97. 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, 310–319. Паренти, C. Върху историята на ексапостилария. – B: Пению мало Георгию. Сборник в чест на 65-годишнината на проф. дфн Г. Попов. София, 2010, 285–296. Пентковский, A. M. Типикон патриарха Алексия Студита в Византии и на Руси. Москва, 2001. Петров, С., Х. Кодов. Старобългарски музикални паметници. София, 1973. Пикио, Р. Мястото на старата българска литература в културата на средновековна Европа. – Литературна мисъл, 8, 1981, 19–37. Пикио, Р. Православното славянство и старобългарската културна традиция. София, 1993. Попов, Г. Из текстологическата проблематика на славянския триод (Новооткрити творби на Константин Преславски). – В: Славянска палеография и дипломатика. Т. 1. София, 1980, 72–86. Попов, Г. Новооткрити химнографски произведения на Климент Охридски и Константин Преславски. – Български език, 1, 1982, 3–32. Попов, Г. Акростих в гимнографическом творчестве учеников Кирилла и Мефодия. – B: Древнерусская литургическая поэзия. ХІІІ Международный съезд славистов (Любляна, 15–21 август 2003). Тематический блок № 14. Доклады. София, 2003, 30–56. Попов, Г. Химнографското наследство на св. Климент Охридски. – В: КирилоМетодиевска енциклопедия. Т. 3. София, 2003, 42–45. Попов, Г. Химнография. – В: Кирило-Методиевска енциклопедия. Т. 4. София, 2003, 400–414. Проданов, С., К. Проданова. Из музикалното минао на Габрово. Материали и спомени 1800–1944. София, 1982. Пърличев, Г. Автобиография. – В: Народни умотворения, 11. София, 1894.

228

B ibliography

Райков, Б., Х. Кодов, Б. Христова. Опис на ръкописите в библиотеката на Рилския манастир. Т. 1. София, 1986. Сарафов, П. Ръководство за теоретическото и практичееското изучаване на восточната църковна музика. София, 1912. Скабалланович, М. Толковый Типикон. Вып. 1. Киев, 1910. Смядовски, С. Литургия на св. Петър. – В: Кирило-Методиевска енциклопедия. Т. 2. София, 1995, 541–543. Спространов, E. Опис на ръкописите в библиотеката на Рилския манастир. София, 1902. Станчев, К., Е. Тончева. Българските песнопения във византийските аколутии. – Музикознание, 2, 1978, 39–71. Стефановиħ, Д. Стара српска музика. 2 тома. Београд, 1974. Стойкова, А. Възникване и развой на старобългарската литература през IX-X в. – В: История на българската средновековна литература. София, 2008, 43–46. Стоянов, М., Х. Кодов. Опис на славянските ръкописи в Софийската народна библиотека. Т. ІІІ. София, 1964. Тодоров, И. Из ръкописната сбирка на манастира Путна. – Старобългарска литература, 10, 1981, 71–87. Тодоров, И. Хилендарският манастир като българско книжовно средище през Възраждането. – В: Кирило-Методиевски студии. Т. 3. София, 1986, 163–180. Тодорова, Ж. Йоанн Кукузель – великий реформатор православного песнопения. – В: Вклад болгарского народа в мировую сокровищницу культуры. София, 1968, 107–126. Тончева, Е. Музикалните текстове в Палаузовия препис на Синодика на цар Борил. – Известия на Института за музика. Т. XII, 1967, 57–161. Тончева, Е. Към въпроска за музикалната дейност на славянските просветители Константин-Кирил и Методий. – В: Проблеми на старата музика. София, 1975, 7–37. Тончева, Е. Преписи на хирономическото певческо упражнение на Йоан Кукузел. – В: Проблеми на старата българска музика. София, 1975, 53–86. Тончева, Е. Болгарски роспев. Композиционно-структурни особености на стихирарическия жанр. – В: Проблеми на старата българска музика. София, 1975, 95–160. Тончева, Е. Молдавски ръкописи от XVI век – Велика вечерня. Репертоарно и палеографско-текстоогическо изследване (за музиката в Евтимиевата книжовна школа в Търново през XIV век). Дисертация, София, 1979. Тончева, Е. Късновизантийската музика и нотация в славянската ръкописна практика от 14–16 в. – В: Славянска палеография и дипломатика. Т. 1. София, 1980, 255–265. Тончева, Е. Болгарский роспев. София, 1981. Тончева, Е. Новонамерен извор за средновековната музика от XIII в. – Българско музикознание, 3, 1984, с. 3–47. Тончева, Е. Преславската керамична плочка с прокименов репертоар от ІХ – Х в. като старобългарски музикален паметник. – Музикални хоризонти, 4, 1985, 15–42. Тончева, Е. За полиелей “българката” – възможно взаимодействие между църковен и фолклорен певчески професионализъм? – Музикални хоризонти, 12–13, 1989, 147–165. Тончева, Е. Полиелейни мелодии, означени като български в балканската песенна практика (пс. 135 по извори от XII-XIII и XIV-XV в.). Дисертация, София, 1993.

229

B ibliography

Тончева, Е. Полиелейни припели в ръкопис Атина № 928 (Исайева антология) и отношението им към Търновската химнографска традиция. – В: Търновска книжовна школа. Т. 5. София, 1994, 641–664. Тончева, Е. Музикални знаци. – В: Кирило-Методиевска енциклопедия. Т. 2. София, 1995, 753–762. Тончева, Е. Музиката в България през ІХ-Х век. – В: Кирило-Методиевска енциклопедия. Т. 2. София, 1995, 762–773. Тончева, Е., Е. Коцева. Рилски музикални приписки от XV в. – Българско музикознание, 2, 1983, 3–44. Троелсгард, К. Развитието на дидактичната творба. Някои бележки върху “Исон, олигон, оксия” от Йоан Гликис. – Българско музикознание, 1, 1996, 78–98. Уханова, E. B. Древнейшая русская редакция Студийского устава: происхождение и особенности богослужения по Типографскому списку. – B: Типографский устав: устав с кондакарем – конца XI – начала XII века. Под ред. на Б. А. Успенский. Москва, 2006, 239–253. Уханова, E. B. Древнерусския списки Студийского устава и проблема богослужения Древней Руси ХІ-ХІІІ века. – B: Liturgische Hymnen nach byzantinischem Ritus bei den Slaven in ältester Zeit. – Patristica Slavica, 15. Herausg. von H. Rothe, D. Christians. Paderborn-München-Wien-Zürich, 2007, 74–102. Ханик, К. Началa славянской гимнографии в Кирилломефодиевскую эпоху. – В: Thessaloniki – Magna Moravia. Thessaloniki, 1999, 347–354. Христов, С. Пиротският окръг и неговото население. – В: Народни умотворения. София, 1894. Христова, Б. Владислав Граматик и Рилският книжовен център. – В-к Рилски манастир, 4, 1981. Христова-Шомова, И. Драготин миней. Български ръкопис от началото на XII в. София, 2018. Хърков, С. Печатните църковно-певчески сборници в музикалната практика на Българското възраждане. Дисертация, София, 1994. Чифлянов, Б. Богослужебният чин, преведен от братята Кирил и Методий в началото на Моравската им мисия. – В: Славистичен сборник. Т. 5. София, 1973, 57–68. Чифлянов, Б. Литургика. София, 1977. Чифлянов, Б. Литургия. – В: Кирило-Методиевска енциклопедия. Т. 2. София, 1995, 543–545. Шишманов, И. Нови студии из областта на Българското възраждане. I. Васил Априлов, Неофит Рилски, Неофит Бозвели. – В: Българска академия на науките. Т. 21. София, 1926, 292–293. Яковљевиħ, А. Инвентар музичких рукописа манастира Хиландара. – B: Хиландарски зборник, 4, Београд, 1978, 193–234. Яковљевиħ, А. Нова транскрипциja двоjезичног псаломника са неумама (Атина, Народна библиотека Грчке МС 928, ф. 64r, глас 8). – Археографски прилози, 2. Београд, 1980, 197–200. Яцимирский, А. И. Кирилловские нотные рукописи с глаголическими тайнописными записями. – В: Древности. Труды славянской коомисии Импер. Москоского археологического общества. Т. III. Москва, 1902, 149–163. Ἱερὰ Μονὴ καὶ Ἀρχιεπσικοπὴ Σινᾶ. Τὰ Νέα Εὑρήματα τοῦ Σινᾶ. Ed. by P. G. Nikolopoulos. Athens, 1998.

230

B ibliography

Jakovljević, A. Δίγλωσση παλαιογραφία καὶ μελωδοὶ ὑμνογράφοι τοῦ κώδικα τῶν Ἀθηνῶν 928. Λευκωσία, 1988. Μπαλαγεώργου, Δ., Φ. Κρητικοῦ. Τὰ χειρόγραφα βυζαντινῆς μουσικῆς Σινᾶ. Τ. Α ́. Ἀθῆναι, 2008. Στάθης, Γ. Θ. Τὰ χειρόγραφα Βυζαντινῆς μουσικῆς – Ἅγιον Ὄρος. Κατάλογος περιγραφικὸς τῶν χειρογράφων κωδίκων Βυζαντινῆς μουσικῆς τῶν ἀποκειμένων ἐν ταῖς Βιβλιοθήκαις τῶν ἱερῶν Μονῶν καὶ Σκητῶν τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους. Ἀθῆναι. Τ. Α΄ 1975. Τ. Β΄ 1976. Τ. Γ΄ 1993.

231

INDEX OF THE CITED NAMES1

Adrian I Pope (700 – 795) 122 Adrian II Pope (792 – 872) 104, 110, 112 Aelius Publius Yulius (3d century) 65 Agaton Korones (14th century) 189 Akakij of Rila (19th century) 204 Akindynos (c. 1300 – 1348) 168 Alexander I the Good (1401 – 1432) 143 Alexander Archangelsky (1846 – 1924) 208 Alexander Grechaninov (1864 – 1956) 210 Alexios the Studite Patriarch / Alexei the Studite (+ 1043) 53, 74, 85, 120 Anastasios the Librarian (c. 810 – c. 879) 110 Anastasios Rapsaniodes (second half of the 18th century) 27 Anastas Nikolov (1876 – 1924) 209, 212 Anatolios Abbot of Studites (816 – 832) 84 Anatolios of Thessaloniki (10th century) 84 Anatolios Patriarch (+ 458) 84 Andrew of Crete (c. 660 – 740) 25, 41, 49, 50, 51, 58, 61, 164 Andronik-Andrej (14th – 15th century) 169 Andronikos II Palaiologos (1259 – 1332) 124, 125, 137, 190 Angel Bukureshtliev (1870 – 1950) 208 Angel Ivanov Sevlievec (1809 – 1880) 206 Anthimus I Patriarch of Constantinople (+ after 536) 8 Anthonie writer (16th century) 139, 145, 147 Anthonij Metropolitan (17th century?) 188 Anthonios Hiereos (first half of the 18th century) 9 Apasios Pakurianos (11th century) 166 Artemij Vedel (1767 – 1808) 208 Atanasij Patriarch of Pech (+ 1712) 199, 200 Athanas Badev (1860 – 1908) 208

Athanasij of Rila (1805 – 1871) 204, 205 Athanasios the Great Archbishop of Alexandria (296 – 373) 135 Athanasios writer (14th century) 126, 131, 137 Athanasius the Athonite (c. 920 – c. 1003) 76, 81, 82, 87 Augustine (354 – 430) 105 Averkij of Rila / Averkij Popstojanov (1803 – 1881) 204 Balasios Hiereos (c. 1620 – c. 1700) 9, 20, 22, 23, 154, 155, 156, 198, 203 Basil the Great (c. 330 – 379) 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 45, 58, 87, 105, 112, 121, 155, 166, 177, 202 Basil II Emperor (957/958 – 1025) 60, 65, 135 Boril Tsar (+ c. 1217) 140, 167 Boris I Tsar (c. 828 – 907) 163 Caesarius of Arles (468? 470? – 542) 33 Chalivuris (14th – beginning of the 15th century) 141 Chernorizets Hrabar (9th – 10th century) 101 Chourmousios the Hartophylaks (c. 1770 – 1840) 4, 203, 204 Christophoros Mytilinaeus (11th century) 60 Christo Shaldev (1876 – 1962) 209 Christo Valkov (19th century) 205 Chrysantos Archimandrit of Madytos (c. 1770 – 1846) 4, 203 Chrysaphes the New (c. 1623 – 1685) 7, 11, 94, 96, 97, 154, 156, 198, 203, 205 Chrystodoulos ascetic (second half of the 11th century) 87

1 The names are cited by first name; Saints and Biblical figures are not included

232

INDEX OF THE CITED NAMES

Clement of Ohrid (+ 916) 62, 67, 80, 104, 109, 163 Clement of Rome Pope (between 35 – 99) 110, 111, 114 Clement the Studite (end of the 8th – beginning of the 9th century) 50, 51 Constantin-Cyril the Philospher / Cyril (826/27 – 869) 62, 67, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 120, 122, 141, 148, 163, 169, 206 Constantine Protopsaltes of Anchialos (16th – 17th century) 186, 193 Constantine V (718 – 775) 136 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (905 – 959) 41, 51, 52, 73, 76, 77, 84 Constantin of Preslav (9th – 10 century) 80, 109, 120, 163 Constsntine IV Pogonatos (c. 652 – 685) 15 Cyril Patriarch (18th century) 152 Cyril of Rila (19th century) 204 Daniel Protopsaltes (+ 1789) 9, 10 Demetian Vlach (16th century) 139 Dimitar Ivanov Tjulev (19th century) 209 Dimitar Kantakuzin (+ 1487) 177 Dimitar Manchov (1825 – 1907) 206 Dimitri Dokeianos (14th century) 167, 188, 190, 192 Dionisij Monk of Makrilitca (first half of the 18th century) 200 Dionisios Monk of Simonopeter monastery on Mount Athos (18th century) 159 Dionisios of Veles / Dionisios of Byzantium? (second half of the 18th – beginning of the 19th century) 156, 157, 158, 202 Dionisios Photinos (18th century?) 9 Dmitrij Bortnjansky (1715 – 1825) 208 Dobri Chintulov (1822 – 1886) 207 Dobri Christov (1875 – 1941) 209, 210 Dobri Voinikov (1833 – 1878) 207 Dominicus Francisk Marteleti (19th century) 207 Dorotheos of Gaza (c. 500 – 560/580?) 74, 75, 85 Dragan writer (13th century) 165 Egeria / Etheria / Sylvia (4th century) 40, 45, 47, 117, 123 Elena the Bulgarian (+ 1374) 176, 193 Ephrem the Syrian (c. 306 – 373) 24, 173 Epifanij of Rila (19th century) 204

Euthimios Hegumen of the Iviron Monastery (c. 955 – c. 1028) 29 Euthimios Patriarch of Tirnovo (c. 1325 – c. 1403) 140, 143, 169, 180 Evstatie Protopsaltes (second half of the 15th – beginning of the 16th century) 139, 141, 142, 147, 148 Gabriel of Xantopoulos (15th century) 172 Gauderich of Velletri (second half of the 9th century) 110 Gavriil Archbishop of Debelt eparchy (8th – 9th century) 60 Gavriil Hieromonk of Zografos (18th century) 200, 201 Gavriil Monk of Anchialos (16th – 17th century) 186, 193 George Arbishop of Debelt eparchy (8th – 9th century) 60, 65, 66 George Sinkellos (+ after 810) 52 Georgi Baidanov (1853 – 1927) 209, 212 Georgios Panaretos (first half of the 14th century) 141 Georgios Redestinos (first half of the 17th century) 27 Gerasim of Cyprus (17th century) 172 Gerasim singer (18th – 19th century) 201 Germanos of New Patras (second half of the 17th century) 8, 97, 154, 156, 198, 203 Gorasd (9th century) 113 Gregorios Lampadarios, later Protopsaltes (1778 – 1821) 4, 203 Gregorios Pakurianos (+ 1086) 166 Gregory of Palama (1296 – 1359) 124, 137 Gregory Tsamblak (1365 – 1420) 140, 143 Grigor Parlichev (1830 – 1893) 206 Heraclius I Emperor (c. 575 – 641) 15 Hierotej Hieromonk of Rila (second half of the 18th – beginning of the 19th century) 152, 200, 201 Hilarion Abbot of Zografos (19th century) 203, 205 Hilarion Hieromonk singer (18th – 19th century) 201 Ioan Alexander Tsar (+ 1371) 176, 193 Ioan Archbishop of Debelt eparchy (8th – 9th century) 60 Ioan Asen II Tsar (1190-1241) 143

233

INDEX OF THE CITED NAMES

Irene Hagiopetritis / nun Eulogia (c. 1292 – before 1360) 124, 125, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137 Irene Komnene Dukaina Empress (13th century) 166 Isajah the Serb (15th century) 176, 177, 180 Isaj of Rila (19th century) 204 Isaj Philipides (18th – 19th century) 201 Isidore of Seville (c. 560 – 636) 33 Ivan Genadiev (1830 – 1890) 206 Jacob Bishop of Edessa (c. 500 – 578) 43 Jakovos Protopsaltes (c. 1740 – 1800) 11, 154 James Clarke (19th century) 207 Janko Mustakov (1842 – 1881) 207 Joakim Gruev (1828 – 1912) 206 Joasaph of Rila / Joasaph II Proabbot of Rila (18th – 19th century) 9, 10, 11, 158, 202, 203, 204 Joasaph singer / Joasph I (18th – 19th century) 203 John VIII Pope (+ 882) 104, 110, 112 John Bogdan (15th – 16th centuries) 141 John Chrysostom (c. 347 – 407) 3, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 80, 87, 112, 121, 155, 156, 177, 202, 208, 209 John of Damascus / John the Monk / John (c. 675 – 749) 7, 11, 41, 43, 44, 50, 51, 58, 61, 73, 84, 87, 111, 125, 133, 164 John Glykys (13th – 14th century) 6, 8, 14, 31, 154, 155, 167, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 194, 203 John Koukouzeles (c. 1280 – c. 1341) 6, 14, 18, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 91, 94, 129, 130, 131, 136, 137, 141, 154, 155, 167, 168, 171, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 203, 205 John of the Ladder / John Klimakos (c. 579 – c. 649) 108 John Lampadarios Kladas (14th century) 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 92, 141, 154, 155, 167, 186, 192, 194, 203, 205 John Laskaris (15th century) 172 John Monk the writer of the Evergetis Typikon (11th – 12th century) 86 John Palaiologos (l286 – 1307) 125 John of Rila (c. 876 – 946) 119, 148, 169, 176, 177, 200, 204, 205 John Theristis (1049 – 1129) 58, 59, 61 Joseph the Hymnographer (between 816/818 – c. 886) 41, 42, 50, 58, 60, 63, 64, 111, 136, 164

Joseph the Studite (8th – 9th century) 41, 47, 50, 51 Josiph of Rila (19th century) 204 Justinian I the Great (c. 482 – 565) 16, 41 Kalistrat of Zografos (1830 – 1914) 205 Kiriak Kulida Nafpliotes (18th century) 9, 10 Konstantij of Rila (19th century) 204 Kosma the Macedonian (second half of the 17th century) 154, 187, 188, 193, 195, 198, 203 Kosma Presbyter (10th century) 121 Kosmas of Majuma / Kosmas the Monk (c. 675 – c. 752) 41, 50, 51, 58, 61, 66 Krastju Pishurka (1823 – 1875) 207 Krum Khan (803 – 814) 60 Ksenophont of Rila (19th century) 204 Ksenos Korones (14th century) 18, 20, 22, 23, 154, 155, 168, 175, 203, 205 Ksirus (14th – beginning of the 15th century) 141 Leo III the Isaurian (c. 685 – 741) 15 Leo VI the Wise the Philosopher (866 – 912) 41, 51, 52, 70, 72, 73, 76, 77, 155 Leon Archbishop of Debelt eparchy (8th – 9th century) 60 Leon Padiotes (14th century) 126, 135 Leontos Stilis (end of the 11th – beginning of the 12th century) 58, 59, 61 Lukachi writer (16th century) 139 Makarie of Dobrovat (16th century) 147 Makarij Hieromonk of Hilandar (18th – 19th century) 158, 201 Manasij Poptodorov (1860 – 1938) 208, 209 Manuel Chrysaphes (15th century) 18, 154, 155, 171, 172, 203, 205 Manuel Gavalas / Matheos of Efes metropolitan (1271/2? – before 1359) 134 Manuil Archbishop of Adrianople eparchy (8th – 9th century) 60, 65, 66 Manuil Gutas (first half of the 18th century) 9 Marko the Monk (8th or 9th century?) 50 Methodius (c. 815 – 885) 62, 67, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 121, 122, 123, 141, 148, 163, 169, 206 Michael III Emperor (840 – 867) 102, 125

234

INDEX OF THE CITED NAMES

Michael Asen II (c. 1239 – 1256? 1257?) 166 Michael Sinkellos (760 – 846) 52, 55 Naiden Gerov (1823 – 1900) 207 Nanu (second half of the 18th – the beginning of the 19th century) 21, 23 Naum of Preslav and Ohrid (c. 830 – 910) 80, 109, 163 Neophyt of Rila (c. 1793 – 1881) 202, 203, 204, 205 Nicholaos I Pope (800 – 867) 110 Nikephoros Ethikos (14th century) 31 Nikephoros Gregoras (c. 1295 – 1360) 135 Nikephoros the Hesychast / Nikephoros the Monk (13th – 14th century) 124 Nikolaj Bachmetiev (1807 – 1891) 208 Nikolaj Nikolaev (1852 – 1938) 208 Nikolaos Koukoumas (13th – 14th century) 167, 186, 192, 194 Nikola the Serb / Nikola Spanchević (15th century) 176, 177, 180 Nikola Triandafilov (c. 1805 – ?) 206 Nikola Vasilev of Tirnovo (second half of the 19th century) 205 Nikon of the Black Mountain (c. 1025 – after 1088) 74, 75, 86, 111 Nilus II Abbot of Grottaferrata (+ 1135) 49, 50, 54 Nilus Kerameus Patriarch of Constantinople (+ 1388) 92 Omurtag Khan (814 – 831) 60 Origen (c. 185 – c. 254) 105 Pachomij singer of Rila (18th – 19th century) 201 Pamphilij of Rila (18th – 19th century) 202 Partenij Pavlović (1700 – 1760) 201 Paulos founder of the Evergetis monastery (11th century) 74 Paulos the Monk writer (13th century) 131 Persian Khan (first half of the 9th century) 166 Peter Archbishop of Debelt eparchy (8th – 9th century) 60, 65, 66 Peter Dinev (1889 – 1980) 187, 209, 212 Peter Ilych Tchaikovsky (1840 – 1893) 208, 210 Peter / Petros Bereketes (c. 1665 – c. 1725) 20, 22, 23, 154, 155, 198, 203, 205 Peter Priest (13th century) 165 Peter Sarafov (1842 – 1915) 187, 208, 209

Peter Tsar (c. 912 – 970) 148 Peter Zlatev Gruev (1852 – 1890) 206 Petros Byzantios (second half of the 18th century – 1808) 9, 10, 154, 156 Petros Lampadarios of Peloponnese (c. 1735 – 1777? 1778?) 9, 10, 11, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 94, 151, 154, 155, 157, 158, 199, 202, 205 Philip Hieromonk / Proabbot Dimić (18th century) 201 Philoteus I Patriarch (c. 1300 – 1379) 136 Photios I of Constantinople Patriarch (c. 810 – c. 893) 102 Prokopij singer (18th – 19th century) 201 Romanos the Melode (c. 485 – after 555) 170 Rostislav Prince (+ 870) 104 Sabas the Sanctified (439 – 532) 70, 73, 75, 84 Sava of Cyprus (18th century?) 11 Sava Nemanić (1169 – 1236) 78 Selevkij Priest of Rila (19th century) 202 Serafim Metropolitan of Bosnia / Serapion Monk (c. 1705 – c. 1800) 151, 154, 155, 157, 158, 202, 211 Serapion Bishop of Thmuis (+ after 362) 32 Sergei Rachmaninov (1873 – 1943) 210 Sergios the Confessor (+ after 829) 52 Severos Patriarch of Antioch (c. 465 – 538) 43, 44 Sikeotes author (14th century?) 128 Simeon from the Wonderful Mountain (12th century?) 128 Sionij Archbishop of Debelt eparchy (8th – 9th century) 60 Sophronios Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 560 – 638) 84 Stephen V the Great (c. 1433 – 1504) 139 Stephen Dušan Tsar (1308 – 1355) 176, 191, 193 Stephen Uroš V (c. 1336 – 1371) 176, 193 Svetopolk I Moravski Prince (c. 840 – 894) 112 Tarasios the Patriarch (c. 730 – 806) 50, 52 Theodore Graptos (c. 775 – c. 842) 52 Theodore Hagiopetritis / Nikephoros Choumnos / Monk Nathanail (c. 1250/1255 – 1327) 124-125, 137

235

INDEX OF THE CITED NAMES

Theodore the Studite (759 – 826) 41, 47, 50, 51, 52, 66, 70, 73, 74, 76, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 106, 107, 108, 119, 120, 164 Theodosios Pechersky (+ 1074) 85 Theodul Hieromonachos (13th – 14th century) 7, 14 Theoleptos of Philadelphia (c. 1250 – c. 1322) 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138 Theophanes the Grek (с. 1340 – с. 1410) 180 Theophanos Graptos (c. 778 – 845) 41, 50, 52, 58, 136, 164 Theophanos Pantokratorinos (18th – 19th century) 11 Theophilact of Ohrid / Theophilact of Bulgaria (1055 – 1107) 62

Theophil singer (18th – 19th century) 201 Thomas I Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 807 – c. 820) 84, 108 Timotheos writer (+ 1054) 74 Todor Hadzhistanchev (1850 – 1902) 207 Todor Ikonomov (1835 – 1892) 206 Toudor Grandfather (18th century) 202 Varlaamos (c. 1290 – 1348) 168 Vartolomeios Romis (second half of the 11th century) 58, 61 Vasilij Grigorevitsch Barski (1701-1747) 199 Venediktos of Rethimnon (17th century) 167, 189, 192 Vladislav the Grammarian (c. 1420 – after 1483) 175, 176, 178

236

INDEX OF THE CITED MANUSCRIPTS

Athens National Library Greek 884 – 1341 126, 127, 129, 130, 133, 135, 136, 137 888 – 14th century 135 895 – 14th century 126, 127, 131, 133 899 – 15th century 8, 13, 25 928 – end of the 15th century 159, 177, 178, 186 963 – beginning of the 17th century 189 2401 – mid-15th century 138, 186 2406 – 1453 5, 8, 13, 25, 138, 184, 187, 190 2444 – 15th century 185 2458 – 1336 8, 13, 25, 190 2599 – late 14th – 15th century 138, 188 2622 – between 1341 – 1360 138, 183, 184, 185 Library of Parliament Greek 58 – early 14th century 125, 133   Belgrade National Library Slavic-Greek 93 – 15th century 178 Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts Slavic 53 (Stanislav’s Prologue) – 1330 61   Bethlehm Kastellion Khirbet Mird Monastery Greek P. Khirbet Mird P.A.M. 1-2 – beginning of the 9th century 39, 46   Bucharest Rumanian Academy of Sciences

Slavic 10846 – 1676 26 Slavic-Greek 283 – second half of the 16th century 140, 147 284 – third quarter of the 16th century 147   Dragomirna Monastery Slavic-Greek 1886 – third quarter of the 16th century 147   Florence Mediceo-Laurenziana Library Greek Ashburnhamense 64 – 1289 17, 20, 25, 64   Grottaferrata Monastery Badia Graeca Library Greek Г. β. 35 – c. 1100 75 Г. β. 37 – 13th century 31 E. a. II – end of the 13th century 14 E. β. VII – first half of the 13th century 25   Jasi University Library Slavic-Greek I-26 – 1545 140, 145, 147   Jerusalem Greek Orthodox Patriarchate Library Greek St. Cross 40 – 10th century 30, 129 Saba 83 – 11th – 12th century 55 Saba 610 – 11th century 72   Kastoria / Kostur Archive of the Cathedral

237

INDEX OF THE CITED MANUSCRIPTS

Greek Kastoria 8 – first half of the 14th century 166   Kiev Ukrainian Academy of Sciences Slavic Kiev sheets / Kiev Missal – first half of the 10th century 109, 113, 122   Leimonos St. Ignatius Monastery Greek 258 – 1527 147   Leipzig University Library Slavic 12 slav. – third quarter of the 16th century 147   London British Museum Syriac Add. 14,504 – 9th century 46 Add. 14,505 – 10th century 46 Add. 14,514 – 9th century 48 Add. 14,698 – 12th – 13th century 46 Add. 14,713 – 12th – 13th century 48 Add. 14,714 – 1075 48 Add. 17,134 – 675 47, 48   Lvov National University Library Slavic-Greek 1060 – second half of the 16th century 147   Manchester John Rylands University Library Greek Rylands 466 – 7th or 8th century 43   Messina St. Salvatore Monastery Greek 115 – 1131/1132 75, 129 161 – 13th century 31   Milan National Library Greek Ambrosiana 139 sup – 1341 92, 126, 127, 129, 133, 135

 Moscow State Archive of Ancient Acts Slavic РГАДА, ф. 381, Син. тип. № 131 (Ilija’s book) – end of the 11th – beginning of the 12th century 59, 109, 110, 120 Тип. 80 – end of the 12th – beginning of the 13th century 82 State Historical Museum Slavic Barsov collection 1345 – first half of the 16th century 147 Shchukin collection 350 (Evstatie’s book) – 1511 139, 141, 142, 143, 145, 147 1102 – 1515 147, 148 Sin. Pevch. 1109 – mid-16th century 147 Tretyakov Gallery Slavic Typographsky Ustav, K-5349 – end of the 11th – beginning of the 12th century 85, 87   Mount Athos Dionisiatos Monastery Greek 564 – 1445 90 570 – 15th century 19, 20, 23 572 – end of the 18th century 201 Dochiariou Monastery Greek 324 – 1686 187 331 – second half of the 15th century 96 Great Lavra St. Athanasius Monastery Greek B. 32 – 10th century 83 E.10 Z-58 – end of the 17th century 200 Г. 3 – 15th century 17, 25 Г. 12 – 10th century 83 Г. 67 – c. 1025 59, 72, 73, 76, 77, 81, 83, 168 I-173 – 1436 185 Hilandar Monastery Greek gMS 27 – 18th century 13 gMS 32 – 1799 13 gMS 33 – end of the 18th – beginning of the 19th century 13 gMS 39 – 18th century 13, 94, 96 gMS 53 – end of the 16th century 9, 13 gMS 104 – 18th century 27 gMS 144 – 18th century 13, 189 97 – end of the 14th – first half of the 15th century 185 100 – 18th century 200, 201

238

INDEX OF THE CITED MANUSCRIPTS

Slavic HM SMS 307 – 12th century 83, 168 HM SMS 309 – end of the 18th – beginning of the 19th century 10, 95, 200, 201 HM SMS 311 – end of the 18th – beginning of the 19th century 10, 13, 95, 200, 201 HM SMS 312 – end of the 18th – beginning of the 19th centry 200 HM SMS 556 – second half of the 19th century 205 HM SMS 565 – end of the 18th – beginning of the 19th century 13, 22, 24, 27, 200 HM SMS 561 – second half of the 19th century 205 HM SMS 581 – end of the 18th – beginning of the 19th century 200 HM SMS 581 – second half of the 19th century 205 HM SMS 668 – end of the 18th – beginning of the 19th century 10, 13, 95, 200 Iviron Monastery Greek 470 – 12th century 81 933 – mid-17th century 188 951 – second half of the 17th century 195 964 – 1562 189 974 – first half of the 15th century 186, 189, 190 1120 – 1458 18 Konstamonitou Monastery Greek 86 – first half of the 15th century 189 Koutloumusiou Monastery Greek 399 – mid-14th century 188, 190 446 – 1757 195 Ksenofontos Monastery Slavic-Greek 132 – beginning of the 19th century 201 142 – end of the 18th century 201 145 – end of the 18th – beginning of the 19th century 201 152 – end of the 18th century 201 170 – end of the 18th – beginning of the 19th century 201 Ksyropotamou Monastery Greek 229 – first half of the 18th century 195 262 – beginning of the 17th century 26 266 – end of the 17th – beginning of the 18th century 94

277 – mid-18th century 27 287 – 1724 26, 189 306 – second half of the 18th century 97 307 – 1767/1770 195 333 – second half of the 18th century 97 Panteleimonos Monastery Greek 936 – late 15th or early 16th century 90 1045 – end of the 15th or the beginning of the 16th century 26 Philotheos Monastery Greek 122 – first half of the 15th century 168 Vatopedi Monastery 322 (956) – 13th – 14th century 82 1488 – c. 1050 47, 59, 72, 73, 75, 77, 83 1493 – 14th – 15th century 19, 20, 23 Zografos Monastery Slavic 85.I.8 (Dragan’s Menaion) – second half of the 13th century 59, 141, 144, 145, 148, 149, 165, 166, 169   Münich Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Greek Gr. 617 – 18th – beginning of the 19th century 13 Gr. 620 – 18th – beginning of the 19th century 13 Gr. 625 – 18th – beginning of the 19th century 13   Ochrid National Museum Greek 53 – 11th century 72, 83   Oxford Bodleian Library Greek Auct. E. 5 – 14th century 30 Canonici Gr. 25 – 1729 27 Slavic-Greek E. D. Clarke 14 – 1553 148   Paris National Library Greek Ancien fonds Gr. 260 – c. 1289 6 Ancien fonds Gr. 261 – 1289 6, 14

239

INDEX OF THE CITED MANUSCRIPTS

Ancien fonds Gr. 360 (Hagiopolites treatise) – first half of the 14th century 61, 64, 175, 180 Chartres 1754 – 10th – 11th century 68 Coislin 220 – 12th century 17, 68 Gr. 3041 – 15th – 16th century 65 Mazarine Library Greek 693 – 11th or the beginning of the 12th century 24   Patmos St. John Theologian Monastery Greek 266 – second half of the 9th or the beginning of the 10th century 17   Prague National Museum Slavic-Greek PNM 1 Da 9 – third quarter of the 16th century 146, 147   Princeton Firestone Library Greek Garrett 24 – 8th – 9th century 52, 53   Putna Monastery Slavic-Greek 1/450/577/II – 15th century 149 56/544/576/I – c. 1520 145, 147 56/544/576/II – c. 1520 147   Rila Monastery Slavic 1/36 (Paraklis of St. John of Rila) – 1770 154, 157 НР 115 – 1851 204 Slavic-Greek 5/78 – beginning of the 19th century 13, 19, 23, 157, 201 6/40 – 19th century 201 6/67 – end of the 18th – beginning of the 19th century 13, 201 Greek 5/66 – end of the 18th century 13 6/11 – 1818 13, 201, 202 6/13 – 1818, 201, 202 6/18 – 1731 159, 200 6/19 – 1731 13, 155, 159 6/20 – 18th century 200, 202

6/21 – 18th century 200, 202 6/22 – 18th century 200 6/26 – beginning of the 19th century 201 6/31 – end of the 18th century 13 6/34 – first half of the 19th century 201 6/46 – end of the 18th – beginning of the 19th century 13 6/47 – end of the 18th century 13 6/50 – end of the 18th – beginning of the 19th century 13 6/56 – 18th century 13, 26 6/59 – 18th century 13, 151, 152, 155, 157, 158, 202 6/63 – 18th century 13, 27 6/66 – 18th century 13   Rome Vatican Apostolic Library Greek Barb. Gr. 283 – first half of the 17th century 186 Barb. Gr. 300 – 15th century 5, 8, 13, 25 Barb Gr. 336 – mid-8th century 29, 31 Barb. Gr. 408 – 15th – 16th century 65 Barb. Gr. 500 – 11th – 12th century 65 Ottob. Gr. 380 – 14th century 135 Ottob. Gr. 393 – 13th century 64 Palat. Gr. 243 – 14th century 8, 13, 25, 184, 187 Palat. Gr. 383 – 13th century 65 Regin. Gr. 54 – 12th century 81 Vat. Gr. 345 – 13th – 14th century 64 Vat. Gr. 771 – 11th century 39, 46, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 60, 108, 109 Vat. Gr. 1515 – 1382 65 Vat. Gr. 1613 (Menologion of Basil II) – last quarter of the 10th – beginning of the 11th century 60, 65, 135 Vat. Gr. 2008 – 1102 39, 46, 49, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 108 Vat. Gr. 2029 – late 9th or early 10th century 81   Sankt Petersburg Russian Academy of Sciences Slavic 13.3.16 – 1511 147 24.4.8 Sreznevski fund (Euchologion Sinaiticum) – 11th century 168 24.4.15 (Rila musical notes) – 11th / 15th century 173, 174р 175, 177, 178, 180 Russian National Library

240

INDEX OF THE CITED MANUSCRIPTS

Greek 121 – 1302 131, 137 Slavic Глаг. 2 + Глаг. 3 (Euchologion Sinaiticum) – 11th century 169, 177 520 Pogodin fund – 14th – beginning of the 15th century 66 Q.n.I.3 (Blagoveshchensky Kondakar) – 12th – 13th century (a fragment of the same manuscript is kept in the State Scientific Library in Odessa – 1/93) 17, 25 F.п.I.102, F. 124/10 (Triodion of Orbelja) – second half of the 13th century 165   Sinai St. Catherine’s Monastery Greek 191 – 12th century 46 212 – 9th century 43 531 – 15th century 84 556 – 11th century 42, 46, 108 569 – 11th century 53 579 – 11th century 46, 108 581 – 11th – 12th century 53 607 – 9th century 46, 108 613 – 11th – 12th century 53 734 – 11th – 12th century 47, 50 735 – 11th – 12th century 47, 50 736 – 1027/1028 47, 51, 53 759 – 11th century 42, 46, 108 777 – 11th century 46 779 – 10th century 84 780 – 12th century 88 781 – 11th century 84 782 – 11th century 84 784 – 12th century 46, 84 787 – 12th century 84 789 – 12th century 46, 84 790 – 11th century 84 792 – 11th century 84, 88 795 – late 12th century 47 824 – 10th century 84, 88 1096 – 12th – 13th century 29, 31, 84 1214 – 12th century 72 1218 – 1177 69, 72 1220 – 13th century 92 1221 – 1321 92 1223 – 14th century 92 1227 – 14th century 14 1228 – last quarter of the 14th century 92, 94, 96 1230 – 1365 92, 96

1231 – 1236 92 1234 – 1469 96 1241 – 12th century 72 1242 – 12th century 72, 83 1243 – 11th – 12th century 72, 83, 168 1245 – 15th century 93 1250 – 15th century 96 1251 – 15th century 96 1255 – 15th century 93, 96 1256 – 1309 130, 131, 137 1257 – 1332 7, 13, 25, 135 1258 – 1257 131, 133 1301 – 17th century 93, 94 1302 – second half of the 17th century 96 1304 – second half of the 17th century 94, 96 1312 – 15th century 97 1321 – 16th – 17th century 97 1326 – 12th century 96, 97 1463 – 15th century 93, 95, 96 1464 – 1323 92 1471 – 14th century 92, 96 1472 – 1276 92 1480 – 1625 20 1484 – 13th century 92 1552 – 15th century 93, 95, 96 1559 – 16th century 185 1564 – 15th century 93 1584 – second half of the 15th century 96 1585 – 14th century 92 1593 – first half of the 9th century 84, 88 2018 – 12th century 88 М 18 – 12th century 46 М 99 – 11th – 12th century 46 М160 – 12th century 46 M 167 – 9th 10th century 48 МГ 4 – 9th – 10th century 46 МГ 5 – 8th – 9th century 46 МГ 28 – 9th century 46 МГ 56 – 8th – 9th century 46, 120 Slavic 19 – 14th century 1/N + Slav. 37 (Euchologion Sinaiticum) – 11th century 115, 119, 169, 177 4/N – 11th – 12th century 62 5/N – 10th – 11th century 122 958 – 10th century 29 NE – first half of the 11th century 108, 115 Georgian 18 – 10th century 46 20 – 987 46 26 – 954 46

241

INDEX OF THE CITED MANUSCRIPTS

34 – mid-10th century 46 40 – 10th century 46 41 – 10th century 46 Syriac 94 – between 1010 – 1030 47   Sofia Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 38 (Bitolja Triodion) – last quarter of the 12th century 141 Center for Slavo-Byzantine Studies “Ivan Dujćev” Greek D. Gr. 9 – 16th century 13, 184, 185 D. Gr. 34 – 1436 8, 13, 185 D. Gr. 49 – 14th century 92 D. Gr. 61 – 1689 13, 96 D. Gr. 93 – 13th century 84 D. Gr. 115 – 18th century 96 D. Gr. 188 – 14th century 92 D. Gr. 201 – 15th century 18 D. Gr. 223 – 13th century 84 D. Gr. 292 – mid-14th century 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133 D. Gr. 299 – 17th century 26 D. Gr. 355 – 18th century 26 D. Gr. 360 – 12th – 13th century 84 Church Historical and Archival Institute at the Bulgarian Patriarchate Greek 812 – 13th century 91, 169 813 – 13th century 91, 169 814 – 1720 136 815 – 14th century 91, 135 816 – 3d quarter of the 16th century 139, 145, 146, 147 818 – 1281 91, 169 875 – end of the 18th – the beginning of the 19th century 13 892 – end of the 18th – the beginning of the 18th century 13 913 – 13th century 169 National Library Sts. Cyril and Methodius Greek Gr. 61 – 18th century (up to 1770) 13, 26 Gr. 76 – second half of the 18th century 13, 202

Gr. 77 – beginning of the 19th century 13 Gr. 78 – 19th century 13 Gr. 80 – beginning of the 19th century 13 Slavic 289 (Palausov’s copy of the Synodikon of Tsar Boril) – end of the 14th century 140, 167, 170, 180 354 – end of the 18th – beginning of the 19th century 201 895 – beginning of the 14th century 65 933 (Argirov Triodion) – end of the 12th or the beginning of the 13th century 141 1181 – 19th century 206 1268 – end of the 18th or the very beginning of the 19th century 157 1333 – second half of the 19th century 212   Tbilisi Institute for Manuscripts Georgian H-2123 – 9th century 46, 109   Vienna National Library Greek Phil. Gr. 194 – 15th century 8, 13, 25, 189 Phil. Gr. 344 – first half of the 16th century 13 Suppl. Gr. 130 – 18th – beginning of the 19th century 13 Suppl. Gr. 160 – 18th – beginning of the 19th century 13 Suppl. Gr. 186 – 13th century 19, 24 Suppl. Gr. 190 – 18th – beginning of the 19th century 13 Theol. Gr. 136 – first half of the 12th century 55, 65, 72, 83, 128 Theol. Gr. 185 – end of the 14th century 8, 13, 25, 184, 187 Vindob. Gr. 26.120 – 6th – 7th century 47   Zürich Central Library Latin Rh. Hist. 27 – 9th – 10th century 123

242