Transcription of the Stichera Idiomela for the Month of April from Russian Manuscripts from the 12th Century

(1)

Slavistische Beiträge ∙ Band 236

(eBook - Digi20-Retro)

Verlag Otto Sagner München ∙ Berlin ∙ Washington D.C.

Digitalisiert im Rahmen der Kooperation mit dem DFG-Projekt „Digi20“

der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek, München. OCR-Bearbeitung und Erstellung des eBooks durch den Verlag Otto Sagner:

http://verlag.kubon-sagner.de

«Verlag Otto Sagner» ist ein Imprint der Kubon & Sagner GmbH.

Nina K. Ulff-Møller

Transcription of the Stichera Idiomela for the Month of April

from Russian Manuscripts from the 12th Century

Nina K. Ulff-Möller - 9783954792054

(2)

S l a v i s t i c h e B e it r ä g e

BEGRÜNDET VON ALOIS SCHMAUS HERAUSGEGEBEN VON HEINRICH KUNSTMANN PETER REHDER JOSEF SCHRENK

REDAKTION PETER REHDER

Band 236

VERLAG OTTO SAGNER

(3)

NINA KONSTANTINOVA ULFF-MØLLER

TRANSCRIPTION OF THE STICHERA IDIOMELA FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL FROM RUSSIAN

MANUSCRIPTS FROM THE 12TH CENTURY

VERLAG OTTO SAGNER • MÜNCHEN 1989

(4)

I

^/ Bayerische Staatsbibliothek

« München

ISBN 3-87690-420-X

©Verlag Otto Sagner. München 1989

(5)

TO MY PARENTS

(6)

(7)

PREFACE

This work results from investigations carried out at the In stitu te fo r Greek and L a tin Medieval Philology, U niversity o f Copenhagen, during the years 1983 1987 ־ . A part o f the study however, was perform ed at Dumbar- ton Oaks, Trustees fo r H arvard U niversity, Washington, D. C ., where I had a fellow ship in the summer o f 1986. The present work was subm itted to the F aculty o f Hum anities, accepted as a Ph.D. dissertation In June 1988, and defended In August 1988* The Judging com m ittee consisted o f Doz.

D r. Jørgen Raasted, P ro f. D r. C hristian Thodberg, and D r. Karsten Fledellus.

I am very g ra te fu l to many persons who took part In the advancement o f my project. F irst o f a ll I would like to mention Doz. D r. Jørgen Raasted, who Introduced me to the work w ith Byzantine musical manuscripts, and who has been an inspiring adviser during the e n tire work.

D r. Ivan Popvasllev and P rof. D r. Ivan Dujčev Inspired my Interest In Byzantine and Slavic music and cu lture . Sadly they did not liv e to see the finished project.

P rof. M ild V elim lrovlc offered helpful advice, steady encouragement, and neverfalllng friendship throughout the preparation o f this project.

P rof. D r. Werner Leh fe ld t, P rof. D r. A ndrzej Poppe, D r. Nicolas Shid- lovsky, and D r. phiL Bengt Holbæk, shared th e ir opinions In fru itfu l discuss- Ions w ith me on m atters o f great Im portance.

D r. M uriel Heppel kindly helped me In revising the English te x t.

P rof. Robert Z e tt le nt me im portant and rare books, which would otherw ise have been d iffic u lt to find.

Many others have given me th e ir support and interest. Among these I would p a rticu la rly lik e to name Jana Markova, D r. med. Marianne K ie ffe r, L ie . ve t. Steen Kristensen, V icto ria van A alst, D r. Jørn Qvonje, Dean Arne Bugge, Jelisaveta S. A lle n , D r. med. P eter W lm berley.

(8)

My fa m ily have given me an enormous encouragement and support, and shown a loving intere st in my work* My husband has also assisted pa- tle n tly in typing the fin a l d ra ft o f this study.

The s ta ff o f the In s titu te o f Greek and L a tin M edieval Philology, and Dumbarton Oaks have given me excellent working conditions.

This study could not have been started w ithout the in itia l generous financial support I recleved from the Ludm ila Zhivkova foundation. The com pletion o f the study was made possible by grants from Lund beck found a- tlon, Bredlusstlchtlng, and Dumbarton Oaks.

I sincerely thank a ll these persons and Institutions.

Nina Konstantinova U lff-M ø lle r Søborg, December 1988.

(9)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface v

Introd uction 2

PART ONE

S tichera idiom ela fo r A p ril 6

L is t o f the M usical Sources Used 15

The Method o f Transcribing

L P relim inary remarks 24

4

IL D escription o f the method 28

PART TWO: TRANSCRIPTIONS

P relim inary remarks 44

A p ril No. 1 46

A p ril No. 5 61

A p ril No. 6 82

A p ril No. 7 95

A p ril No. 12 107

A p ril No. 13 128

A p ril No. 14 152

A p ril No. 15 165

A p ril No. 16 175

«

A p ril No. ♦21 190

A p ril No. ♦25 200

A p ril No. ♦30 211

CONCLUSION 218

Index o f corresponding Byzantine and Russian Formulas

Modes Deuteros 220

Modes T etartos 228

A Select Bibliography 232

Dansk resumé 240

Plates 242

Abbreviations Nina K. Ulff-Möller - 9783954792054245

(10)

00050426

INTRODUCTION.

U n til now the m anuscript tra d itio n o f the Byzantine Stichera (com- prising approxim ately 650 sources from before AD 1500) has not been s u ffi- c le n tly studied, as fa r as the ra m ifica tio n o f the manuscripts (MSS) Is con- cemed. D r. Jørgen Raasted from the U niversity o f Copenhagen, In stitu te fo r Greek and L a tin Philology, has been w orking fo r several years on a t ״

project o f this kind. For p ra ctica l reasons he has chosen the Stlcherarlon fo r the month o f A p ril because o f its lim ite d number o f notated melodies - 16 standard stichera ldiom ela and approxim ately 35 melodies known from a few sources only*.

Thanks to an In vita tio n from Dr• J. Raasted I took part in this project in the academic year o f 1982/83. U n til now the te x t and music fo r the 16 standard stichera o f 47 MSS provided w ith M edlobyzantlne (״Round") notation (RN) and 13 MSS ln C oislln (CN) or w ith C hartres notation (ChN) have been collated.

W hile working on these Byzantine S tlcherarla fo r A p ril, i t was realised th a t this enormously rich musical m aterial m ight be used fo r an Investigation o f the corresponding Old Russian stichera ldiom ela. I t Is w ell known, that a fte r the conversion to C h ristia n ity the Slavs (Bulgarians, Serbs, Russians) used fo r the divine service litu rg ic a l books, which were translated from Greek . These translations exist in several redactions. The differences among

2

the redactions are m ainly caused by the n a tio n a lity o f the scribe, and the date o f the manuscript •3

The Slavs used various kinds o f musical notation to Indicate the melodies, which are related to d iffe re n t types o f Paiaeobyzantine notation, but apparently the Slavs preserved archaic features longer than was the case In the Byzantine tra d itio n .

(11)

W ith the collations at ray disposal, based on 64 MSS (47 In Medio־

byzantine, 11 in C olslln, 2 In C hartres, and 4 in Old Russian K rju k l nota- tlo n 4) I had an excellent opportunity to study more closely the transmlssslon and adaptation o f the Byzantine A p ril stichera to Russian soll^, and to find out, how fa r the Russian translation adheres to the Byzantine tra d itio n

g in respect o f notation, isosyllabic s im ila rity , and musical form ulas .

By comparing the Old Russian stichera fo r the month o f A p ril from f

the 12th century w ith th e ir Palaeobyzantlne and Medlobyzantlne counterparts, 1 hope to find a method which could be generally applied In order to deci- pher the Russian stlch e ra rlc Chants In sem atlc notation from the 12th century.

1• The "non-standard" stichera are marked w ith * In fro n t o f the number.

In references to the m aterial, the firs t cipher shows the number o f the song, and the second number a fte r the comma shows the number o f the line• I stick e n tire ly to the order o f the standard and non-standard stichera fo r the month o f A p ril in the unpublished lis t made by D r. J. Raasted.

2* From the enormously ric h lite ra tu re w ritte n on this subject, 1 re fe r only to:

MeŠčersklJ, N^A.: isto čn ikl 1 sostav drevnej slavjano-russkoj perevodnoj pls'm ennostl IX-XV vekov. Leningrad, 1978.

3. See: K arski], E.: Slavjanskaja klrillo vska ja p a le o g ra fia . Leningrad, 1928. Repr. Moskva, 1979• pp. 315-347•

Žukovskaja, L.P .: Rekomendazll d lja opredelenija jazyka (lzvodov) drev- nich slavjanskich nikoplse]. In: Metodlfceskoe posoble po opisaniju slavjano-russkich rukoplsej d lja Svodnogo kataloga rukoplsej, chronjaSčlchsJa v SSSR, vyp. I, Cast1 I, Moskva, 1973, pp. 1-42.

4. Znamennaja notazlja, znamennoje різ1 mo, krjukovaja notazlja, stolpovoe znamja, sematlsche N otation, archaic Slavic notation, la notation palæo- byzantine slavonne archaïque etc. are som o f the names usually used by scholars (Russian and Western) w orking in the fie ld o f the Byzantine and Slavic Chant, fo r describing the neume notation used in the Old Russian Stlcherarla, H eirm ologia and some other MSS in 12th - 17th cent., up to the reform o f A l. Mesenez• The discussion o f the advan- tage or disadvantage o f one or another name was raised by J. von

(12)

Gardner. See his a rtic le : Ober die !C lassification und die Bezeichnung der altrussischen Neum enschriften. In: Die W elt der Slaven, Jahrg.

X V II, 1972, pp. 175-200. In the te x t o f the dissertation the title s Znamennaja o r Sem atlc notation are used (at schemes and tables:

SN). For the d iffe re n t stages o f the Znamennaja notation see also:

Gardner, J. von: Bogosluïebnoe penie russkoj pravoslavnoj cerkvL Su&h- nost', sistema I Is to rlja , voL I, Jordanvllle, N .Y ., 1978. pp. 139-157.

The period o f 11th -14th cent. Is represented only by a few notated fragm ents In MSS o f Bulgarian redaction. See: Pallkarova-Verdell, R .: La musique Byzantine chez les Bulgares e t les Russes (du IXe au XlVe siecle). MMB, Subsidia Ш, Copenhagen, 1953* pp. 222-230, PL X X , XXL

Lazarov, S t.: Isto rlja na not noto pism a Sofia, 1965. pp. 70-74.

P etrov, S t., Kodov, C hr.: StarobQlgarskl m usikalnl pam etnlcl. Sofia, 1973. pp. 27-31, 55-61, 87-170.

Old Bulgarian MSS e n tire ly notated throughout the MSS are s till not found, and this was a good reason fo r E, Koschm ieder to doubt that the roots o f the Old Russian K rju kl notation were o f Old Bulgarian origin, as was the case w ith alm ost a ll other litu rg ic a l books translated from Greek. See: Koschm leder, E.: Zur H erkunft der slavlschen K rju kl- N otation. In; F estsch rift fu r D m ytro ty ïe v s k ij zum 60. Geburtstag am 23 Marz 1954. B erlin, 1953. pp. 146-147.

Llchačev, D.S.: R azvltle russkoj lite ra tu ry 10-17 vekov. Epochl 1 s tilL Leningrad, 1973. pp. 39-44.

The discovery by J. Raasted o f Theta notation Inspired St. Koîucharov, who showed that Theta notation was actually used fo r Indicating melodies In Old Bulgarian MSS from 12th - 13th cent. See: Raasted, J.:

A p rim itiv e palæobyzantlne musical notation. In: Classica et medlevalla, X X I IL Copenhague, 1962. pp. 302-310.

Ko^ucharov, St.: Paleografskl problem i na tlta -n o ta z lja ta v srednoveko- vn ite räkoplsi o t 12-13 vek. In: Slavjanska p a le o g ra fia 1 diplom atika.

Dokladi I saob&cenija o t seminara po slavjanska p a le o g ra fia 1 diplom atika S ofija, septem vri 1979. Sofia, 1980. pp. 228-246.

The te x t o f the stichera Is norm ally discussed only in connection w ith some o f the Byzantine te xtu a l variants and th e ir translation in to Old Russian. A ll questions concerning the peculiarities o f the te x t, redac- tio n , and the poetical stru ctu re are le ft to specialists In Old Russian language and poetics. Some o f the most interesting Investigations dedicated to the problems o f early Slavic poetry are: Jacobson, R.:

The Slavic response to Byzantine poetry. In: Actes du X lle congrès international d'etudes byzantines. Ochride, 10-16 septembre 1961. Beo- grad, 1963. pp. 249-267.

Pozdneev, A .V .: S tlchoslolenie drevnej russkoj poezlL Scando-Slavlca 11, 1965, pp. 5-24.

Taranovskij, K .: Form y obSčeslavjanskogo 1 cerkovno-slavjanskogo stlcha v drevnerusskoj lite ra tu re ХІ-ХШ ѵѵ. In: Am erican C ontributions to the Sixth Inte rn tion al Congress o f Slāvists, Prague 1968, August 7-13.

VoL I: L in g u istic C ontributions, ed. by H. Kucera. The Hague & Paris, 1968 (״S la vistlc P rintings and R epiintings, 80), pp. 377-394.

Lenhoff, G.: L itu rg ic a l poetry in Medieval Rus: Prosody as perform ance.

In: Scando-Slavlca 29, 1983. pp. 21-41.

(13)

5 -

PART ONE

(14)

STICHERA IDIOMELA FOR APRIL

The melodies accessible fo r deciphering belong to the stlch e ra rlc genre, which Is one o f the most Im portant from a hym nographlcal and litu rg ic a l standpoint*.

According to the type o f th e ir m elodic origin, the Old Russian stichera fo r the month o f A p ril are representative o f the group o f the stichera ldiom ela (samoglasny) , whose melodies were not used as models fo r other 2 songs and were usually perform ed only once In the Church year on a fixed feast, The Byzantine tra d itio n fo r A p ril ldiom ela comprises 16 standard pieces and 37 non-standard, which are to be found only in a restricted number o f MSS• The accessible Old Russian m aterial contains 15 songs in a ll - 12 standard and 3 non-standard stichera.

The aim o f the follow ing three tables Is to give inform ation (as d e ta il- ed as possible) fo r the ln cip lts o f the songs in Old Russian and Greek, the feast, the type and the position o f the sticheron In the scheme o f the services, th e ir modes and order and fin a lly th e ir place in Old Russian sources. In table 1 the ln cip its are given according to one Old Russian and one Byzantine source, usually 384 and 1218 , but w ith references to 3 other MSS, i f a sticheron is not included In these sources. For the d é fin i- tion o f the feasts, and the type and place w ith in the service, the remarks w ritte n in two published editions o f the Menala - the Roman and Saliveros

4 S

editions are used • The last column o f table 1 refers to H. F o llle rl's In tia •

(15)

TableIt AprilSt.NO.INCIPITSMODEFEASTТУРЕANDPLACEINTHESERVICEREFERENCE

1.Доуиввьнаьаоуловлвнп t־a

ТатлеФихПСдлреицата IXSaint MarlatheEgyptian(April1) doxastikon, at KupiéexénpagaFIN, IV30

5.Ua h• ті»права ьа

Neuéxoбінаіа IISaint George

(April23)doxastikon, at theXixf!FIN, II493 6.В w с иьа^гіцп

Паѵтатаeõvn IV МИНИНa)doxastikon, at theoxlxov, littleVespers

b) at theXi xn FIN, III270 7.Пѣнпі-епЪнппrAouaаацатшѵ IV

t

г

2

г t

at theXtxr!FIN, I187 9.Прпдітвиоуѵбнпнольовіци

Леихе(оіХоиЛотиосс IVFIN, I298

(16)

Table1 cont:

Apr.St NO. .INCIPITSMODEFEATSTYPEANDPLACEINTHESERVICEREFERENCE

• О

Придете вірьнгіпрг

ДеОтеxövuioxtõv Pl.I IV Saint George

(April23) doxastikon, at theXtxfl

FIN, I298

11.В г с и hűвесна

‘АѵётесХеxô£ар I Tdoxastikonat theAivoi,

OrthrosFIN,.1116

12. Достойнопил 'AEl(1>ctouóvóuaxoc Pl.IIdoxastikon, at KupieекекраЕа,

great VespersFIN, I137

13. Придетевксп^виьннн ДеОхеTiávxaхпсYHC Pl.II НИИИИИИИИИИИ

FIN, I290

14. Дьньсьвъселенаьавьса

Е^иероѵЬotuouuévnпйоа Pl.II и и ии иat theЪіѵос# Orthros

FIN, III488

(17)

"

Table1, cont:

וсоI Apr i вNo. •INCIPITSMODEFEASTTYPEANDPLACEINTHESERVICEREFERENCE 15.Натвоиn ך л n ha сa

EoOéÇexúôn Pl.IIApostlemark( April25) a) doxastikonat кбріеёк'еираЕа

b) doxastikonat theAtvoiFIN, III509 16.Прпдіт•нивскнааго

АеОтеTftc oòoavíou Pl.IV иниинdoxastikon, at theotlxov

FIN, I297

*21.Красаиоуѵвнннг

ЕтпЛлuapTÓoo)^ IVSaint George

(April23) at theAcxn

FIN, III546

*25.П w р вth• предвалкне

npÖToc паѵебфпие Pl.IVApostleJames

(April30) doxastikon, at KupieéxéxpaEa

FIN, III376

*30.Апостол• иоуѵвницe

״АпоотоХенаі иартис I

г z z z z

doxastikonat theoxlxov

FIN, I162

Nina K. Ulff-Möller - 9783954792054 Downloaded from PubFactory at 01/10/2019 03:55:06AM

(18)

10^-

00050426

T a b l e 2 :

No 572 589 384 279

1 119 v 133 V

5 122 v

6 120 r 134 r 50 г

7 120 r 134 r 50 r

9 7 4 r ( p a r t w it h *

o u t b e g i n n i n g , no neumesj

10 120 v 50 V 74 r

11

7 4 v ( p a r t w i t h o u t e n - d i n g , no neuntes.

12 121 v 134 V 51 r

13 122 r 50 V

14 122 v 135 r 51 V

15 123 v 135 ^V 51 V

16 123 v 135 V 51 V

*21 120 v 134 V 50 r

* 25 124 r 136 r 52 r

* 30 52 r

(19)

*2 5

* 2 5

* 2 5 15

15 * 3 0

(20)

T a b l e 3 ז

572 1 6 7 *21

589 1 6 7 *21

384 б 7 *21

279 ...9

(21)

The question o f the usage and the order o f the A p ril stichera In the d iffe re n t Byzantine and Old Russian sources Is c e rta in ly o f considerable Interest and im portance, but since the main aim o f this research Is to investigate the possibilities o f deciphering the Old Russian A p ril stichera, only some o f the most Im portant observations w ill be discussed:

1• Дейте тйѵ тисттйѵ (No. 10 appears In the Byzantine tra d itio n in the Tetartos Mode, w hile In the Russian sources the Mode Indication is fo r Plaglos Protos. The sticheron is not given In the Roman edition o f the Menaion fo r A priL It Is represented a8 an altern ative fo r

g

Neuéxo ô C x a ia (N0• 5) ln Saliveros editio n . AU accessible Byzantine sources contain both stichera - No. 5 and No. 10. In the Old Russian m aterial only 572 has both No. 5 and No* 10, w hile 589 and 279 re- s tric t themselves to the use o f No. 5• A c tu a lly the case w ith 279 is not clear, because o f a lacuna in the MS.

2. The case w ith *APtac xoO óvópaxoc (No 12) and ДеОхе ттгіѵта xflç ־Yfiç can be regarded as sim ila r. In the Roman e d itio n o f the Menala only No. 12 appears fo r the month o f A p ril, w hile the te x t fo r No. 13 appears fo r the feast o f Saint Ermolaos ־ July 26^. According to

a

Saliveros Menaion No. 13 could be used instead o f No. 12 •

3. ExflXn uaoxópcov (No. 21) appears very ra re ly In the w ritte n stlchera ric tradition* It was found in only 5 o f a ll the 64 collated Byzantine and Old Russian sources ־ In 49, 528, 384, 572 and 589. The in cip it o f the sticheron, according to H* F o llle ri, could be found only In one

A

o f her sources . In a ll prob ability ЕхДХг! paoxúpcjv has been used fo r the L itija , since It has the same melody and poetical structure as ITdvxa x a éôvn(No. 6) and 'Aoua á o u d rw (No. 7), also used

(22)

fo r the L itija • No. *21 is given a fte r N0• 6 and No. 7 in the accessible Russian sources, w hile in the tw o Byzantine MSS it is preceded by No. 6, No. 7 and No. ־ Exécpavov xá X X o u c.

The accessible Old Russian m aterial does not contain translations fo r the follow ing standard A p ril stichera:

No. 2. , o XauTtpòc á p iO T e ú ç No. 3. ״ A o i o x e C a ç ЛдХсоѵ

No. 4. ToO ue yd X o u BaoiXécoç No. 8. Tòv v o e o ò v d ô a 'u a v x a

M но на несеси , found on ff. 99v - lOOr In 384*** does not have a counterpart In the accessible Byzantine m aterial. This sticheron remains separate from the other A p ril stichera In 384 ( ff.

50r - 52r) and It has been w ritte n In a d iffe re n t handw riting**.

(23)

00050426

- 14 -

1. For the usage o f the stichera and th e ir division Into categories see:

Weilesz, Е»: A H istory o f Byzantine M usic and Hymnography. 2nd ed. O xford, 1961. pp. 243-245•

Gardner, J.von: Bogsluïebnoe penie... pp. 89-92.

Shidlovsky, N.: The Notated Lenten Prosomoja in the Byzantine and Slavic T radition. A dissertation presented to the Faculty o f Princeton U niversity in candidacy fo r the degree o f doktor o f philosophy. 1983.

pp. 68-72.

2. Gardner, J* von: Ibid. p. 108.

3. Abbreviations fo r MSS GPB, Sof. 384 and Sin. 1218. A ll abbreviations concerning the sources used in the te x t o f the dissertation could be found in the lis t o f the MSS.

4. M n va ta xoö 5Xou é v ta o u x o O . 6 v o lu m e s . Rome 1888 - 1 9 0 1 . M nvaüov xo ö á n o iA io u . О Гкос M. E a X i Ø é o o u . ״Ad f l v a t 1949.

In forthcom ing references the abbreviation MR w ill Indicate the Rome edition, while MA w ill re fe r to the e d itio n by Saliveros. The Roman cipher w ill show the number o f the volum e, and the arable cipher w ill indicate the page.

5. F o llle ri, H.: In itia Hymnorum Ecclesiae Graecae. 5 volumes. Studi e te s ti. Vatican, 1960-66. In the references: FIN - follow ed by a Roman cipher, which indicates the volum e, follow ed by an arable cipher, which indicates the number o f the page.

6. MA, pp. 206-207.

7. MR IV364 ״; MR VĻ 224.

8. MA, p. 205.

9. FIN III, 546.

10. The same sticheron could be seen on the last page In the BlagoveSCen- sklj Kondakar' - see the facsim ile e d itio n o f this monument: Dostal, A ., and Rothe H. ed.: Der altrussische Kondakar'. A u f der Gundlage des Blagove&enskl] NlSegorodsklj Kondakar'. Bd 8,2. Glessen, 1976.

p. 260 (130b).

11• Svodny] katalog slavjano-russkich rukopisnych knig, chranjafclchsja v SSSR 11-13 w . Moskva 1984. In references: SK.

(24)

00050426

LIST OF THE MUSICAL SOURCES USED.

A fundam ental precondition fo r starting this project was a large number o f sources, Byzantine and Old Russian, and the co lla tio n o f this vast m aterial has been o f great help throughout the working process. The lis t o f the MSS w ith collated A p ril stichera is divided in to three main groups:

L S tlcheraria in M ediobyzantine (Round) notation*

II. S tlcheraria in Palæobyzantine (C oislln and Chartres) notation.

III. S tlcheraria in Sematic notation.

Only the most im portant Inform ation about the sources Is given: he name and location o f the lib ra ry , date, the number o f the MSS, the numbers o f the folios, where the A p ril stichera can be found in each MS; and a reference to a catalogue ( if existing), w ithout bibliographical inform ation on each source. On the rig h t side o f the page Is the abbreviation code fo r every MS used In the te x t o f the dissertation. For the Russian MSS only references to the Svodnyj katalog are given. This catalogue is partlcu - la rly useful because o f Its good and detailed bibliography on each MS.

GROUP I

BYZANTINE STICHERARIA PROVIDED WITH ROUND NOTATION.

1. Athens, National Libra ry 883 883

12th-13th cent., 352 folios.

153v - 158r

2. Athos, Vatopedi 1492 1492

A.D . 1242, 278 folios.

109v - 113r

Eustratlades, S. and Arcadios, deacon: Catalogue o f the Greek Manuscripts in the L ib ra ry o f the Monastery o f Vatopedi on Mount Athos. Harvard Theological Studies, XL Cambridge, 1924* p. 234*

- 15 -

(25)

16 -

00050426

N

4960

E a l l

E h n

39

Ph. 30

St. 30

528

533 3. C a rd iff, U niversity Libra ry,

Codex ״Peribleptos". 14th cent.

138v - 142r.

4. Copenhagen, Royal L ib ra ry, NKS 4960 4°, 14th cent., I ♦ 294 ♦ I folios.

114r - 117r.

Schartau, B•: Manuscripts o f Byzantine Music in Denmark.

C1MAGL 48, Copenhagen 1984, pp. 18-19.

5. G ro tta fe rra ta , B iblioteca della Badia E a l 13th cent., 107 folios•

196r - 205v

Tardo, L.: La musica byzantlna e I codici di m elurgla della B iblioteca di G ro tta fe rra ta , e stra tta dalla riv is ta Accademiae e B iblioteche, Anno IV, N* 4, 5 aprile 1931. - IX , p. 12

6. G ro tta fe rra ta , B iblioteca della Badia B a ll 12th cent*, 275 folios.

199r - 205r.

Tardo, U lbid.

7. Bucharest, N ational L ib ra ry, BCU Jassy IV 39 ־ ,

^ fo ״ os־

JERUSALEM, GREEK ORTHODOX PATRIARCHATE 8• Phot los 30

13th cent., 142 folios.

102v- 105v#

C lark, K•: C hecklist o f Manuscripts in the Libraries o f the Greek and Arm enian P atriarchate in Jerusalem, m icrofilm ed fo r the L ibra ry o f Congress, 1949-50.

Washington, 1953• p. 15•

9« Hagi os Stavros 30,

12t h13־ th cent•, 166 folios.

73r - 75r

C lark, ib id . p. 13•

10• Panagios Taphos 528,

lOOv - 103v C lark, ibid, p. 9.

11• Panagios Taphos 533

12t h13־ th cent•, 1, 310 folios.

141v - 146 v•

(26)

- 17 -

СЮ 0Б0426

12. M eteora, Mone Mecarmofoseos 291 291

A .D . 1297., 276 folios.

98r - 100 v.

Bees, N.: Les m anuscrits des Météores. Catalogue d e scrip tif des manu- s e rit s conservés dans les monastères des Météores. Athènes, 1967.

V ol. 1. pp. 306-309.

PARIS. BIBLIOTHEQUE NATIONALE

13. Fonds C oislin 41, 41

IS th cent., 263 folios.

203v - 205v

Gastoue, A .: Introduction â ta paléographie musicale

byzantine. Catalogue des manuscripts de musique byzantine de la Bibliothèque N ationale de Paris et des bibliothèques publiques de France. Paris, 1908. p. 88.

14. Fonds C oislin 42 42

IS th cent., 382 folios.

155r - 159r.

Idem, p. 89

15. Ancien fonds grec 260, 260

109v - 112r Idem, p. 82.

A .D . 1289, 260 folios.

lOOv 103 ־v.

Idem, p. 82.

17. Ancien fonds grec 262 262

132v - 136r*

Idem, p. 82.

157v - 162v.

Idem ., p. 83.

llO r - 114r.

Idem, p. 83

(27)

00050426

- 18 -

20. Ancien fonds grec 355 355

13th ce nt., 330 folios.

245v - 251v ♦ 326v.

Idem, p. 83•

SINAL LIBRARY OF THE MONASTERY OF ST. CATHERINE

21. No. 1215, 1215

97v - 99v.

K am il, M.: Catalogue o f a ll Manuscripts In the Monastery o f St. C atherine on Mount SlnaL Wiesbaden, 1970. p. 127.

22. No. 1216, 1216

112v - 116v.

K am il, ibid. p. 127.

23. No. 1218, 1218

A .D . 1177, 271 folios.

113r - 116v K am il ibid.

24 No. 1220 1220

12th-13th cent*, 282 folios.

lO lv - 105v.

K am il, ibid.

25. No. 1221, 1221

A.D . 1321, 399 folios.

154v - I5 9 r.

K am il, Ibid.

26. No. 1223 1223

148v - 153r.

K am il, ibid.

27. No. 1224, 1224

112r - 115v.

K am il, Ibid.

28. No. 1225, !225

116v - 120r.

K am il, Ibid.

(28)

050426

• 19 -

29. No. 1226, 1226

14th cent., 267 folios 112v - 116r.

K am il, ibid.

31. No. 1228, 1228

98r - lOOv.

K am il, Ibid.

32. No. 1229, 1229

A.D . 1374, 247 folios.

94r - 96v.

K am il, Ibid.

33. No. 1230, 1230

A.D . 1365, 313 folios.

125v - 129r.

K am il, Ibid.

34. No. 1231, 1231

A.D . 1236, 224 folios.

95r 98 ־r.

K am il, Ibid.

35. No. 1232, 1232

245v 254 ־r K am il, Ibid.

36. No. 1249, 1249

186v - 192r.

K am il, Ibid. p. 128.

37. No. 1453, 1453

115r - 118r.

K am il, Ibid• p. 132•

38. No. 1464, 1464

A .D . 1223, 270 folios 119r 122 ־r.

K am il, Ibid•

39. No. 1471, 1471

135r - 140v.

(29)

- 20 -

40. No* 1472, 1472

13th cent*, 275 folios*

112v 116 ־ r.

K am il, ibid.

41. No. 1484, 1484

13th cent*, 282 folios*

107v 112 ־ r*

K a m il, ibid* p* 133*

42. No* 1487, 1487

13th cent*, 131 folios.

93v - 97r.

K am il, ibid*

43* No* 1504, 1504

15th ce n t., 256 folios.

98v - 101г.

K am il, Ibid.

44* No. 1564 1564

14th-15th cent*, 290 folios.

123v 127 ־r.

K am il, ibid* p. 135.

45. No* 1585, 1585

14th cenu, 386 folios.

304 - 313*

K a m il, ibid.

46. No* 1586, 1586

14th ce nt., 333 folios*

e r -

Qv

K a m il, ibid.

47. Vienna, N atlonalblbllothek, D

MS theol. gr* 181 (Codex Dalassenos), A .D . 1221, 325 folios*

137v - 141v

00050426

Høeg, C ., T illy a rd , H.J.W ., and Wellesz, E* eds.: Stlcherarium Codex Vlndobonensis Theol. Graec. 181* Phototyplce depictus.

MMB* Main series L Copenhagen, 1935.

(30)

GROUP II

BYZANTINE STICHERAR IA PROVIDED WITH PALÆOBYZANTINE (COISLIN AND CHARTRES) NOTATION•

1• A thos, Laura G 74, (C hartres), lO th-ea rly 11th cent*, 116 folios 59r - 61v

Spyrldon, and Sophronlos Eustratlades: Catalogue o f the Greek M anuscripts In the L ib ra ry o f the Laura on Mont Athos.

Cam bridge, Mass•, 1925• No. 314•

2• Athos, Laura D 28, (C oislin), 12th cent«, 214 folios,

77v 82 ־ r Idem, No• 404.

3• B e rlin , Preusslscher S taatsbibliothek, gr. fo l. 49, (C oislin), 12th cent., 194 folios.

47r - 51r.

S criptorium , X III, 1959, pp. 127 - 130•

JERUSALEM, GREEK ORTHODOX PATRIARCHATE 4. Haglos Sabas 208, (C oislin),

(Menala fo r March to August), 12th cent., 161 folios.

25 - 43•

C la rk, C hecklist*••, p. 11.

5• Haglos Sabas 361, (C oislin), 11th cent«, 161 folios•

1I4 v - 118v.

C la rk, ibid* p. 12•

6. Haglos Sabas 610, (C oislin), 11th cent•, 258 folios*

108v - 112r.

C lark, Ibid.

7• Messina, B iblioteca U niversitaria MS 110. (C oislin),

73r - 76r

Tardo, L .: I m anuscript! di musica nella B iblioteca U n ive rsita ria di Messina*

In: A rch ivio S torico per la Calabria e la Lucania, t* X X III, 1954, pp. 187-204*

(31)

- 22 -

00050426

8* O chrld N ational Museum, MS 53, (Coislin) 53

12th cent., 665 pages.

284 - 293.

MoSln, V•: Les M anuscrits du Musée N ational d'Ochrida.

Iru Recueil de Travaux, édition speciale.

O chrid, 1961. pp. 179, 218-219.

9. Patmos, MS 218, (C oislin), 218

A .D . 1166, 218 folios.

N0 visible foliation»

Komlnes, A .: Facsim iles o f Dated Patmian Codices.

Athens, 1970. p. 25•

SINAI, LIBRARY OF THE MONASTRY OF ST. CATHERINE

10. No. 1214, (C oislin), 1214

lOOv 104 ־r

K am il, Catalogue...p. 127.

11. No. 1217♦, (C oislin), 1217

117r 121 ־r.

K am il, ibid.

♦MS 1217 Is the firs t part o f Sin. MS 1243.

See: F o llle rl, H ., and Strunk, O. ed.: Triodium Athoum.

Codex M onasterii Vatopedi 1488 phototyplce depictus.

MMB, Main series IX , pars principalis e t pars suppl.

Copenhagen, 1975. p. 32. No. 8

12. No. 1219, (Chartres), 1219

llth -1 2 th cent., 152 folios.

107r - 11 Or.

K am il, ibid.

13. Vienna, N ationalblbllothek 136

MS Theol. gr. 136, (Coislin), 12th cent., 265 folios.

127v - 131r.

W olfram , G. ed.: Stlcherarium Antiquum Vlndobonense.

MMB. X. Pars P rincipalis et Pars Suppletoria.

Vindobonae, 1987.

(32)

GROUP Ш

OLD RUSSIAN STICHERARIA WITH ZNAMENNAJA NOTATION Leningrad, GPB Sof. 384

A*D. 1156-1163* 1+114 folios.

50r 52 ־r.

SK No* 54, pp. 95-96.

Moscow, Gim Sinodal 572

12th cent. + 14th cent. (ff.203-216), 216 folios.

119v - 124r

SK No. 99. p. 130.

Moscow, GIM Sinodal 589

12th cent, or A .D . 1157(?), 190 folios*

133v - 136r.

SK No. 100, p. 131.

Moscow, GIM Sinodal 279 la te 12th cent., 168 folios.

74r • 74v.

SK No. 131, pp. 155 - 156.

(33)

læ METHOD OF TRANSCRIBING

L P relim inary remarks.

The orig in , sources, and the notation o f the Old Russian Chant have been a fie ld o f scholarly in te re st in East and West fo r more than 120 years, and the results achieved are substantial and prom ising*• The progress In the investigation o f the Old Russian singing tra d itio n would not be possible w ithout the rem arkable advancement made in the studies o f Byzantine Music•

I f In the 20s and 30s the e ffo rts o f the scholars were directed to revealing the secrets o f the M ediobyzantlne notation, In the last 40 years interest has also been concentrated on investigations o f the e a rlie r stages o f the Byzantine notation .2

The sta rtin g point o f this research is based on the observations o f R. P alikarova-V erdeil, O. Strunk, M. Vellm irovic^ and C. Floros, who not only asserted th a t the roots o f the Old Russian Chant could be found in

the Byzantine Music t but they also stated th a t the Znamennaja notation 3 Is closely related to the C oislin notation, presumably in one o f Its early

A e с

stages . A . Preobrazenskij , and C. Høeg v working w ith Old Russian Chant, have noticed th a t the tra nsfe r o f the Byzantine Chant to Old Russian MSS shows a clear aspiration to conform as precisely as possible to the Greek model, as regards te x t, notation, isosyllabic and isoaccent s im ila rity ^• It is absolutely reasonable, however, to hold to the statem ent o f M* V e lim i- ro vic, th a t the use o f an Identical musical notation means an Identical melody even i f the te xts are in d iffe re n t languages •Q

A t firs t sight the deciphering o f the melodies o f the Old Russian Chant may not seem especially d iffic u lt - a mere translation o f the Byzan- tin e model te xts in to Russian, and an adaptation o f th e ir melodies to the corresponding Russian version. In fa c t the progress made in the investigation

(34)

o f the Palæobyzantlne notation created a s c ie n tific precondition not only fo r com paring the neumes o f the Palæobyzantlne and the Znamennaja nota- tlo n , but also fo r determ ining the m elodic content. By use o f p a ra lle l tra t*־

scrlption, the problem o f transcribing the Russian chant apparently could easily be solved. However, a lo t o f spe cific p e cu lia ritie s make the tra nscrip- tlo n o f Znamennaja notation q u ite com plicated, and even sometimes impossible .9

N either Palæobyzantlne nor Znamennaja notation are readable by them - selves. These notations were used as a m em orizing code fo r the singers, rem inding them o f the general d ire ctio n o f the melody, which Im plies th a t a very w ell developed oral tra d itio n existed***. E.g. in the Palæ obyzantlne as w ell as In the Znamennaja notation neumes w ith polysem antic meaning could be observed: <— (Ison ־ stoplza) could be a re p e titio n , ascending or descending sign **. Therefore it is not possible to make a tra n scrip tio n o f the songs, w ritte n In these notations w ithout comparing them w ith la te r, readable sources.

In spite o f the above-mentioned undoubted s im ila rity between the neumes o f the C oislin and the Znamennaja notation there are some very im portant differences. For example

/

(Oxeia), one o f the most common signs in the Byzantine notation, Is to my knowledge not found in any Old Russian MSS. I t was used only as a part o f combined neumes - e*g*

^

/ 12

(Skamejka) in com bination w ith • ״ , as a part o f S trela e tc . . Some Russian neumes are w ithout a counterpart in the Byzantine notation - e.g.

sta tja zakrytaja ״ S tatja svetlaja ^ ' ״ K rjuk s podcaslem e tc .*^ . I t is obvious, th a t in the transmission Into Old Russian It was not always possible to keep the same number o f syllable s**, o r perhaps I t was not even desirable, since a Slavic a tte m p t at creative tra n sla tio n o f the Byzantine songs cannot be excluded***.

(35)

A nother problem Is the degree o f precision in which the Byzantine stlch e ra rlc tra d itio n was kept under the new conditions. In connection w ith the problem o f transfe rrin g Byzantine lite ra tu re to Russia, D.S. Lichacev stated th a t ”L ite ra ry works are transplanted Into new soil, and here they continue th e ir own Independent life under new conditions, sometimes w ith new form s, Just as a transplanted plant continues to liv e and grow In new surroundings..• Transplanting perm its the g ra ftin g from an old culture to develop Independently and crea tive ly on new soil. I t leads to the appearance o f local cha ra cteristics and variants o f the transplanted culture* This phenomenon is extrem ely Im portant fo r the form ation o f new cultures: a sign o f "youth" and capacity fo r life " •16

The same phenomenon has been observed by M* B ralniko v w ithin the fie ld o f the Old Russian music: " The texts have experienced fa r less a lte r־

ation than the melodies, and have remained re la tiv e ly unchanged, w hile the melodies. Judging from the external evidence o f the notation, have changed su b sta n tia lly"*^.

In connection w ith this could be added th a t In the Russian musicology the term "mnogoraspevnost1" exists. The so called "mnogoraspevnost1", which appears from the 15th cent*, Is slgnifed by more com plex neumes, and more elaborate melodies Is a typical feature o f the Znamenyj Chant. Con- slderable differences can be observed by comparing chants from the 12th cent*, w ith the chant w ritte n in 15th, 16th cent., and la te r * Maybe the18 phenomenon o f "mnogoraspevnostr " could be compared hypothetically w ith the Byzantine exegetlcal practice .19

A t present it is reasonable to believe th a t the stichera from the 12th cent* Russian MSS are very close to the Byzantine models in respect to notation and melody, and th a t the process o f transplantation has not affected

(36)

27 -

0050426

them very much approxim ately 60-70 years a fte r the conversion o f the Russians. This is also the reason why, fo r the tim e being, Russian stichera fo r A p ril from la te r periods are not taken in to account, since they could be the subject o f another big p ro je ct •20

A very succes fu i a tte m p t at transcribing the Znamenny] Chant, based on a detailed and fundam ental analysis o f the Russian k rju k l and th e ir corre- spondance and connection w ith the Byzantine neumes, has been made by C* Floros * His valuable observations, based on very ric h com parative21 m a te ria l, and the refinem ents o f his analysis are not only very Im pressive, but also a considerable co ntrib ution towards solving the d iffic u lt problem*

But sometimes in his transcriptions o f the Old Russian stichera based on sign by sign comparisons, he does not take Into account the differences which could be observed between the Sematlc and Byzantine notation* It Is not clear why some neumes were replaced by others In the Russian trans- latlons, I f the melody movement was the same* This shows th a t sign by sign comparisons between the Sem atlc and Byzantine notation alone are not always adequate fo r a precise transcription.

In his rem arkable Investigation o f the B yzantlne-Slavic musical re la tio n - ship, M* V e llm iro vic has given a very penetrating and progressive statem ent o f how the problem o f transcribing manuscripts m ight be solved* He asserts th a t: "N eum atlc notation in S lavic manuscripts cannot be transcribed by Itse lf* An approach com bining the study o f neum atlc notation, m elodic fo r- mulae, and m usical form s may help to reconstruct and te n ta tiv e ly transcribe Into present day notation parts o f some hirm oi, ye t no com plete tra n scrip tio n o f a whole hymn would seem to be possible at the present tlm e *^ •

Л2

The Ideas o f M* V e llm iro vic stim ulated my own e ffo rts in findin g a method fo r transcribing the whole melodies.

(37)

IL DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD.

I t is a w ell known fa c t th a t one o f the most ch a ra cte ristic features o f medieval a rt and its poetics Is the s tric t adherence to a norm ative system o f canonical patterns, typ ica l fo r every form o f a rt, and the tra d itio n m ain- talned w ithout noticeable change throughout centuries . For the Znamennyj 23 and Byzantine Chant, as fo r other form s o f m edieval a rt, the com bination o f the conventionality (tradlzlonnost') and In s ta b ility has been typ ica l, w ith p le n tifu l variants and d iffe re n t readings, based on a constant, unchanging structure. In spite o f the s tric t rules, which the medieval masters had to follow , and the necessity o f follow ing e xa ctly the canonical norms, the possibility o f showing personal c re a tiv ity was not com pletely excluded.

This c re a tiv ity appears not as a negation o f the dom inant tra d itio n , but as a mastery o f the fine, elaborate expressiveness, in the freedom and grace shown In applying the universal, typ ica l shemes. In the medieval Chant (Byzantine, Old Russian, Gregorian) this has been achieved by intona- tional nuances - the substitution o f some Intervals by others, sm all changes In the m elodic Unes, reversal o f the rhythm ical accents e tc ., which changed the expressive character o f the Chant, w ith o u t disturbing its main structure.

The epochmaklng form ula theory o f M. P arry, based on an Investigation o f Homer, and fu rth e r developed by A. Lord on the basis o f Serbian fo lk songs , is also valid fo r Old Russian and Byzantine Music. In Russian musi- 24 cal theory the term "popevka" Is used. "Popevka" is a short musical form ula w ith a d e fin ite modal structure and it is a basic stru ctu ra l u nit o f the Znamennyj Chant. It Is graphically stable, keeping Its delineation throughout the centuries*3. The term popevka has been re fle cte d In many Russian musical theo retical handbooks called "k o k iz n lk i" from the end o f the 16th

(38)

The m usical form ula as a stru ctu ra l elem ent In the Byzantine music was confirm ed In the western musical theory com paratively la te r, in the investigations o f E. Wellesz . He and some other scholars were able to27 show th a t every genre o f Byzantine music Is b u ilt from a certain number o f cadential, opening and m edial m elodic form ulas w ith a modal definiteness, which in proper com binations lin k the musical phrases together Into w ell organized m elodic com positions. M* V e llm iro vic dem onstrated th a t in the Old Russian H eirm ologia many m elodic form ulas from the firs t Mode have id e n tica l counterparts In the Greek Chant, and on the basis o f this Id e n tity It is possible to transcribe a p a rt o f the M edieval Russian MSS . 10 years28 ago a new valuable Investigation, dedicated to the form ulaic organization o f the Septem ber-stlchera In the Deuteros Modes appeared in Copenhagen •29 Am argianakls1 book w ith Its precise groupings o f the d iffe re n t form ulas in Deuteros Modes has been o f great help fo r my own transcriptions (since h a lf o f the melodies are in Deuteros Modes). A t firs t I trie d to fin d the connection between the O ld Russian and the Byzantine form ulas. For this purpose Am argianakls1 Index o f the form ulas In Deuteros Modes has been constantly used as a d iction a ry, and stim ulated me to com plete a concordance o f a ll corresponding form ulas in both tra d itio n s.

In Am argianakls' Analysis it is apparent th a t very often some o f the form ulas come in a fixed com bination - e.g. form ulas 7 ♦ 16 ♦ 1 or form ulas 2 ♦ 9 e tc. (according to the numbering o f Am argianakls) • Such stable 30 com binations could also be observed in the A p ril m aterial, and contribute to the transcribing o f segments containing some o f these sequences In the Russian tra n sla tio n , even i f they sometimes are not to be found In the corresponding lin e in the Byzantine sources* See examples 1 and 2.

(39)

00050426

- 30 -

Example 1.

f . 7 f . 16

г >- f . 1

«__ с- ^Ł. ⁴^— j y ->'• ⁴ ^{/ /} / / / /

14 B t H k ц е но C k Ц А Т А B H к*, в г ^{n p e} ^CH ^{Л к} ^{н а}

G a a bc b a a bc GE FG bG aG FE E

- — ^> ^У ^כ

f . 7

\ \ f < -

f . 16,

\

f . / /

1

/ / А >

12

< _ -> ־<

f

í / A ' ־ מ ׳ד

o r e Ф П Ф О Q O V oc o р (1) ѵ * а к ц а и o т а т е

G a bc b a с GEFG G bG aG FE Е

/ / / /

• ״

ד r

/

5 ,1 8

13 SN

CN

RN

Example 2.

f . 1

1 3 , 2 f> _{• «} 7_f f.♦ 16 ---_{1 ׳} I י׳

ד ^ « - «_ «_

( ï с У

ליי v ~ ׳ ׳ ל SN 12 лоѵ * o ■w н и n лн к г с г в г ноу пп и г

Ga b c b a a bc GE FG bG aG FE E

«_

JŻ

-,

— < / ->"

ט ׳־ ' ' ׳ ’ ל ז^

7 ׳ / /

R N u v e o n a t i x n v x o p e t a v e 1 1ז * p o x n aco ц е ѵ

E E FG FE D EF F G FG E FE EPG G

(40)

C0050426

- 31 -

W ith the transm ission, as mentioned before, It was not always possible to keep the same number o f syllables in the Russian translation, and this fa c t causes some e xtra problems in transcribing.

The division o f the available m a te ria l, consisting o f 13 songs, Into a to ta l o f 167 lines shows:

a) Coincidence between the numbers o f syllables - 45 cases.

b) The Russian verse w ith more syllables - 83 cases.

c) The Russian verse w ith less syllables - 33 cases.

When more syllables are used in the Russian sources, usually the process has been one o f the follow ing:

a) F illin g up w ith Ison•

Example 3•

12,10

^ L u 1 ־ L “ ׳ ־

14 елоѵ * в ни в n до лъ с ко в п с к о 06 пп 8%

b d c b b b b b b b c b a b G G

SN

/ /

x י י

CN

*־־

,ל ר

\ י

־<

Б1

60

) А&ы ек p t a0£

b bc b a ba G G י<

l i

7

י

- /

דז^

)

Opr! оке i av ־ал;

b d e b

RN

(41)

00050426

- 32 -

כ) F illin g up w ith another neume.

Example 4.

6 , 2

Z 6 /

^v

\ * y

SN 7 в г сплв ав те роу ка ин d e f cd f e d bee

CN

* 7

>

?/

\

׳>׳<״״

—

BN

xpo òr) оа

те x e i

оас

d f cd f e d bec

с) A ddition o f Ison ♦ another sign.

Example 5.

7 ,2

I

2.

« -

v

י ' V ^

SN 8 ли к г с т в о у 1-0 ne ноу пь но

d d е f c d fe d bee

CN

I »

Л ״״ ь T

—

У

׳'י '״ ד א 7׳ ״74׳

RN хо оси o v тес oto ua

d f c d fe d b cc

(42)

d) Inserting a new form ula*

Example 6«

. --- ,

13

׳ 5

< _

с /

^«—

noe да a i he et!

a a b a a

־ 3 3 -

<_

eL / /

SO C B O H>

G a b b

ו

г < ־

П Л І TW

b ba

SN 10

J -V ־ל פ• • CN

- L

י

^~

RN то ^au> ua

yao

^ôouq

b ba G ab b

Usually most o f the cases a, b, and с give a d iffe re n t variant o f the same m elodic form ula used In the Greek version.

In cases where the Russian verses contain fewer syllables, the musical translation was norm ally made In one o f the follow ing ways:

a) By using only a part o f the form ula.

Example 7.

p x и с - > י׳ /

Ч *>׳ V

1 3 , 3

SN 5 n t Ntt H TpOV ROY

DE E E FE D

CN « _ с / ר ר

8 י---— י י ו

с—

t /

» X «— c i׳׳׳ ד

RN тсоѵ а о ц а ты ѵ т л ѵ о а Х t il y т а

G a DE E GF Ga FE D

(43)

00050426

• 3 4

־

b) By using a form ula In the Greek version and a combined sign w ith the same (or almost the same) meaning In the Russian tran sla tio n.

Example 8 6 ,3

^ <S "S CL —

SN б в г еклп к н і ־ז• Во ro v

G a b c b a a b c a

v i l

✓T4 — / / / כ ל N ג ל

CN

— /✓

/

^ע ^־<

V Q

а Ха Ха Sw u e v TG) в е 0)

G a b с b а с а

8 BN

с) By applying a new formula*

Example 9.

5 , 1 6

Г - ■ ■ t 4

Ł -

U

9 :

' S ' "

SN 5 n вра г г na ve

a a EF Gb a

CN

7 ׳-- 7 ־ י

«״

נ / /-N ״״

— י דג' •* / / / /

RN к а і о ße X i ao uaX Xov

D E FG a EF Gab а

(44)

N orm ally It Is supposed th a t In places where the numbers o f syllables are Identical, the Russian redaction follow s the Byzantine one lite ra lly (or very precisely1. But the stichera o f A p ril gave quite other results than one would expect:

a) O nly In 4 o f 45 cases is there a com plete id e n tity .

Example 10.

■ ■ * 1

<— Ч с / t— e_ V //

H U O V A O O СТП t-O А О * BA

e ас d с b cb с

V V

у

V.

f f

CN — 4

^ г — י t- ■■־ - ■ ļ

\ ל׳־י

S ד> \ t/

RN x a t ФОО v n GEL т п е ХЛС

e ec d с b cb с

b) M ostly d iffe re u va rian ts o f the same form ulas are used.

Example 1L

Z .

t S

*־־ כ • Ч / /

врд хп • ке %

0

^ץ ^un ^•

d e d b c d ba G

-

S '

4

^

י » ־ =>>

_

уС• <— Z ?

V ( \ , ^, ^, e x^oov тпѵ a no vo t av CN

RN

* 2 i , 6

SN 7

* 2 1 , 5

SN 7

(45)

00050426

с) D iffe re n t form ulas are applied.

Example 12,

I — 1

f t

Ь сУ ^

no KA « N 11 t-a П Л О All

G b ab G aG FE E

כ י * ׳' 4 י

ר e_ ה ע

ך

^• ^I ^г ^ו

7־< ל ׳׳י לד י

RN тл е ие т а v ö t а с х а

о

u o u ç

G E GF Ga G F D

There are cases where the same form ulaic graphic has been used fo r presenting d iffe re n t melodies. This phenomenon could be seen In the fo l־

lowing cases:

a) A neume (or neumes) In the form ula could be Interpreted in d iffe re n t ways, because o f the m u ltip le meaning o f some signs in CN and SN.

For example

0 \

in SN and Ѵ У О ״* In CN has been used as G EF GF EF• In the transcription the counterpart in the RN has usually been follow ed. See form ulas 9 and 10 In the concordance o f the Deu- teros Modes (p.221)•

b) Some form ulas containing \ (Bareia - Palka) looking graphically equal, however, dem onstrate d iffe re n t melodies. For example the form ula

//( In 1,1; 12,17; 13,1 and 1,6) shows id e n tica l neum atlc s tn ic - tu re (by comparison w ith the M ediobyzantine counterparty) but presu- m ably indicates d iffe re n t melodies - 1,1 as: G a ca b; 12,17 and 13,1 as G a FE D; 1,6 as a с GF E.

־ 3 6 -

1 , 9

SN 7

(46)

050426

״ 37

»

S im ilar cases could be observed w ith <=־־־

V

7׳*in 5,9 transcribed as G aF G, and In 5,14 as b cb a.

The musical form ulas have not only a m elodic but also a rhythm ical value.

Many d iffe re n t rhythm ical variants in the form ulas have been dem onstrated very convincingly in Am argianakls' tables o f the form ulas. The differences In the rhythm between the Greek and the Russian form ulas have as fa r as possible always been taken Into account* The valuable observations by M. V ellm irovic and C. Floros concerning the rhythm ical p e cu lia ritie s o f the Sematlc neumes have always been used # For example one o f the31 most frequent cadentlal form ulas on E shows a rhythm ical differe nce In the Znamennaja notation because the sign 'z ' Is used in the last two syllables.

SN €—- V

// '/ "

■׳ f j i f i f J

/ /

is used as a sign fo r a double length o f the neurae (FUN 1, 195-196) and this ch a ra cte ristic feature has been re fle cte d In the transcriptions.

In the last 25 years the Interest among western m usicologists 32 in the chrom aticism in the Byzantine music has increased considerably. J. Raasted has been especially a ctive discussing chrom atic interva ls and scales In the Byzantine Music. The problem is then, how could it be explained th a t the Russians, when tra n sfe rrin g Byzantine Music onto the Russian accepted only the notation and the fo rm u la ic stru ctu re w itho u t the chrom atic character?

(47)

00050426

Follow ing the Idea o f L Borsai it may be suggested th a t presumably two versions o f songs existed, one chrom atic, and one diatonic, and fo r some reason the Russians adopted only the diatonic version • One example33 from the A p ril m aterial (10,16) could be shown to support th is allegation•

From 24 MSS in RN w ith MeSl before line 16t 6 MSS indicate c, and the other 18 MSS have с sharp (see example 13) . C e rta in ly the problem needs 34 much more a tte n tio n , fo r which more com parative m aterial is needed.

Anyhow, the A p ril stichera In Deuteros Modes ♦ the m odulation places to these Modes are transcribed d la to n lc a lly , since there Is no proof u n til now th a t chrom atic Intervals have been used In the Russian singing practice.

- 38 -

1 0 , 1 6 - 1 7

- t׳ ׳ *־/ j / f i / ° * ־ / С ״ ׳ ׳

e e e e b c d e f e * e e e b c d e f e e *

f rom G ________ .

1. L י / 1

tf ( o n l y

J i n 1 2 1 8 )

1 2 1 8 , 4 2 , 1564, 1585

2. ל י

3

דז 2 6 5 , 1223

3.

די s^~

c -fe s ķ

& ( o n l y

i n 1 4 9 2 )

1 2 3 1 , 1492, 1 2 2 0 , N

4 . > c # c Jr P h . 3 (

5 .

׳ י י * ,

, נ * * "

І c ł ^ c J t

1י ( o n l y *

i n 1 2 1 6 )

E a l l , S t . 30, 5 2 8 , 5 3 3 , 2 6 4 , 1 2 2 5 , 8 8 3 , 3 9 , 4960, 1 2 2 8 , 1232, 1216

6.

*-׳

• —

— ,

— 7

*־

,1

" /#

ד 4

f r *s

<י^

c ł g f e c *v e e e 261

(48)

0050426

׳

Two stichera have not yet been transcribed:

a) The firs t one Who Is w ith ou t a modei in the Byzantine tra d itio n , and is fo r the tim e being impossible to transcribe.

b) The Greek model fo r ПрпдѴге в ѣ о ъ н гіи ** has a d iffe re n t modal indication (Tetartos Mode) from the Russian sticheron (Plagios Protos). In this case a tra n scrip tio n cannot be undertaken w ith sa tisfa cto ry results because o f the fa c t th a t every mode has ty p ic a l form ulas o f th e ir own.

Segments w ith a ll kinds o f Thetas give some e xtra problems fo r the precision o f the deciphering, because o f the stenographic way they were w ritte n , and on account o f the re la tiv e ly great lib e rty admissible in th e ir in te rp re ta tio n . In the transcriptions the Greek model in RN has been follow ed.

» 3 9

־