Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The asmatic troparia, katavasiai, and hypakoai "cycles" in their Paleoslavonic recensions: a study in… Myers, Gregory Arthur 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1994-953721.pdf [ 6.88MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0088170.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0088170-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0088170-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0088170-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0088170-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0088170-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0088170-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

THE ASMATIC TROPARIA, KATAVASIAI, AND HYPAKOAI“CYCLES” IN THEIR PALEOSLAVONIC RECENSIONS;A STUDY IN COMPARATIVE PALEOGRAPHY.byGREGORY ARTHUR MYERSB.Mus., The University of British Columbia, 1982M.A., The University of Virginia, 1986A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY(MUSICOLOGY)illTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(School of Music)We accept this as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAMarch 1994© Gregory Arthur MyersIn presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of / (J 5 ic’The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate Jc-’ ,‘j , 2 / ‘DE-6 (2188)IIABSTRACTThis study concerns the repertory and musical notation of the medieval RussianKondakar. Five such documents survive from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries andcontain a mixed body of melismatic chants for the office and liturgy. All are notated in anarchaic yet highly complex musical notation set in two rows above, the text: a small row ofintervallic and rhythmic signs overlaid by a row of Great Hypostases. The texts are alsodistorted by the addition non-textual intercalations. For the first time the full collection ofkondakars has become available for study and comparative analysis.The transcription of this notation remained elusive until the discovery of thekondakar’s relationship to the Byzantine Asmatikon or choir book which shares much thesame repertory and melodic style with the kondakar. Further support to the KondakarAsmatikon relationship was found with the discovery of the Kastoria 8 manuscript, anAsmatikon whose notational properties recall those of the kondakar. Through a type ofcomparative analysis or “counterpart transcription” pioneered independently by KennethLevy and Constantin Floros, much has been learned about the nature of kondakarian chantsand notation.This study constitutes a rigorous application and test of their methods with the aimof expanding the repertory of the known kondakarian signs. The hymn types known astroparia and stichoi, katavasiai, and hypakoai have been drawn from the Forefeast,Christmas, and Epiphany liturgical cycles and subjected to extensive analyses with the aimof expanding the known repertory of kondakarian signs. The chants are presented andstudied within the context of the liturgical cycle and subjected to analyses on differentstructural levels. The study also takes into consideration historical factors and the role ofthe liturgical ordines in use in Rus’ in the Kievan period.The result has been an affirmation of the method’s effectiveness, an increasedrepertory of known kondakarian signs, and an advancement in our own knowledge of thekondakarian system. Fifteen melodic formula-complexes have been identified within thecontexts of the chants analyzed. These are presented in a statistical concordance whose aimis to summarise by formula the cyclic and inter-hymnodic relationships among theseshymns.IIIIn light of this new knowledge and expanded notational vocabulary, we may nowturn to that kondakarian repertory for which there is no known asmatic counterpart andtherefore no Byzantine control, i.e., the kontakia, with the hope of achieving effectivemusical reconstructions of this vast chant body. Moreover, this study has served toillustrate the medieval Russian adaptors’ assimilation and mastery of the centonateprocedure of chant construction and their degree of musical literacy, which was developedto satisfy specific musical and liturgical needs in the rarefied cultural atmosphere of KievanRus’.ivTABLE OF CONTENTSPageAbctiiTable of Contents I vList of Figures viiSigla viiiAcknowledgements xChapter One : INTRODUCTION 1Chapter Two: Background to the Period 5The Cultural and Political Climate of Kievan Rus’;Cultural Development in Rus’: The Music 1 1Chapter Three: The Musical Traditionof the Paleoslavonic Kondakar 16Toward a Definition of Kondakarnoie Pienie 16Chapter Four: The Sources 21A. The Paleoslavonic Sources 21Tipografsky Ustav 23Blagoveshchensky Kondakar 26LavrskyKondakar 29Uspensky Kondakar 31Sinodalny Kondakar 33B. The Greek Sources: Asmatika 35Grottaferrata Gamma-gamma I 37Vaticanus graecus 1606 38Kastoria 8 39Chapter Five: The Medieval Typikon and the LiturgicalPosition of the Genres;Liturgical Traditions in Medieval Rus’ 41The Definition of the Genres Troparion,Hypakoe and Katavasia, andTheir Position AngkTiln 47Chapter Six: The Notational Systems and ChantConstruction; 53The Byantine and Paleoslavonic MusicalNotational Systems Compared 56VPageChapter Seven: The Method of CounterpartTranscription; 79Transcription and Analyses:The Comparable Hymns 821 and 3. The Katavasia for the High Feastof the Archangel Michael;The First Troparion for Christmas 852. The Hypakoai for the Forefeast of Christmas 93A. The Feast of the Forefathers 93B. The Three Children in the Fiery Furnace 101The Cycle of Great Troparia for Christmas,the Katavasiai, and Stichoi 1 104. The First Katavasia for Christmas 1 105. The Second Katavasia for Christmas 1206. The Katavasia for Epiphany 1287. The Second Troparion for Christmas 137The Stichoi 1438. The First Troparion for Epiphany 151The Stichoi 1559. The Second Troparion for Epiphany 161Summary of Analyses 166Chapter Eight: Summary Reclassification ofKondakarian Great Hypostases 167Statistical Concordance of Identified Melodic Formulae 169Chapter Nine: Conclusions 188Sources and Bibliography 194Selected Terminology 207Translations of Hymn Texts 212Appendices: I. The Lavra-gamma 67 (Ly67) Neume-Catalogue 217II, III, IV. Tables of Cheironomic GesturesExtracted from Codex A899 218-220V. The Koukouzelean Didactic Song of Manuscript St. Blasien 221-222VI. The Transcription of the Koukouzelean Didactic Songfrom Codex A2444 223-224Chant Transcriptions 225Chants 1 and 3: The Katavasia/Hypakoe for the High Feastof the Archangel Michael;The First Troparion for Christmas 226Chant 2: The Hypakoai for the Forefeast of Christmas:A. The Feast of the Holy Fathers 236B. The Three Children in the Fiery Furnace 248Chant 4: The First Katavasia for Christmas 256Chant 5: The Second Katavasia for Christmas 270Chant 6: The Katavasia for Epiphany 280Chant 7: The Second Tropanon for Christmas 295viChant 8: The First Troparion for Epiphany 303Chant 9: The Second Troparion for Epiphany 308VIILIST OF FIGURESPageFigure I: Map of the KievanSte.6Figure II: Chronological List of Byzantine Emperors and Russian Grand Princes, 842-1183 9Figure III: The Uspensky Kondakar, f. 204r, showing the 1207 colophon 35Figure IV: Schema of the Kanon with its Inserted Hymn Forms 5 1Figure V: Supplement to Chapter I; List of Kievan Metropolitans, 988-1305 214VIIISIGLAActa- Acta Musicoloica.Ban-Sof. - Library of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.BBGG - Bolletina della Badia reca di Grottaferrata.DOP - Dumbarton Oaks Papers.DOS - Dumbarton Oaks Studies.GBL - Tocyapcrermai B116.uHoTeKa nea .JIeHima (Moscow State LeninLibrary).GIM - Focyapcmemur HcTopwecK1 My3e (Moscow State Historical Museum).GPB - Tocyapcmemiasi Hy6inIrEmsi EH6JnIoreKa (Saltykov-Shchedrin StatePublic Library, St. Petersburg).JAMS - Journal of the American Musicological Society.MAEO - Musica Antigua Europae Orientalis, Bydgoszcz, Poland.MdO III, IV- Musik des Ostens III and IVMateos I & II - Le Typicon de la Grande Eglise, Volumes I and II, OCA 165 &166.NBKM - National Library of Cyril and Methodius, Sofia, BulgariaNik I & II- The Nikonian Chronicle, Serge Zenkovsky, ed.MMB- Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae.NG- The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians.OCA - OrientaliaChristianaAnalecta.OCP - Orientalia Christiana Periodica.PSRL - flomoe Co6pajiie Pycciuix .1Ieromice. (The Complete Collection of RussianChronicles.)PSRT - llepBoHatanim o-Pyccxiiñ TirrnucoH.(The First Slavo-RussianTypikon.)PVL - HoBecm BpeMeJImIx JIeT (The Tale of Bygone Years or The Russian PrimaryChronjcic).RRM - Fedotov, George. The Russian Religious Mind I and II.SEC - Studies in Eastern Chant.SEEJ - Slavonic and East European Journal.SEER - Slavonic and East European Review.TsGADA - Uewrpammi ro cmemui Apxni )JpeniiHx AKT0B (MoscowCentral State Archive ofAncient Acts).TsIAM - Library and Archives of the Bulgarian Theological Academy.ixxACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI would like to express a debt of thanks to the staff of Dumbarton Oaks where Ienjoyed a Fellowship in the Summer of 1987. Thanks are also due to Doris Bradbury andthe AUCC Canada/USSR Academic Exchange for giving me the opportunity to work at theMoscow State Conservatoiy during the Fall and Spring of 1990 and 1991, as well as to thestaff of the Ivan Dujcev Centre of Slavo-Byzantine Studies in Sofia, Bulgaria, where Icontinued my research in May of 1991.I would also like to acknowledge Professors Tatiana Vladyshevskaia of theMoscow State Conservatory, and Svetlana Kravchenko of the Gnessin Institute of MusicPedagogy in Moscow for their help during my Moscow stay, and Professors ElenaToncheva and Bozhidar Karastoianov of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in Sofia fortheir advice and encouragement.I am grateful to the U.B.C. Graduate Fellowship committee for the two years offellowships, 1989-90 and 1990-91, which helped cover the costs of my education. Iexpress a particular debt of gratitude to Professor J. Evan Kreider and the U.B.C. musicfaculty for enabling me to continue my work on this unusual subject under a difficult set ofcircumstances.A very special thanks goes to Professor Milos Velimirovic of the University ofVirginia, who guided this study, for his unfailing support, and for introducing me to thistopic so many years ago.Last but not least, I would like to thank my wife, Anna Levy, for herencouragement and inestimable help in the libraries and archives of Moscow and Sofia, andmy parents for their many years of forbearance.1CHAPTER ONEINTRODUCTIONThe Western researcher has always faced many difficulties when studying thehistory of Slavic musical culture. Historically, the source of these problems was theSlavic antipathy to foreign cultural influences; the Slays always tried to keep these elementsout, resisting first Hellenization then Westemisation. Although this isolation enabled themto nurture their own culture, it also kept them outside the mainstream of Westerndevelopment and deprived them of the benefits of Classical enlightenment. Researchershave consequently faced impregnable cultural barriers, inaccessible primary material, andproblems in presenting this foreign material to Western readers.This study examines the development of Russian musical culture at the time of thereception of Christianity by Russia. Specifically, it deals with the kondakar, a type ofmedieval Russian musical-liturgical manuscript which appeared shortly after the conversionof the Russian people. Only five of these manuscripts survive. Recently, and for the firsttime, all have become available for research and comparative study. The five inchronological order are: (1) the Tipografsky Ustav (TU--eleventh century, StateTretiakov Gallery, Moscow, MS K5349); (2) the Blagoveshchensky Kondakar (BK-twelfth century, Saltykov-Shchedrin State Public Library, St. Petersburg, MS Q.n.I. 22);(3) the Lavrsky Kondakar (LK--late twelfth century, State Lenin Library, Moscow, MSTr. Serg. No. 23); (4) the Uspensky Kondakar (UK--dated 1207, State HistoricalMuseum, Moscow, MS Usp,. 9); (5) the Sinodalny Kondakar (SK--mid-thirteenthcentury, State Historical Museum, Moscow, MS Sin. Tip. No. 777).1 The centralthrust of this project is concerned with the stability of the musical tradition preserved inthese manuscripts, the problems presented by its highly complex notation, and questionsconcerning its decipherment.In this study, the method of analysis and presentation builds on the pioneering1M. Velimirovic, “The Present Status Research in Slavic Music Music,” Acta MusicologicaXLIV (1972), pp. 262-264.2work of Kenneth Levy and Constantin Floros,2 and constitutes a rigorous application andtest of their transcription theories. Entire chants are presented, examined and placed intheir historico-liturgical framework to determine the manner of performance. Lessemphasis is placed on the meanings of the individual signs and more on how the melodicformulae are combined to create the complex structures of a given chant’s melodic fabric.The basis of the discussion is the comparison of the Paleoslavonic Kondakarianrepertory with its Byzantine counterpart. It is only through a comparison of this newly-acquired material with the corresponding Byzantine repertory that the stability of themusical tradition can be determined. The Troparia and the corresponding Stichoi or verses,the Hypakoai (Responds), and the Katavasiai (hymns of descent) for four feasts have beenselected from the elaborate Eastern Church calendar. These chants are an ideal choice; theyare organised in both a liturgical and musical cycle, are of substantial length, and in the caseof the verses, offer contrasting musical styles.The relationship of the Paleoslavonic Kondakar with the Middle ByzantineAsmatikon or choir book was acknowledged by Professors Floros and Levy, the latterclaiming that:the way to a partial solution is finally opened. Ideally the unknown Slavic neumeswould be tabulated against the known signs of the corresponding Greek melodyand the equivalent notational and musical values read off. In practice the process iscomplicated by two fundamental problems. One is that the two melodic traditionshave separated...melodies have drifted apart... A second obstacle to deciphermentlies in the nature of the notation itself...this notation was not intended as a completerecord of the music it represents. Its purpose was to identify characteristic featuresfor the singer who then supplied the rest by memory. The Slavic notationmaintained this uncompromising attitude because of the continuing vigor of the oraltradition and because of the special nature of the Byzantine and Slavic melodies.3There are formidable problems complicating the labelling of the specific functionsof the individual kondakarian signs. These involve: (1) the character of the Slavic2Kenneth Levy, “The Slavic Kontakia and their Byzantine Originals, “Twenty-Fifth AnniversaryFestschnft (1937-1962), Department of Music, Queens College (Flushing, New York, 1964), Pp. 79-87;“The Byzantine Communion Cycle and its Slavic Counterpart,” Actes du Congrès Internationale d’EtudesByzantines. II. Ochride, 1961 (Belgrade, 1963), pp. 571-574; “The Earliest Slavic Melismatic Chants,”Fundamental Problems of Early Slavic Music and Poetry. (MMB Subsidia, Vol. VI, Copenhagen:Munksgaard, 1978), pp. 197-210; Constantin Floros, “Die Entzifferung der Kondakarien-Notation,” Musikdes Ostens III (1965), PP. 7-70 and IV (1967), pp. 12-44; Universale Neumenkunde, Vols. I and II (Kassel,1970).3K. Levy, “The Earliest Slavic,” p. 2063melodies preserved in the kondakars and recorded in the notation, (2) the chants’ genesisin a long established oral tradition, and (3) the origins of the kondakarian GreatHypostases in cheironomic gestures. Our knowledge of this unique collection of chants isthus accessible only through comparative structural analysis of their transcribable Byzantinecounterparts for which we can catalogue the complete inventory of melodic formulae. Thecriteria for this type of analysis will consist of three stages or levels:(1) Internal or formulaic structural analyses:The meanings of signs within a given chant are determined by the contexts andcombinations in which they appear, both with each other and with the small interval andrhythmic signs.(2) Interlineal or external structural analyses:The correspondence of these formulae are studied as they appear in largercombinations of signs, i.e., how they represent the melodic formulae that compose a lineof chant.(3) Cyclic or “Inter-hymnodic” analyses:Kondakarian chants, like their Byzantine originals, exist within liturgical orcalendanc cycles of feasts; chant cycles are often unified by a shared modality--in thisinstance Mode II Plagal or Mode VI--or melodic figuration. The best examples ofkondakarian chant cycles in which interchant correspondences are possible are those forThe High Feast of the Archangel Michael, The Forefeast of Christmas, Christmas, andEpiphany. These cycles can be expanded to include the kontakion for the given feast (forwhich there is no asmatic counterpart), and the Koinonikon or Communion chant.An exact and direct rendering of the kondakarian neumes into modern notation is,of course, impossible owing to the imprecise nature of the signs. Earlier investigationshave determined that the general formulaic or centonate construction of signs form complexpatterns which are more important than their individual meanings. Nonetheless, these donot fix pitches but rather indicate the general shape and direction of the chant melody.The deciphering of kondakarian musical notation is therefore beset with complexproblems. For instance, besides the differing cultural climates of the Greeks and Slays,local customs produce variants within a common manuscript tradition. Variants4notwithstanding, it should at least be possible to determine the contours of the melodiesshared and the general shapes of the formulae transmitted.In 1965, Professor Linos Politis discovered the Kastoria 8 Asmatikon--a uniquefourteenth-century Byzantine source employing two rows of musical notation. The lowerrow is composed of transcribable Middle Byzantine neumes, while the upper consists ofGreat Hypostases akin to those found in the kondakar. After a thorough analysis, Florosreported that a partial solution to the decipherment of kondakarian notation had beenfound.4This study also explores the possibility that the Kastoria 8 Asmatikon could be the“Rosetta Stone” of kondakarian notation. It is therefore included in all the comparativeanalyses discussed below.Finally, Levy has emphasised in several studies5 that one must constantly bear inmind the continuing vitality of the oral tradition in the initial transmission of this repertory.This point remains at the forefront of any attempts at the reconstruction of KondakarnoiePienie.4Linos Politis, “to Xetpypaa tv Kaatopu5,” Hellenika, Tome 20(1967), pp. 29-41; C. Floros, Universale Neumenkunde, (Kassel, 1970), Vol, II. pp. 265-270.5See note 2 above.5CHAPTER TWOBACKGROUND TO THE PERIOD: THE CULTURAL ANDPOLITICAL CLIMATE OF KIEVAN RUS’;BYZANTIUM AND THE SLAVS; CULTURALDEVELOPMENT-- THE MUSICThe period in Russia’s history known as Kievan or Pre-Mongol Rus’ was one ofunprecedented cultural development. Having been formed in the ninth century in theDnieper River basin on the Eastern European Plain, the Kievan State, owing to itsgeographical location on a major trade route along the Dnieper River to the Black Sea, sooncame into contact with the center of the civilised world--Byzantium--officially receivingfrom her at the end of the tenth century the Christian religion (see map, Figure I, below).1The historian Andreyev remarks that,Christianity in Russia was not transplanted into an uncultured soil, into awild desert, but into a powerful community, which though scattered andilliterate, had its own customs, art, and religion and which, insome sectors, had long maintained contacts with other civilisations.2According to Pritsak: “Kiev emerged in the second half of the tenth century as apromising satellite of the new economic capital of the world--Constantinople.”3This wasa time of diplomatic, commercial, and cultural ties, ties which were at their closest in theeleventh century when Kiev became the cultural center of Eastern Europe.Under a series of enlightened princes--the so-called Riurikid Dynasty--and startingwith the Grand Prince Vladimir Sviatoslavich (“The Great”), Kiev received fromByzantium not only diplomats and tradesmen but also architects, artists, translators, andskilled musicians.iN. D. Uspensky, “BH3a’rcKoe HenKe B KJIeBcof Pyci,” Akten des IX InternationalenByzantinisehen Kongresses, MUnchen, 1958, (Munich, 1960), p. 643.2Nikolay Andreyev, “Pagan and Christian Elements in Old Russia,” Studies in Muscovy; WesternInfluence and Byzantine Inheritance, (London: Vanorum Reprints, 1970), p. 8.3Omeljan Pritsak, The Origin of Rus’. Volume 1: Old Scandinavian Sources other than the Sagas,(Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Institute of Ukrainian Studies, 1981), p. 31.6Figure 144From: Robert Wallace. Rise of Russia. Great Ages of Man; A I-Iistory of the World’s Cultures.Alexandria, Virginia Time-Life Books, 1967, p. 19).7The surviving chronicles, for example, recall that Vladimir invited from “the Greeks”builders who constructed his “Church of the Tithe” and the “Stone Palace.”5In 1037 his son Iaroslav “the Wise” of Novgorod, became the Grand Prince ofKiev. Under him, Kiev saw the artival of artists who adorned the interior of the GreatCathedral of St. Sophia with frescoes; this church stood, like its namesake inConstantinople, at the center of the city. More importantly, Iaroslav imposed Novgorod’slegal system (“Pravda Rus’skaia”)6on the Kievan state. In doing so, he succeeded intransforming Rus’ into a territorial community by uniting the city-states of Kiev,Chernigov, and Pereiaslavl under one legal jurisdiction. This was a bold political act whichresulted in a veritable cultural revolution. He also adopted the Cyrillic alphabet and the OldChurch Slavonic language as his nation’s “lingua franca”, ensuring that Rus’ was able toinherit the Slavonic literary tradition established earlier by the Danube Bulgarians.7Iaroslav revived the cult of Boris and Gleb, princes who were martyred in 1015 bytheir older brother Sviatopolk. They were later canonised and inducted into thechurch calendar by the Bulgarian-born Metropolitan Ioann.8 The commemorationof these first Russian martyrs became the new feast of the Rus’ land and wascelebrated with great solenmity.9 In the years 1072 and 1115 respectively, on thedates of the transfer of their relics “all-national manifestations occurred,”l° resultingin the first publication of “specially compiled redactions of original collections of5For this entiy, see: Kiprian Mitropolit i Makarii Mitropolit i Dr., CTeuerraa.a [tapcKaroPooçJIoBwsJ, conepxauasi HcTopmo PoccHcKy1o ConmeHHa5i TpyrtaHpeocnsuiteBm,Ix Mrrpouojnrro 1775, tlacm 1 (Moscow, 1775), CTeneu HepBi, rn 45, p.147.6D. Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth; Eastern Europe. 500-1453, (London: Weidenfeldand Nicolson, 1971), p. 319. The earliest version of this legal code was compiled in the eleventh century.7lbid., p. 32.8See the list of the twenty-four metropolitans from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries in theAppendix. It is interesting to note that of the total, only two, Hilarion and Klim, were Russians. Of theothers, at least seventeen were Greek, the remainder, Bulgarian.Furthermore, S. Zenkovsky, in the introduction to Volume 1 of his English translation of theNikonian Chronicle (3 vols., Princeton: the Kingston Press, Inc., 1984, pp. LX-LXIII), points out that theearliest Russian Church was under a Bulgarian and not a Constantinopolitan bishopric.9The principal date commemorating Sts. Boris and Gleb, according to the liturgical calendar, is 24July. But a total of six times a year are reserved for their veneration. (Pritsak, 2P çj., p. 32).100. Pritsak, The Origin, p. 34.8annals made at ...the Kiev Monastery of the Caves,” the new intellectual center ofEastern Europe.’1Iaroslav divided Rus’ into appanages distributed among his five sons, but with hisdeath in 1054, the principalities of Rus’ gradually lost political unity, which, in the twelfthcentury, resulted in three separate political centers that paid only nominal homage to Kiev:(1) the Grand Principality of Kiev; (2)the North-Eastern Principality of Suzdal; and(3) theSouth-Western Principality of Galicia, what is now Ukraine.12 North-Eastern Russiaemerged as the strongest ally of Byzantium, and the Suzdalian princes were the forebearsof the grand princes of Muscovy, which became the political and cultural center of Russiain the fourteenth century (see Figure II, below, for a chronological list of Byzantine rulersand Kievan heads of state.)1 iLoc cit., p. 34.12j0Meyendorff, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, (New York: Cambridge University Press,1981), p. 7.9John 1(969-976)Basil 11(976-1025)Romanus III (1028-34)Michael IV(1034- 1041)Constantine IX Monomachus(1042-1055)Isaac 1(1057-1059)Alexius I (1081-1118)John 11(1118-1143)l3The list of Byzantine rulers and Russian Grand Princes and Princesses were drawn from GeorgeOstrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, (trans. Joan Hussey, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968), pp. 578-579; and An Encyclopedia of World History. (William L. Langer, ed., Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,1968), pp. 194, 260, 270, 341.Figure IIA chronological list of Byzantine Emperors and Russian Nobility (842-1222)13Byzantium RussiaMichael 111(842-867) Rurik (862-879)Basil 1(867-886) Oleg (879-912)Leo VI (886-912) Igor (913-945)Constantine VII (945-959) Olga (945-961)Romanus 11(959-963) Sviatoslav I (962-972)Nicephorus 11(963-969) laropolk I the Accursed(973-980)Vladimir the Great (980-1015)Sviatopolk (1015-19)Iaroslav the Wise (1019-54)Iziaslav I (1054-1078)Vsevolod I (1078-1093)Sviatopolk 11(1093-1113)Vladimir Monomach(1113-25)Mstislav 1(1125-1132)laropolk 11(1132-1139)Iziaslav 11(1146-1154)luri Dolgoruki (1154-1157)Manuell(1143-1180)Manuel 1(1143-1180) Andrei Bogoliubsky(1157-74)Michael (1175-1176)Alexius 11(1180-1183)Andronicus 1(1183-1185) Vsevolod III “Great Nest”(1176-1212)Isaac II (1185-1195)(1203-1204)Alexius III (1195-1203)Alexius IV (1203-1204)Theodore I Lascaris (1206-1222)1011After Vladimir Monomach (1113-1128), Iaroslav’s grandson, new centersdeveloped which gradually overshadowed Kiev. Further difficulties beset Kiev when in1169, Prince Andrei Bogoliubsky of Rostov-Suzdal sacked the city and transferred the seatof the Grand Prince to the city of Vladimir. This act resulted in the emancipation of theSouth-Western principalities of Galicia and Volynia.l4Concurrent with these events, the twelfth century also witnessed the rise of theRepublic of Novgorod “the Great”, with its strong Western political and economic ties. Asa close neighbour of the Scandinavian lands and the Baltic states, and as a member of theHanseatic League, she enjoyed a protracted period of prosperity and independence until herannexation to the Moscow State in the fifteenth century.In the twelfth century, crucial economic ties with Byzantium were graduallyloosened; those ties were effectively severed in the thirteenth century when both lands wereoccupied by foreigners: the Latin crusaders in Constantinople (1204) and the Tatars inRussia (1237-1240). Because of their geographic locations, Novgorod and Galich werethe only centers spared the devastation of the Mongol invasions which began in 1237 whenthe first of the medieval Rus’ cities, Riazan, fell to their war machine. After Kiev wasdestroyed by the armies of Batu Khan in 1240, all of Rus’ came under the Tatar yoke.Nevertheless, in spite of the drastically changed condition of the land, unity was maintainedby the Orthodox Church, whose representative was still the Metropolitan of Kiev appointedby the Patriarch in Byzantium.’5Yet in summing up that remarkable period from the official adoption of Christianityin the ninth/tenth centuries to the fall of the Kievan state in the thirteenth century, Andreyevobserves that,Indisputably, Byzantine influence after the introduction of Christianitygave both form and content to Russian culture, but the pagan foundationacted as a counterbalance which prevented the full unquestioningabsorption of the Byzantine heritage.’6I 4j Meyendorff, Byzantium and the Rise., p. 16.‘5iPi4.p. 17.16N. Andreyev,. cit., p. 19.12Cultural Development in Rus’--The MusicThe cultural climate ofmedieval Rus’ during the eleventh to thirteenth centuries--roughly that period from the official Christianisation at the end of the tenth century to theMongol invasions of 1 237--fostered the development of a complex and rich musical styleand notation, remnants of which are found in the kondakar. Byzantium knew how tomaintain cultural pluralism; the Slays received Christianity in their own language andpreexisting Slavic translations from the Moravian and Bulgarian mission of Saints Cyriland Methodius were brought to Rus’. The seamless union of text and musical notationevidenced in the surviving manuscripts strongly supports the hypothesis that while Rus’received Christianity with its rich ceremonial and liturgical books from Byzantium, shereceived it in toto through the intermediary of the South Slays, particulary through theMacedonians and Bulgarians. Indeed, according to Shchapov, the basic mass of Slavictranslations from the Greek, known in Rus’, was the result of the work of these Slavicenlighteners and their disciples.’7The bulk of these were made in Bulgaria under TsarSymeon, and translations from the Greek in Rus’ were organised by Iaroslav who“assembled many scribes who translated many books from Greek in the Slav language”(1037).18As attested by surviving documents, Rus’ maintained a compliance in her liturgicaltexts and customs with those of Constantinople. Included among those books translatedwere musical manuscripts which recorded, in their oldest forms, the melodies to which thesacred texts were sung. An examination of the oldest surviving Paleoslavonic documentsreveals the remarkable process of adaptation and assimilation that occurred in this earlyperiod. Rus’, however, after the Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century and thesubsequent disappearance of the kondakars,19 evolved its own indigenous musical7laroslav Shchapov, I’ocyljal,cr’Bo t Tjepo B jipeBuen Pycn, X-XHI BB, (Moscow: HayKa,1989), pp. 176-177.l8The Nikonian Chronicle I (S. Zenkovsky ed., Princeton, N. J.: the Kingston Press, 1984), p.142; and, The Russian Primary Chronicle, (trans. S. Cross and H. Sherbowitz-Wetzor, Cambridge, Mass,1953), p. 137.l9Although the kondakars disappeared, manuscript types like the Heirmologion and Sticherarioncontinued to be copied. These contained a type of archaic notation known as Coislin (see below), reservedfor settings in a more or less syllabic melodic style. It is in these sources that the transition to theZnamenny musical tradition is evident.13system--the Znamenny chant—which may or may not have coexisted as an orallytransmitted musical tradition from pre-Christian times. Curiously, what emerged laterseems to have had no connection with Kondakarnoie Pieme.What was the state of Byzantine Chant at the time of its reception in Rus’?According to Velimirovic, this music,the Byzantine Chant, was moulded according to the “melody of speech”of the Greek language, expressing the stresses and modulations of thevoice while enunciating the text. One of the first concerns in the processof the Christianisation of the Slays was to obtain the correct interpretation of thetext, so that the worship of the Slays could follow the same pattern as practised bythe Greeks.20Rus’ regarded the musical notation in which the Byzantine chant was written to be assacred as the texts themselves, faithfully copying the archaic signs in the same form forover two centuries after their reception, while in Byzantium itself, the system of musicalnotation was continually evolving.2’Once again, Velimirovic provides us with some basic points concerning its nature:(a) The oldest known manuscripts with the Byzantine chant datefrom about 950 A.D. If the Slavic Apostles [Sts. Cyril and Methodius]were instrumental in communicating to the Slays any musical aspects ofthe services, this was achieved in a purely oral tradition.(b) From about the middle of the tenth century, until the second half of thetwelfth there were two basic systems of signs--neumes--in use in Byzantium formusical notation. These oldest layers of Byzantine neumatic notation haveremained illegible to this day. The meaning of this notation can only be inferred incomparative studies with the help of manuscripts from later periods. Transcriptionsinto modern notation are possible from the end of the twelfth century onwards.(c) The whole body of chant is, as far as its musical organisation isconcerned, transmitted in eight so-called Modes (echoi).(d) Byzantine musical manuscripts have a typology of their own. Chants forspecific functions (or of the same type) usually are gathered together...(e) Finally, one of the essential features of Byzantine musical styleis the profuse use of melodic formulae as basic structural elements in the processof composition.2220M. Velimirovic, 9’he Influence of the Byzantine Chant on the Music of the Slavic Countries,Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Oxford. 1966, (London, 1967), p.121.p. 127.22M. Velimirovic, bc. cit., pp. 119-120.14Concerning the second of the above points, the conventionally acceptedterminology for the two types of Byzantine musical notation for which we have survivingexemplars are Coislin and Chartres , named after the places where the Western collectionsof these manuscripts were first studied.23 Both types are represented in the Russianmanuscripts from this period.Uspensky has moreover determined three artistic “strains” of music brought to Rus’from Byzantium in the early years following its Christianisation.24 The first of these hehas labelled “Pro-Byzantine” and is that belonging to the episcopy--the higher ranks ofclergy, including bishops, archbishops, metropolitans, and the Patriarch himself--compiledby the Greek monks of the Kiev Monastery of the Caves, and by learned members of thearistocracy. This social stratum aspired to the mastering of the Byzantine musical tradition.To this group most likely belongs the manuscript tradition of the kondakars. The secondgroup Uspensky characterises as the more moderate, including the majority of ordinaryRussian clergy, who worked liturgically more or less independently of the cathedral ornoble court.They accepted the Greek liturgical texts of the chants and the eight-modalsystem as the general compositional basis of the linear construction of the texts andmelodies, and also the notation, but they did not confine the creative possibilities tothe mastering of only the prepared Byzantine melodies.25Uspensky characterises the third strain as the antipode of the first. To this group,belongs the minority of Russian clerics who by the virtue of rigorousattachment to the grey-haired days of yore of their forefathers or by thevirtue of insufficient preparation for the mastering of Byzantine musicalculture--restricted the acceptance of it only to the very necessary, namely theliturgical texts, without which the services themselves would have beeninconceivable.26To this latter classification belongs the large collection of unnotated sources.27 “Here thesinging was rendered according to the personal artistic tastes of the singers and theirp. 125.24N. D. Uspensky, “Bn3awrancKoe,” p. 653.25N. D. Uspensky, be. cit., p. 653.26N. D. Uspensky, bc. cit., pp. 653-654.27These are the so-cailed “Putiaty Menaia”, which comprise the central collection of annotatedliturgical manuscripts.15creative intuition.”28 It is the first of Uspensky’s musical “strains”, the Pro-Byzantine, thathas the greatest significance to our study, because doubtless it is for this group that thekondakars and the complex musical style were created.Regarding the musical style these notations recorded, melismatic and syllabictraditions coexisted in this early period and could have been two aspects of the same idea.As the former fell into disuse, the latter emerged in the monastic setting as the dominantmusical style of the new Znamenny tradition. In the century that followed the Mongoldevastation of Southern Rus’, with the subsequent migration into the wilds of NorthernRussia and the founding in the fifteenth century of monastic communities in, for example,Beloozero or Perm, the musical tradition evolved almost imperceptibly from a Byzantine“melos” to a Znamenny one, while adapting the musical notation to the emergent musicalstyle.Is Kondakarnoie Pienie a derived tradition or an original phenomenon, a product ofa unique set of cultural circumstances? Two possible hypotheses as to its origins should beconsidered in turn. Firstly, it is conceivable that the Slays, especially those in Rus’, had adistinct musical tradition, originally derived from, but in function and practice independentfrom Greek-speaking Byzantium. It is notable, for example, that at least one contemporaryPaleo-Bulgarian musical manuscript with notation survives from the thirteenth century, theZografskii Trifo1o.29Although only a small portion is notated, it may be sufficient for acomparative analysis with the medieval Russian sources. It is perhaps a coincidence thatthe curious hypostases found in the few notated lines resemble some of those found in theBlagoveshchensky Kondakar’s troparia to the Archangel Michael.This evidence then suggests that one should search for a Paleoslavonic rather thanPaleobyzantine archetype for the kondakar, perhaps one that was engineered on SouthSlavic or at least Southern Rus’ soil. It is therefore conceivable that an extinct archetypecould have been a Paleoslavonic “Proto-Kondakar” rather than Greek Paleobyzantine.28N. D. Uspensky, jçç. cit., p. 654.29R Palikarova-Verdeil, L.a Musigue chez les Russes et les Bulgares, MMB Subsidia Vol. III,(Copenhagen: Munksgaard and Boston: Byzantine Institute, Inc., 1953), pp. 76,222,227ff; Stoian Petrovand Khristo Kodov, CTapo61m’apc Myxaam flaMeninrw, (Sofia. Bulgana HayKa H Ryc’rno1973), p. 148ff. See the comparative table of Paleobyzantine and Paleoslavonic signs reproduced fromElena Toncheva, Hpo6aeim i. CTapa’ra. &i,iirapcKa. Mrna. (Sofia, Bulgaria: HaTeiIcmo HaygaH3Kycmo, 1975), in Appendices II-IV.16Such a source could even have descended from the same common choral tradition thatfostered the Italo-GreekAsmatikon.30The only perceptible changes from such anarchetype to the surviving generation of sources would be a linguistic evolution from aSouthern to Eastern recension of the Old Church Slavonic language and the gradualdisappearance of the Great Hypostases.In sum, it is difficult to perceive the Paleoslavonic Kondakars as mere slavishcopies of Greek originals; since all surviving sources are late we can only be assured of acoexistent Greek and Slavic tradition from at least the eleventh century. There possiblycould even exist a yet-to-be-discovered Paleoslavonic source from the turn of the fourteenthcentury showing the next phase in evolution of the notation.31In opposition to this theory is the one which is more traditionally accepted andacceptable: that Kondakarnoie Pienie is Constantinople’s legacy to Rus’--witness the well-documented fact that the Constantinopolitan typikon was in use simultaneously in Rus’during this period along with the Alexian Studite Rule employed in the monasteries.32 Thisis further attested to by the presence of elements of the Constantinopolitan All-ChantedOffice in the “Azmatik” section of the Blagoveshchensky Kondakar (ff. 1 14a-121a) whichwill be discussed at length below.30K. Levy, 9’he Slavic Kontakia,” p. 85.3lThat such a source and notational phase could have existed is seen in the neumation of thesecond Koinonikon for the Dead, found in the UK, f. 204r. Here the row of great hypostases all but ceasesto exist.32See Chapter Five below.17CHAPTER THREETHE MUSICAL TRADITION OF THE PALEOSLAVONICKONDAKAR: TOWARD A DEFINITION OFKONDAKARNOIE PIENIE;Kondakarian musical notation is preserved in only five manuscripts which datefrom the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries.1 This system was used to notate a body ofhighly melismatic chants, the bulk of which were kontakia, hence its name. Kondakariannotation, like that of the Byzantine it does not fix the pitch of a chant melody. Moreover, itis unusual in that it comprises a complex script of two rows of neumes: a small row ofintervallic and rhythmic signs, and a row of Great Hypostases positioned above the smallsigns, which seems to record entire melodic formulae in a sort of stenographic shorthand.This archaic and enigmatic yet highly complex notational system was undoubtedly capableof recording all the subtle melodic and rhythmic nuances for which it was intended.2 Thesystem was obviously of Byzantine origins, its closest analogue being the Chartres systemof Paleobyzantine musical notation, preserved in a collection of eleventh-centurymanuscripts. Often, however, the kondakarian hypostases bear only a cursoryresemblance to the Chartres signs; furthermore, the kondakarian system is unique in that ithas neumes systematically ordered in two rows above the text.In contemporary Russian musicology the accepted definition of KondakamoiePienie is “singing with cheironomiae”.3 In this regard the 1647 Euchologium graecorumof J. Goar includes the following description of what the practice of cheironomiae entailed:After the Kanonarches (master of the Kanon) had intoned the first verse of theTroparion from the hymn book, the Domesticos, who could be seen by all,directed the singers with the movements of his right hand and with certain gestures:raising, lowering, extending, contracting, or putting together his fingers, andinstead of the musical signs he formed the various melodic groups and theinflections of the voice in the air. And everyone watched the leader of the choirattentively and followed, as one might say, the structure of the wholecomposition.4tSee page 1 above.2This seems to contradict Levy’s hypothesis concerning the role of oral tradition in KondakarnoiePienie. The detailed aspects of the notation can, however, be taken into consideration if one regards thekondakar as the sole property of the Domesticos, who led singers trained in the oral tradition.3Yuri Keldysh, Hcwpng Pycctco MyiIKIf, Vol. 1 (Moscow: Myaia, 1990), p. 51.4The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Vol. 4 (S. Sadie, ed. London: MacMillan& Co.), p. 195.18Among the most thorough of contemporary studies of cheironomiae is that done byConomos in his 1974 dissertation, Byzantine Trisagia and Cherubika of the Fourteenth andFifteenth Centuries.5According to Conomos, Byzantine musical manuscripts of the lateEmpire are full of such cheironomic signs which are usually written in red and situatedabove or below the black intervallic signs. These cheironomic signs are also found in theearliest Byzantine sources containing the ecphonetic notation.6 Conomos’ discussionincludes many references to late Byzantine treatises on music which refer to these signs asGreat Hypostases. Alone, these signs are voiceless and meaningless. But according to thenineteenth-century Greek music theorist and reformer, Chrysaphes, “when tied to the majorneumes they create and broaden melody.”7 This also seems to be the origin of thekondakarian hypostases: cheironomic symbols stenographically depicting entire melodicfigures.The vast majority of the hypostases encountered in the Paleobyzantine notationalsystem disappeared with the advent of the diastematic or Middle Byzantine system ofnotation, but their functions remained “spelled out” in small intervallic signs. This“spelling out” is best illustrated by the Didactic Song attributed to the fourteenth-centurymaster John Koukouzeles. This is a pedagogical composition preserved in numerousByzantine and Slavic musical manuscripts from the fourteenth to the nineteenth centuries,which employs as its text the names of about sixty melodic formulae and whose functionsprovide the melody.8From a commentary by Gabriel Hieromonachos, a monk who resided in themonastery of Xanthopoulos, and as recorded in the fifteenth-century treatise on music byChrysaphes, we learn that:5Thessaloniki: The Patriarchal Institute, 1974, pp. 325-367.6”Ecphonetic” or “Lectionary” notation is that intended for texts which required only simplecantillation and vocal inflection, and not an elaborate musical setting. Such texts included the Epistles andGospels.7Conomos, 2P• ., p. 326.8Gabor Devai, ‘9’he Musical Study of Cucuzeles in a Manuscript from Debrecen,” Acta AntiguaAcademiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Tom Ill, Facs., 1-2, (Budapest, 1955), pp. 151-179; and, ‘The MusicalStudy of Koukouzeles in a Fourteenth-Century Manuscript,” Act Antigua Academiae ScientiarumHungancae, Tom VI (1958), pp. 213-235; Edward V. Williams, John Koukouzeles’ Reform of ByzantineChanting for Great Vespers in the Fourteenth Century. (Doctoral Dissertation, Yale University, 1968).19In the art of chanting, the “theseis” are created by the said phonetic andsoundless signs which play the same role as do words in grammar.The”cheironomiae” discriminate these and discern whether they are correct or not,for, as we have said, the signs which have a single sound each are six: one wouldplace them indifferently and not each in the appropriate position without the“cheironomiae” which makes known to us the place for each and allocates by thehand how to create the appropriate “theseis”.The cheironomiae is not only useful for these reasons, but we also use itas an aid and a guide in the chants, since, just as those engaged in discussion decideto take a rest and become more inventive by moving their hand and even some theirwhole bodies, in the same way the chanters improve their chant by moving theirhand. For this and other reasons, if the “cheironomiae” did not exist, a “panphony”but not a “symphony” would be created, for since we all use the same and not.different sounds, one [sound] would still precede and the other follow, the one saysthe “eso” and the other the “exo” even if the “cheironomiae” which guides all ofthem did not exist. All of us make symphony by looking at the hand of thedomesticos, and for these reasons the “cheironomia” is more useful to us.9The term “theseis” here refers to the union of signs which forms the melody. ToChrysaphes, the “theseis” played the same role as syllables in speech: the gatheringtogether of individual sounds into melody. This concept of “theseis”, however, is a lateByzantine one and we can only speculate as to whether Rus’ knew it in the eleventh centuryduring the formative years of Kondakarnoie Pienie.Cheironomiae and the hypostases which represent these gestures, when tied to atext, also suggest another aspect, that of the “iconic”, i.e., the graphic or pictorial. As willbe shown in the discussion of the First Troparion of Christmas, found in two of thekondakars, one of the hypostases employed depicts a word in the text: “star.” The sign inquestion is identified as the Paleobyzantine Stavros apo Dexias; this identification suggestsyet another application of these signs as mnemonic devices for committing a given text tomemory.lOKondakarian musical notation may therefore be defined as a highly complex andcodified system of cheironomic gestures or symbols; the chants were transmitted andlearned through a living oral tradition brought to Rus’ from Byzantium by way of the SouthSlavic lands; the notation was devised and employed as a mnemonic device. The highpoint of its development seems to have been in the mid to late twelfth century, followed bya period of decline around the time of the Tatar invasions.9D. Conomos, The Treatise of Manuel Chrysaphes, The Lampadarios. (MMB, Corpus Scriptorumde Musica, Vol. 2, Vienna, 1988), p. 80.10fhe LavrskyKondakar, f. 109r.20Kondakarnoie Pienie disappeared in the second half of the thirteenth century; theapparent simplification of the notation in the later kondakars can be construed as anindication that the complex notation was evolving out of existence.11 It is, however,possible that many of the musical signs and perhaps even some of the repertory could havebeen absorbed in the emergent Demestvenny tradition of the fifteenth and sixteenthcenturies.12 We also know that Kondakarnoie Pienie, as a choral genre, was associatedwith certain poetic forms and used in an urban cathedral environment rather that inmonasteries.Although the curious paucity of sources has often puzzled scholars, there may bediscernable reasons for it. Professor Vladyshevskaia of the State Conservatory in Moscowcontends that the small number of surviving kondakaria--as the book of the Domestikos orchoir leader--is proportional to that of the other manuscript types.13 It is also notable thatindividual kondakarian chants can be found in other manuscript types containing an entirelydifferent repertory.14 Some of these even display a unique application of the notation. Afine example can be found on three folios of a twelfth-century Slavonic Sticherarionpublished by Nikishov in his article “CpanTeJrJNasi flaizeorpa4rnii KoiaKapHoroflnciia XI-XIV BeK0B”,lS in which kondakarian hypostases and intercalated text appearmidway through a Mode VIII Stichos to the first Rus’ Martyrs, Boris and Gleb.16The existence of such a chant has some curious implications, namely an unusualapplication of the notation and intercalations. These kondakarian “inserts” which functionlike melismatic and notational “tropes” are also found interspersed throughout the chants ofthe Lavrsky Kondakar. They are inserted between chant lines and are even found in the1 lCompare a setting of chant in the early Tipografsky Ustav or BlagoveshchenskyKondakar withthe version of the same chant in the later Uspensky or Sinodalny Kondakars.l2This was a highly florid chant-dialect related to the Znamenny tradition, but having its owndistinct notational system; it was not governed by the octomodal system.l3Professor Vladyshevskaia conveyed this to me in one of our weekly conversations while I wasstudying at the Moscow State Conservatory in the Fail of 1990.l4An example of an independent kondakarian chant can be found in the twelfth-century NovgorodMenaion for August, kept in the State Historical Museum, which has on ff. lr-lv the katavasia for theFeast of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin written in kondakarian notation.l5Musica Antigua Europae Orientalis, Bydgoszcz, Poland, Actes du Congresse IV, pp. 570-572.I6Jbjd., p. 572.21margin and at the bottoms of folios. Also they are to be found on the few notated folios ofmanuscript OIDR 107, the “Sixth Kondakar” (see below, next chapter), where they areplaced in a more or less syllabic musical and textual fabric as optional or alternativemelismas. These kondakarian signposts suggest that they were either the intermittentinterjections of a psalte-chorus or part of a pedagogical process in which the chanter(s)learned these melismas in “blocks”. Further discussion will be undertaken in the specificexamples selected below.An examination of any folio of Kondakarnoie Pienie reveals chants of virtuosicproportions in spite of the choral idiom. The often-cited reference to the presence of threeGreek singers in the chronicles and in the sixteenth-century CTeuelmasl Kmira (TheBook of Degrees), if it is indeed a cursory reference to Kondakarnoie Pienie, could meanthat it was intended for a small ensemble of virtuosi, perhaps three, of either foreign orforeign-trained musicians. This could explain the small number of existing manuscripts,lack of duplicate copies, and their small format.17l7NikI, p. 151, (1051) ‘The same year, three Greek singers with their families came to Kiev.”See also the CTeueImasl Knm’a,. cii. CTenen. Bropo, 6-asi. P. 244.22CHAPTER FOURTHE SOURCESA . The Paleoslavonic SourcesThe most concise and accurate description of the five kondakars is that written byBugge in his introduction to the Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae published facsimileedition of the Uspensky Kondakar.l Bugge demonstrates that in spite of a shared repertoryand general structural similarity, each of the five kondakars differs markedly from oneanother. This suggests that each represents a sub-tradition or the practice of the localchurch or cathedral for which they were written and used.The BK2 and UK are available in high-quality published facsimile editions;photographs of the TU were made available to this writer by Professor Vladyshevskaia ofthe State Conservatory in Moscow; and after considerable effort, a copy of the LK wasobtained from the State Lenin Library in Moscow.3 Only the last of the five, the SKremains locked away in the State Historical Museum in Moscow while that facility is closedindefinitely for major renovations.4It cannot be over emphasised that any analysis of Kondakarnoie Pienie will remainincomplete without access to all five sources--all are essential to establish the stability of therepertory and musical style transmitted. The kondakar must also be considered in the broadscheme of liturgical documents--how the mixed body of melismatic chants compares withthe repertories of other manuscript types, as well as how their actual use was prescribed bythe liturgical typikon.In general the kondakar contains a compendium of highly melismatic chants for theOffice and Liturgy; in its overall construction and repertory it has an affinity with the1A. Bugge, ed. Contacarium Paleo-Slavicum Mosquense, MMB, Volume VI, Main Series,(Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1960).2Bausteine zur Geschichte der Literatur bei den Slawen: Der altrussische Kondakar Auf derGrundlage des Blagovescenskij Nizegorodskij Kondakar, Tomus II: Blagovescenskij Kondakar (facsimile).(Edited by Antonin Dostal and Hans Rothe in association with Erich Trapp. Giessen: Wilhelm SchmitzVerlag, 1976); MMB VI, Main Series (Copenhagen, 1960).3 My thanks to Mr. I. Liovoshkin of the Moscow State Lenin Library for providing this copy.4A photocopy , however was generously provided by Nina Konstantinova of Copenhagen.23Byzantine Asmatikon augmented by a full complement of kontakia in the choral or asmaticstyle for the Fixed Liturgical Year, Triodion, Pentecostarion, and Oktoechos.24I. The Tipografsky Ustav (TU)Moscow State Tretiakov Gallery, No. K5349 (Tipografskoi Bibi. No. 142 or Nos.285 and 1206 with kondakar), eleventh century, parchment, 126 folios:The Tipografskii Ustav or Pskovsky Kondakar is thought to be the oldest extantmusical manuscript from Rus’. This fact alone assures it of a certain three-foldsignificance: (1) it contains the oldest collection of Slavic liturgical music; (2) it probablypreserves the oldest stratum of Byzantine music in both choral and solo styles; and (3) as aliturgical typikon it is the oldest surviving exemplar of the Alexian Studite Liturgical Rulebrought to Rus’ and translated by the Venerable Theodosius of the Kiev Monastery of theCaves.5The TU is unique in construction and content. For each date or feast the text isprovided without notation or textual intercalations; this is thought to have a pedagogicalfunction, providing its user with the opportunity to study the text before performing it. TheTU has an economical design; of the five kondakars it is the only one to provide, like itsByzantine counterpart, the first ikos after each kontakion, without notation but with modalindication and whether the chant is an Automelon or Prosomoion. The TU shares with theBK (discussed below) sections of miscellaneous chants of a special nature in a contrastingnotational style, following the kondakar part of the manuscript. Unfortunately, much ofthe TU is unnotated and includes neither hypakoai nor koinonika.The first part of the TU is prefaced by part of a liturgical typikon based on theAlexian Studite model for the Triodion (if. lr-21r). This is followed by directions on bowto sing the Kathisma and the Pannychis (ff. 21v-24r).6The musical part of the TU has the following construction in two main divisions:5M. Lisitsyn, HepBoRaia3IIm Criano-Pyccn Timnou: HcTOPHKOApieoaormmecKoe HcrfetoBaHRe, (St. Petersburg, 1911), pp. 199-2006For definitions of these terms, please see the glossary at the end of this study.25PART AIa. The Kontakia of the Fixed Liturgical Year, ff. Two Miscellaneous Kontakia, ff. 92v-93v:(1) Dedication of a Church, Mode IV (f. 92v);(2) Molieben to the Theotokos, Mode VI (f. 93v).Ic. The Akathistos Hymn, ff. 59r-64r.II. The Kontakia oftheTriodion, ff. 79v-87r.III. The Kontakia of the Pentecostarion, ff. 87v-91v.IV. The Kontakia of the Oktoechos (Resurrection), 94r-96v.PART BV. The Kathismata of the Oktoechos with Pasapnoaria, ff. 97v- 11 lv.VI. The Festal Alleluiarion, ff. 11 lv- 1 17r.VII. OktoechalSticherarion, ff. 1 17v-125v. Folios 126r-126v containdamaged fragments of Resurrection Kontakia.Manuscript FeaturesEach of the kondakars contains its own unique collection of chants. As the oldest,the TU is perhaps the most interesting. Starting with the kontakia of the fixed liturgicalyear, the TU has chants for the following feasts which are not found in the other foursources:30 September, St. Gregory of Armenia; Mode VI, Prosomoion, f.3 lv.30 January, The Three Luminaries; Mode I, Automelon, f. 53v.8 February, St. Theodore Stratilates; Mode II, Prosomoion, f. 56r.6 March, The Forty-Two Martyrs; Mode Unknown, f. 57v.25 March, The Akathistos Hymn, Mode IV, ff. 59r-64r.2 June, St. Nicephorus; Mode I, Prosomoion, f. 68r.2617 July, St. Marina; Mode IV, Prosomoion, f. 72r.In the case of the Triodion, most feasts are interrupted by lacunae. For thePentecostarion the TU has a kontakion for the fourth week after Easter on f. 88r.Unfortunately, the mode is unidentifiable because of the poor condition of the folio.For the remainder of the kontakia in the TU, there are settings for the ResurrectionKontakia in all eight modes as well as for the Dedication of a Church and the Molieben orPrayer Service to the Theotokos.27II. The Blagoveshchensky Kondakar (BK)St. Petersburg (GPB) State Public Library, Saltykov Shchedrin, No. Q.n.I.32(Imperial Public Library No. 32), twelfth century, parchment, 130 folios.That the BK has immaculately written and highly stylised neumation suggests tothis writer that it was created and intended for use by a person with high social status.Circumstantial evidence also indicates that Novgorod or even Rostov Velikiy could havebeen its place of origin. Rostov Velikiy had an apparently longstanding—until the end ofthe fourteenth century--local custom of antiphonal choral singing in the cathedrals in whichone side chanted in Greek while the other responded in Slavonic.7 The chants of the BKcontain the most Byzantine elements; these include intonation formulae or epechemata,individual Greek words, and entire lines of Greek text rendered in Slavonic letters. Themost famous of these transliterations is the “bilingual” Hypakoe for the feast of theExaltation of the Cross (14 September--f. 84v), which is presented first in Slavonic andthen immediately following, in a Cyrillic transliteration of the Greek text with the samemusical notation.7Golubinsky, HcTop PyccKo IIepnK, I, I, pp. 359-360; 0. Fedotov, RRM I, Concerningthe use of the Greek language and the knowledge of Greek culture in Rus’, Fedotov writes:We have seen that the Slavonic liturgy and the Slavonic Bible cut off the Russian peoplefrom immediate contact with Greek culture in its Byzantine as well as its classical forms.This barrier, however, was not unsurpassable; at least, Byzantium was living andflourishing close at hand and Russia had constant intercourse with the Byzantine empire inpolitical, commercial, and ecclesiastical matters... Greek prelates came to Russia as Metropolitansof Kiev, sometimes as bishops of provincial cities... Russians travelled to Greece as pilgrims,living as monks in the monasteries of Constantinople and on Mount Athos. On Athos there hadbeen a Russian monastery from early times. (pp. 57-58)Further on he adds:Studying the theological and scientific fund of the most learned Russian authors, onecannot discover, among their sources, direct Greek originals. (Ice.., p. 58)However:But the direct use of Greek books by some highly educated persons cannot bedismissed. We know at least one instance which occurred in the fourteenth century. A holymonk, Saint Stephen, is said to have chosen for his seclusion a monastery in the city of Rostov,because of the Greek library there. (. çj., p. 59.)That Rostov was a Greek center is also supported by Meyendorff, who writes:Studies of Greek were probably concentrated in a few such centers as Vladimir, where the (hailPrinces’ libraries included a number of Greek books, or Rostov, where the bishop was normally aGreek and where Greek was used in liturgical services along with Slavonic (Byzantium and theRise of Russia, p. 21).Lastly in a recent study, Shchapov writes:Choirs sang Greek and Slavonic by turns in the cathedral churches of Kiev and Rostov.(Tocviapcmo IIepKoB, pp. 176-177).28The BK comprises two main divisions: a Kondakar and an Asmatikon:PART A : THE KONDAKARI. The Kontakia of the Fixed Liturgical year, ff. la-56b.II. The Kontakia of the Triodion (incomplete), ff. 57a-65a.III. The Kontakion of the Pentecostaiion, ff. 65b-71b.IV. The Kontakia of the Oktoechos (Resurrection), ff. 73a-82a. Foliation inthis section is discontinuous with the kontakia grouped alternatelywith the eight Resurrection Hypakoai. Modes 1-Vill.PART B: THE ASMATIKONV. The Hypakoai of the Oktoechos (Resurrection), ff. 72b-81b. See PartIV above.VI. The Festal Hypakoai, ff. 83a-90a, The Nativity of the Theotokos, TheExaltation of the Cross (bilingual), The Archangel Michael, TwoHypakoai plus Stichoi for the Forefeast of Christmas.VII. The Great Troparia, Katavasiai, and Stichoi for the Vespers ofChristmas and Epiphany, ff. 90b-92b. Folios 93a to 94b form asubsection of Part VII, and include neumeless text-fragments of aHypapante for the Fifth Saturday of Lent, and an ApolitikionAutomelon for which there are notated epechemata.Viii. Oktomodal Arrangement of the Festal Koinonika, ff. 95a-103b. Thecollection is incomplete, missing Modes I and II. Folios 104a- 104bcontains a Mode VIII setting of the Ferial Trisagion.IX. The Resurrection Pasapnoaria, ff. 104b-106b. This is an octomodalarrangement with all eight modes represented. Folio 106b alsoincludes a Mode IV Megalynarion for 21 November.X. The Polieleoi of the Oktoechos, ff. 107a-1 13b. Folio 1 13b contains theEaster Troparion.XI. The Asmatikon of the Oktoechos, ff. 1 14-121a. This is an unusualcollection of bilingual hypopsalmoi intended for use in the All-Chanted Office.XII. Miscellaneous Chants, ff. 121b-130b. This section includes elevenExapostilaria and Stichoi, a Theotokion, and two Troparia inhonour of the Theotokos. Folio 130b has a Troparion to St.George in a different hand.29Manuscript FeaturesThis manuscript has been explored in detail in this writer’s article, “TheBlagoveshchensky Kondakar: A Russian Musical Manuscript of the Twelfth Century.”8The BK has much to distinguish it as probably one of the most important sources tosurvive from this period. The BK has considerable lacunae for the month of December,January, and August, but the other months are more fully represented. The month of Mayis particularly interesting because of the two feasts unique to it: the Mode II Prosomoion forthe Apostle Simon the Zealot, 10 May (42b), and a Mode III Prosomoion for the ProphetZacharias, 16 May (f. 43a). The disposition of chants for the Triodion and Pentecostarionare more conventional, as they are also for the Oktoechos, although the ResurrectionKontakia are paired with the oktoechal hypakoai.The BK is particularly noteworthy for its Asmatikon section which begins on folio104a with one of the oldest notated settings of the ferial Trisagion. This is followed by anoktoechal arrangement of the Pasapnoaria, the Polieleos, a unique “Azmatik” whichincludes an oktoechal arrangement of hypapsalmoi for the All-Chanted Office, and theExapostilaria of the Oktoechos, none of which are found in other Paleoslavomc sources.8Cyrillomethodianum XI (Thessaloniki, 1987), pp. 103-127.30III. The Troitsky or Lavrsky Kondakar (LK)Moscow (GBL) State Lenin Library, Coil. Tr.-Serg. Lavra no. 23, twelfth century(end), parchment, 115 folios.The LK is an incomplete document organised in six parts:Ia. The Kontakia of the Fixed Liturgical Year, ff. 2r-55r, with lacunae forthe months of December (ff. 22v-24v), and April (ff. 34-35).lb. Two Miscellaneous Kontakia, ff. 55v-56v:(1) The Kontakion for the Dedication of a Church (f. 55v), and;(2) The Kontakion for the Molieben to the Theotokos (f. 56v).II. The Kontakia of the Triodion, ff. 57v-63v, from the Wednesday of theFirst Week of Great Lent (f. 57v) to Great and Holy Friday (f. 63v).III. The Kontakia of the Pentecostarion, ff. 64r-75v, from Pascha (ff. 64r-Mv) to the Sunday of All Saints. (f. 75v).IV. The Kontakia of the Oktoechos (Resurrection), ff. 77r-83v. Modes I toVIII.V. The Hypakoai of the Oktoechos (Resurrection), ff. 85r-91v. Modes ItoVIII.VI. The Festal Katavasiai, Troparia, Stichoi and Miscellaneous OrdinaryChants, ff. 93r-115r. Folio 115v has a kontakion to St. Nicholaswritten in a different hand. The Stichoi for the Great Troparia ofChristmas and Epiphany, unlike those found in the UK (seebelow), are unnotated. The rubrics are, however, included.Manuscript FeaturesThe neumation of the LK has an individual character. Comparisons of the readingsof hymns with those in the other kondakars--as will be shown in the analyses below--reveal that an LK setting will often have a scarcity of large signs presented in a single row,with substitutions and borrowings from the syllabic Coislin type of notation employed inthe Heirmologion and Sticherarion and implying a more austere musical style. There arealso fewer non-textual intercalations. This greater simplicity of musical style hints that theLX could be older than originally thought and indications that it was copied from anarchetype which antedated the TU. At the same time it could also be argued that the fewerhypostases in a single row is an indication that the musical style was becoming simpler.31Unfortunately, the LK’s many lacunae (j.e., for November, December, April andMay) severely reduce the value of this source. For the fixed Liturgical Year, the LK shareswith the BK the Mode VI Katavasia-Prosomoion (f. 19r) for the High Feast of theArchangel Michael, 8 November. In addition, on folio 51r the LK provides a Mode IVKontakion-Prosomoion for the Feast of the Icon Made Without Hands, 16 August.Like the TU, the LK has many Iacunae for the Triodion but the Pentecostarion andOktoechos are more fully represented. The Hypakoai of the Oktoechos (Resurrection) arecomplete.In the collection of Festal Hypakoai, Troparia, and Katavasiai, the LK has, uniqueto it, two Mode VI Katavasiai and stichos for the December Feast of the Holy Fathers,Mode VI (1. 93r), the Katavasia for Palm Sunday (f. 99v), and the first Troparion forChristmas with unnotated Stichoi (ff. 109r-1 1 ir).For Miscellaneous chants of the Ordinary, the LK has only the Festal Trisagion (f.108v) and the Invitatorium (also f. 108v). The LK has no koinonika.32IV. The Uspensky Kondakar (UK)Moscow State Historical Museum (GIM), Usp. no. 9, dated 1207, parchment, 204folios. Published facsimile edition as Volume VI, Main Series, M?vlB.In his concise linguistic analysis of this source, Bugge has observed that the UKexhibits the linguistic features of the East Slavic redaction of the Church Slavonic languageand that it is possible that this source could have been written in a North-Russian centersuch as Novgorod9--an observation that this writer believes is applicable to all fivekondakars.The UK is by far the largest and most complete surviving collection of kontakia—Greek or Slavonic--and it has been thoroughly discussed in the introduction of thepublished facsimile.In its general construction, it most closely resembles the LK:Ta. The Kontakia of the Fixed Liturgical Year, ff. lv-1 12r.Tb. TwoMiscellaneous Kontakia, ff. 113r-114v:(1) The Dedication of a Church, Mode IV (f. 113r);(2) The Molieben to the Theotokos, Mode VI (f. 1 14v).II. The Kontakia of the Triodion, ff. 1 15v- 133r.III. The Kontakia of the Pentecostarion, ff. 134v-143r.IV. The Kontakia of the Oktoechos (Resurrection), ff. 144r-151v.V. The Festal Hypakoai, Troparia, Katavasiai and Stichoi, ff. 153r-171r.VI. The Hypakoai of the Oktoechos (Resurrection), ff. 171r-177v.VII. Miscellaneous Chants of the Ordinary, ff. 179r-183r.VIII. The Koinonika of the Oktoechos, ff. 183v-190v.IX. The Festal Koinonika, ff. 191r-204r.9A. Bugge, ed. Contacarium Paleo-Slavicum Mosguense, MIvIB, Volume VI, Main Series,(Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1960), p. XII.33Manuscript FeaturesA full discussion of the UK has been included in Bugge’s introduction to thepublished facsimile edition; a detailed description of the source would exceed the scope ofthis study, as it is by far the largest and most complete surviving copy of a kontakarion.The UK has a full contingent of kontakia for the fixed Liturgical Year, Triodion,Pentecostarion, and Oktoechos, augmented with complete collections of oktoechal andfestal hypakoai, katavasiai, and koinonika. It has one important lacuna in that it is missingthe first Troparion for Christmas and Stichoi, which, apparently, were once included, asthe manuscript was obviously rebound. The remaining stichoi are notated and include therubrics for performance which are in agreement with the Byzantine Asmatikon.Of particular interest to this study is the colophon on the last folio (f. 204r), whichreads:i4’r (o) IT HAflHCMIZI 1I1Lt4 KIiHF1 CHM (4)C(A)14 ti’AA EK P $14n4Mwr(h) (t,)Tr(4r)o np(o)poi HAwk.That is:In the year of 6715 [=1207 A.D.] this book was written [j.. completed] on thetwentieth day of the month of July on the day of the memory of the Holy ProphetEl ah 10In his fine introduction to the published edition of this manuscript, Bugge pointsout intriguing that the name of the source’s copyist was Constantine, indicating three smallphrases among a series of meaningless letters, that read;r(o)c(noA)H CH rAEHA(A) =0 Lord judge GabrielUOKAOII1i o’r I(pa) = Prostration from Feoclorr(cnoA)H flOMO3II ,4a’ rEoEM’ Rzpr4wr,iI1’ O’iwrii c niicvru Mu =0 Lord,help thy servant Constantine to learn writing and grant...11Bugge rightly exercises caution in attributing too much importance to this colophon,as does this writer, by stating that we have no idea of the connection of the first two names,Gabriel and Feodor, with the history of the manuscript, although an examination of the1 °Lcjc cit., p. VII. The medieval Rus’ calculated their calendar from the date of Creation.p. XI.34koinonikon for the Dead at the bottom of the same folio is apparently in another hand.Moreover, the condition of the folio is poor; much of the readable text is presented in anabbreviated form (shown by the bracketed letters which have been restored). However, thename, Constantine, or at least an abbreviated form of this name, also appears on folio194r.2 While hardly legible, this fact lends support to the theory that this was the name ofthe manuscript’s copyist. Folio 204r is reproduced overleaf; the colophon is indicated bythe letter’B’, the three small phrases by ‘A’, and the Koinonikon for the Dead by ‘C’.l2jy, cit., p. XI.C IC36V. The Sinodalny Kondakar (SK)Moscow State Historical Museum (GIM), Sin. Tip. no. 777, mid-thirteenthcentury, parchment, 113 folios.Much more confusing in its construction owing to considerable lacunae, thismanuscript also follows a six-part construction like the LK:I. The Kontakia of the Fixed Liturgical Year, ff. lr-68r, from January toDecember. This is an unusual arrangement perhaps reflecting alocal custom or simply an indication that at some point in its historyit was rebound. These are followed by supplementary kontakia for themonths of January, February, May and August.’3II. The Kontakia of the Triodion, ff. 69r-81r, from the Sunday of theProdigal Son.III. The Kontakia of the Pentecostarion, ff. 82r-92v, to the Sunday of AllSaints.IV. Miscellaneous Kontakia, ff. 94r-98v. Incomplete owing to a lacuna, thissection includes two Resurrection Kontakia (Modes I and II), the Kontakionfor the Molieben to the Theotokos, a Kontakion for the Sick, unique to thismanuscript, and one whose function is unidentifiable.V. The Great Troparia and Stichoi for the Vespers of Christmas andEpiphany, if. lOOr-104v. Like the LK, the Stichoi are unnotated.These are followed by the Third Antiphon for the Lesser Entrance.VI. The Koinonika for the Fixed Liturgical Year, ff. 105r- 1 13r. According toBugge, the disposition of koinonika is “bewildering”.’4These arefollowed by two Resurrection Koinonika.Manuscript FeaturesThe SK is the smallest of the five kondakars, and because of its peculiarconstruction, the most problematic; chants are literally scattered throughout the manuscript.Nevertheless, it contains much that is interesting.13f., A. Bugge, p. XVIII.14j çj, p. XVIII.37For the Fixed Liturgical Year, the SK has:22 January, Saints Timothy and Anastasius combined,Mode I, Prosomoion, f. 58v.17 March, St. Alexius, Man of God,Mode VIII, Prosomoion, f. 5v.2 May, The Transfer of the Relics of Saints Boris and Gleb,Mode I, Prosomoion, f. lOv.11 May, The Holy Prophet Isaiah,Mode II, Prosomoion, f. 66r.The SK has only two Resurrection Kontakia, Modes I and II on folios 94r and 95rrespectively. On folio 97v, however, the SK includes a Mode II Kontakion-Prosomoionfor the Sick followed by one which eludes identification. Both are unique to thisdocument.The SK shares with the LK the first Mode VI Troparion for Christmas followed bythe three stichoi (unnotated), ff. lOOr-lOir. The SK is particularly rich in koinonika, agenre which unfortunately cannot be included in this study.It is worth noting here the existence of a so-called “Sixth Kondakar”--OIDR 107--atwelfth-century source already cited, part of which is kept in the manuscript division of theState Lenin Library in Moscow. This manuscript contains only a few notated folios andhas been included here as a postscript. Comprising principally a collection of kontakiontexts, it shares with the LK the curious feature of notated intercalations in the margins ofthe folios, which seem to serve as inserts or tropes. According to Velimirovici 5, thekondakarian notation may be found on folios 3,5, liv, 12, and 15-15v.615”The Present Status of Research in Slavic Chant,” Acta Musicologica XLIV (1972), p. 264l6FIe goes on to mention that a photograph of folio 15v can be found in 3almcKn OT3eaaPyKonnce, roc. Bn6n. CCCP, 27, (Moscow, 1965), on page 102.38B. The Greek Sources: The AsmatikaThe manuscript type known as the Asmatikon, with the exception of kontakia,shares the same repertory and musical style as the kondakar. The Asmatikon is a Byzantinechoir book comprising a body of melismatic chants for the Office and Liturgy of the Fixedand Movable parts of the church year. With its soloistic counterpart, the Psaltikon, itflourished in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and was superseded in the fourteenth andfifteenth centuries by a new manuscript type known as the Akolouthia. Each of these oldermanuscript types is distinguished not only by the repertory of chants, but by separatemodal and melodic traditions with its stock of characteristic melodic formulae.17Floros has determined two distinct types of Greek Asmatikon: a “pure” and a“mixed”.18 In the former, the chants are arranged in five specific categories, bestexemplified in three Italo-Greek codices, Grottaferrata Gamma-gamma I (fy 1), Gamma-gamma VI (Fy 6), and Gamma-gamma VII (Fy 7), in which the order of these five sectionsis most stable (less so in the two Byzantine sources, Athos Lavra gamma 3 and Kastoria). The five categories are as follows:I. The Hypakoai and Koinonika of the Oktoechos;II. The Hypakoai for the important feasts, and the Troparia for theVespers of Christmas and Epiphany;III. The Dochai or Prokeimena;IV. Miscellaneous Chants for the Ordinary;V. The Koinonika for the Great Feasts.17”Asmatikon,” New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Vol. 1, (S. Sadie, ed., London:MacMillan & Co., 1980), p. 657.l8C. Floros, “Die Entzifferung,” MdO III (1965), pp. 17-24.39By contrast to the pure type of Asmatikon, the so-called “mixed” type includes bothchoral and soloist chant bodies; repertories are often duplicated in both styles which are:consolidated and combined with other material to form a new compilation which,since it seems not to have been imitated elsewhere, may be said to bear theindividual stamp of the great monastery.. .San Salvatore of Messina.19Three sources, only one of which is used in this study, best represent this type ofAsmatikon: codices Messina 129 (M129), GrottaferrataGamma-gammaV (ry 5), andVaticanus graecus 1606 (VG). Each bears certain peculiarities in content and constructionthat makes it unique. In the mixed-type Asmatikon, the chants of a particular category arearranged in the prescribed liturgical order according to the feasts of the church year.2° Thecodex M129 has the most extensive repertory and seems to integrate most successfully thecontents of the Asmatikon and Psaltikon. Of the others, the codices VG and Fy 5 areslightly later and are more modest in scope.2’Since all known Asmatika transmit the same repertory in much the same order, theyare ideal for comparison with the konclakar. The Byzantine musical material used for thisstudy is drawn from three principal sources representing both the “pure” and “mixed”types: T’y 1, VG, and Kastoria 8 (K8). This last source is of the pure type Asmatika butwith special properties which will be discussed below.190. Strunk, “S. Salvatore of Messina and the Musical Tradition of Magna Graecia,” Essays onMusic in the Byzantine World, (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1977), p. 48.2ONeil K. Moran, The Chants of the Byzantine Mass, 2 Volumes, (Hamburg: Verlag derMusikalienhandlung Karl Dieter Wagner, 1975), vol. 1, p. 35.210. Strunk, . cit., p. 47.40I. Grottaferrata Gamma-gamma I (hereafter Fy 1)In its general construction and repertory, this codex is perhaps the finest and mostrepresentative example of the “pure” type of Asmatikon. This source therefore providesone of the foundations for the comparative analyses with the kondakarian chants below.The manuscript is thought to have originated in the scriptorium of the monastery St.Demetrios in Calabria and dates from the twelfth century. Its current owner is the GreekAbbey of Grottaferrata near Rome.This incomplete document consisting of only forty-two folios, shows thecharacteristic five-part construction and is probably the best exemplar to display the moststable arrangement of these five parts:1. ff. 5r-14r, has under the heading “Beginning of the Asmatikon,” theHypakoai and the Koinonika of the Oktoechos. The order of eachmelody has the Hypakoe followed by the three standardKoinonika;II. ff. 14v-29r, contains the Hypakoai for the Great Feasts and fourTroparia for the Vespers of Christmas and Epiphany;III. ff. 29v-33r, has the Prokeimena or Dochai;2IV. ff. 33r-35v, contains some miscellaneous hymns for the Ordinary;V. ff. 35v-42v, contains the Festal Koinomka. Unfortunately themanuscript is incomplete.22The Prokeimena or Dochai are the Eastern Church equivalents of the Gradual Hymns, a seriesof psalm verses chanted responsorially before Scriptural readings in the Office and Liturgy. See the SelectedTerminology at the end of this study412. Vaticanus graecus 1606 (hereafter VG)This source dates from the end of the thirteenth century and consists of 185 folios,and for reasons to be made clear below, is perhaps the most important employed in thisstudy.23 It is typical of the “mixed-type” Asmatika, containing a repertory in both styles.In construction it most closely resembles the codex M129, which is in two largedivisions.24 The VG codex, however, more comfortably divides into four sections:I. ff. lr- 152v, corresponds exactly to M129 but lacks the Prokeimena andpsalm-verses for Orthros;II. ff. 152v-169r, also matches the M129 codex in construction andcontents with the exception that hymns in all eight modes aretransmitted;III, ff. 169r-171v, contains the Prokeimena of the Lychnikon for the entireweek;25IV. ff. 171v-179v, presents the Office of the Genuflection for Whitsunday;ff. 180r-181r adds the Kontakion Parakietikon.23My thanks to Father Leonard Boyle of the Vatican Library’s manuscnpt division for providingme with a microfilm of this source.24C. Floros, “Die Entzifferung,” MdO III (1965), pp. 23-24.25Lychnikon or Lucernarium, the Office of Light, is the term applied to the most ancient form ofthe Vespers service in the Eastern Church. It was used by the fourth-century pilgrim Egena in herdescription of the Evening Office in Jerusalem. According to Uspensky, this service,was shaped by three psalm-units. Each unit was made up of three sections, and eachsection was composed of psalms and antiphons followed by a prayer of the priest. The units wereperformed responsorially: one of the clergy sang a psalm, while the people responded to each versewith a refrain. (Evening Worship in the Orthodox Chirch, p. 30.)423. Kastoria8(K8)The pictorial or descriptive aspects of cheironomiae are clearly seen in the curiousfourteenth-century Asmatikon from the Kastoria Cathedral in Northern Greece. Thisunique manuscript, discovered quite accidentally in 1965 by the late Greek philologist,Politis, appears to bear an unusual correspondence with the kondakar.26 In four parts ofthis document the neumes are arranged in two rows; the lower, written in black, is of theMiddle Byzantine notational system and evidently records with some variation the samemelodies found in the copies of the Italo-Greek Asmatika.27 The uncommonly large signsin the upper row, written in red and sometimes in green, bear a striking resemblance tothose in the kondakar, especially those in the BK, suggesting that both sources descendedfrom a common archetype.In general construction and content, K8 concurs with all known copies of the“pure-type” Asmatikon, i.e., it comprises only choral chants. The repertory divides intoseven parts; these form the “stem” of the Asmatikon.28K8 contains 89 folios with lacunae between folios 77 and 78. The repertory has thefollowing breakdown:I. ff. lr-21r, contain the Koinonika and Hypakoai of the Oktoechos;II. ff. 21r-44v, include the Koinonika of the Liturgical year;III. ff. 44v-68r, contain the Hypakoai of the Liturgical year and the GreatTroparia for Christmas and Epiphany;IV. ff. 65r-68v, have both Ferial and Festal Trisagia;V. ff. 70r-74r, comprise the lesser and greater Dochai or Prokeimena;VI. ff. 75r-80r, contain Troparia among which are two Anastasima andmany for the Feast of the Elevation of the Cross;VII. ff. 80v-89v, contains the aforementioned Stichoi of the Hexapsalmoi.26L. Politis, “Aio Xetpypcz4cz ‘n”v KaoTopL,” Ellenika, Tomos 20 (1967), pp. 29-41.27D. Conomos, The Late Byzantine and Slavonic Communion Cycles: Liturgy and Music,Dumbarton Oaks Studies XXI (1985), p. 57. Conomos contends that K8 represents a third melodictradition of the Asmatikon, the Italo-Greek being the first, and the Constantinopolitan Ly 3 is the second.28C. Floros, Universale Neumenkunde II (Kassel, 1970), p. 268, According to Floros, sectionVII, the Stichoi of the Hexapsalmos, are assigned to the so-called “Asma”, a particular category ofAsmatikon, in the corresponding sources Fy6, Fy7, M129, and VG.43The most outstanding feature of K8 is of course its notation, for sections I throughIV have chants notated with two rows of signs. This source has proven to be of greatvalue in the comparative analyses of kondakarian musical notation. Although K8 is not thelong lost Paleobyzantine archetype of the Kondakar, it could represent an anachronisticform of missing link in the transmission of the choral repertory with cheironomiae. On theother hand, it may only be an oddity reflecting a peculiar and isolated local tradition of theKastoria Cathedral. Nevertheless, its value for this study should not be underrated; anexamination of its stylised hypostases in relation to the melodic formulae with which theyassociated should be fruitful in the structural and melodic analyses of the konclakarianchants.29290ne possible theory for the appearance of the large signs in this late copy of the Asmatikon isthat in spite of the fact that the cheironomic gestures had long disappeared from Byzantine musicalmanuscripts with the advent of diastemy, this source could have been written for pedagogical purposes, i.e.added later for the training of domestiki in the art of cheironomiae.44CHAPTER FIVETHE MEDIEVAL TYPIKON AND THE LITURGICALPOSITION OF THE GENRES; LITURGICALTRADITIONS IN MEDIEVAL RUS’The Medieval Typikon--Ustav or Ordo—its origins and exegesis in Rus’ from thetime of Christianizaton to the end of the fourteenth century, occupies a central role in theshaping of the musical practices required for the highly complex services. Survivingcopies of the early Slavonic Typika came under close scrutiny in the last half of thenineteenth and early decades of the twentieth century by a number of brilliant Russianliturgists. The result was the appearance of important studies by such authors as Odintsov,Skaballanovich, Mansvetov, and Lisitsyn.l It is this last author who provides us with themost valuable information. In his detailed comparative study, Lisitsyn has reproducedimportant folios of early typikon manuscripts otherwise inaccessible to Western scholars.During the period under discussion, no less than three such ordines were brought toRus’ from Byzantium and translated from the original Greek into the Church Slavoniclanguage. The first of these was the Constantinopolitan or Typikon of the Great Churchwhich was followed in the mid-eleventh century by the Alexian or Studite liturgical ruleadopted first by the Kiev Monastery of the Caves and then by all monasteries in Rus’.2Concerning the adoption of the Studite Rule, the Russian Primary Chronicle provides thefollowing celebrated quotation:iN. M. Odintsov, HopsWoK Oniecmeunoro B tlacTHoro Borocnensi n J:[penne Pyciiio XVI BeKa, (St. Petersburg, 1881); I. Mansvetov, “0 HeeneBuoM flocBeoBa1KK, Ero gpe6nei1a5IOcHoBa O6nmi CTpOF’ in HpK6aBjiemIs K Iaumo TnopenB CRm]x OnteB B PyccKoMflepenoe a 1880, XXV (1880) (Moscow, 1880), pp. 752-797, and 972-1028; Idem. , epKoBm.IYcTan (TKImK), Ero 06pa3oBamsi K C’vni6a n Tpe’ecKo K Pycco flepg, (Moscow, 1885); M.N. Skaballanovich, ToBKoBo1 TmIKKoH, (Kiev, 1910); M. Lisitsyn, llepBoHajma3nmJ C.aaoPycc TBImKoa: llcTopllKo-ApKqeo3jorirqecKoe H3c3IeioBanKe, (St. Petersburg, 1911, hereafterHCPT).2The exact labelling of the liturgical ordo brought to Rus’ and translated by the VenerableTheodosius of the Kiev Monastery of the Caves, has been the topic of debate for the better part of a century.According to Lisitsyn (HCPT, p. 167), the Alexian Typikon takes its name from the ConstantinopolitanPatriarch Alexius who was its compiler. Lisitsyn uses the name “Ktitor” (literally “owner”) to describethis typikon, which is that applied to an ecclesiastical ordo that includes not only the liturgicalprescriptions but the daily rule followed by the monks of a monastery. In Byzantium, this contrasted thatof the Great Church Typikon which served the needs of the Patriarch and the cathedral episcopy, and wasthus called “the General Ecclesiastical Ordo.” (IICPT, p. 164).45He [Theodosius] also interested himself in searching out the monasticrules. There was in Kiev at the time a monk from the Studion Monastery namedMichael, who had come from Greece with the Metropolitan George, andTheodosius inquired of him concerning the practices of the Studion monks. Heobtained their rule from him, copied it out, and established it in his own monasteryto govern the singing of monastic hymns, the making of reverences, the reading ofthe lessons, behaviour in church, the whole ritual, conduct at table, proper food forspecial days, and to regulate all else according to prescription. After obtaining allthis information, Theodosius thus transmitted it to his monastery, and from thelatter all others adopted the same institutions. Therefore the Crypt Monastery ishonoured as oldest of all.3These two ordines, the Constantinopolitan and Studite, coexisted in Rus’ until theend of the fourteenth century when Kyprian, Metropolitan of Moscow, introduced thethird, the Typikon of Jerusalem, and transformed Russian liturgical practices to conformwith contemporary Byzantine usage.4 Concerning this latest typikon adopted by theRussian Church, Uspensky, writing in our own time draws these conclusions:the Jerusalem “ordo”, which had been subject to many changes duringits widespread use in the Greek Church during the twelfth to fourteenthcenturies, made its appearance. All these factors taken together gave rise to amultiformity of Russian liturgical practice and brought about the peculiar Russianliturgical usages which existed in Rus’ until the end of the seventeenth century(1682). At that time, a “typikon” was published which eliminated all liturgicalfeatures of purely local significance and unified worship in conformity withcontemporary Greek practice.5Taft also supports the generally accepted argument concerning the order of typikaintroduced into Rus’ at the time of Christianisation, and adds a further point:The first developed typikon was composed by Alexis, patriarch from 1025-43 andearlier hegumen [= abbott] of Stoudios, for the monastery he founded nearConstantinople. It is this typikon, extant only in Slavonic [emphasis added] thatSt. Theodosius Pecerskij translated into Slavonic in the eleventh century andintroduced as the rule of the Kiev Pecerskaja Lavra or Monastery of the Caves inKiev, cradle of Orthodox Monasticism among the east Slays. From Ukraine itpassed to the whole of Rus’ and Muscovy. There are six extant Slavonicmanuscripts of this document dating from the eleventh to fifteenth centuries. Thissame usage appears in Magna Graecia at the beginning of the twelfth century as3Serge A. Zenkovsky, ed. Medieval Russia’s Epics, Chronicles, and Tales. (New York, E. P.Dutton, 1963, revised 1974), p. 109.4 The oldest surviving Slavonic copy of the Jerusalem Typikon is kept in the library of theBulgarian State Theological Academy in Sofia, catalogue number TsIAM 201. My thanks to ProfessorKarastoianov of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences for his help in procuring a copy.5N. Uspensky, Evening Worship, pp. 90-91.46witness the Typikon of San Salvatore of Messina (A. D. 113 1).6Taft raises two important questions: (1) what is the relationship of the Great ChurchTypikon to that of the Alexian ordo introduced into Rus’ in terms of the liturgicalprescription for music, and (2) what are the relationships of these typika to that of Salvatoreof Messina?The second question is more easily answered by stating that the place of origin ofthe majority of the surviving Asmatika is the Cathedral of San Salvatore of Messina. Wealso learn from Mansvetov that the order of antiphonal singing as prescribed by the GreatChurch Typikon was also used by the Italian Greeks.7To answer the first question, however, one must confront the extant copies of thetypika themselves and seek out the liturgical instructions for specific feasts in order to seehow the rubrics shaped the role of music. That the earliest liturgical practices of theRussian Church followed the All-Chanted Constantinopolitan order of services issupported by Arranz who states that its sung office was practiced in the secular Russianchurches at the same time as in the monasteries--since St. Theodosius Pechersky--whichfollowed the Studite Typikon.8Speaking generally about the surviving evidence supporting Constantinopolitanpractices in Rus’, Lisitsyn writes that those elements preserved to the present time in theKondakaria and Asmatika of the tenth and eleventh centuries corroborate the GreatChurch’s liturgical usage. By their very existence, the kondakars attest to the fact that theycould have a place in liturgical practice only under the authority of the Great ChurchTypikon. The chants and especially their means of performance recall the order describedby the fifteenth-century hierarch Symeon of Salonika in his essay “Asmatiki Akolouthia.”9In Chapter Four on the Slavonic sources, this evidence was borne out in the twelfthcentury Blagoveshchensky Kondakar. Constantinopolitan elements are manifest in two6Robert Taft, “Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of the Byzantine Rite,” DOP 42(1988), p. 184. For the Slavonic manuscripts of the Alexian Typikon, see the list of thirteen provided byLisitsyn on pages VIII and IX of HCPT.7”o HedilennoM flocieoBarni,” p. 753.8M. Arranz, “L’Office de vieille nocturne dans I’Eglise grecque et dans I’Eglise russe,” Part I, OCPXLII (1976), pp. 121-122.9ricPT, p. 77.47sections of the BK, the Polieleos and the Azmatik, occupying folios 107a-1 13b and 1 14b-121b respectively.’0According to Mansvetov, these fragments of the Asmatikon were firstexamined by Metropolitan Makary in his history of the Russian Church.11Again, Arranz provides further support by saying that with the introduction ofcertain of these elements (e.g., the Polieleos), the monastic office could itself become a“chanted office” at least in part. Arranz also cites the BK with its Greek transliterations andconsiderable number of Greek phrases preserved in the middle of Slavonic texts andobserves that they are for the most part dependent on the musical terminology of theChanted Office.12 The elements of which Arranz speaks could also be interpreted to meanmusical or non-musical insertions like those found in the margins of OIDR 107 and theLK. He also claims that when the monastic and cathedral ordines were combined, it was atthe expense of the latter.One can only speculate on the reasons for the abandonment of Great Churchpractices in Rus’. Lisitsyn writes that in Byzantium the displacement of the Great ChurchTypikon by the Jerusalem ordo occurred in the wake of major historical upheaval. Yetthere was a similar set of circumstances in Russia during the first half of the thirteenthcentury. The Tatar invasions (1237-1240) had no less a disastrous effect on the servicesand churches of Russia than the Latin invasion of Constantinople during the FourthCrusade on the use of the Great Church Typikon. The only difference was that Russia hadseveral territories, as for example, that of Novgorod, which were relatively untouched bythe Tatars. Owing to this, Great Church practices continued to be observed long after therest of Russia was subjugated to the Tatars. But in those places that suffered thedestruction of the invaders, the Great Church Typikon was gradually supplanted, first bythe simpler liturgical practices of the Studite ordo, and then by that of the Palestinian orJerusalem rule first introduced into the South Slavic lands by Saint Sava and brought toRus’ by his disciples.’3lOHcpr pp. 79-86.1 lQ cit., p. 753; Metropolitan Makary, Hcwpnsi pyccKoll UepcnK, II, (St. Petersburg, 1868),p. 203.l2Qp. çj, p. 148.13jp’, p. 29.48Lisitsyn concurs with Mansvetov in saying that gradually in those districts that werelaid waste, the simpler mànastic Alexian Ustav was introduced, even though it embracedand included many of the liturgical customs of the Great Church. But at the same timeSaint Sava’s Jerusalem order was being introduced elsewhere through the agencies of theSerbian and Bulgarian monks from Mount Athos who maintained contacts with the clergyof the Russian Church. Thirty-four years after the invasions in many places in Russia, theorder of the Great Church was already so completely forgotten that it seemed absolutelyforeign to many prelates. Therefore at the Council of Vladimir (1274), the presidingMetropolitan Kyril ordered those Great Church elements extirpated from Russian liturgicalpractice.14Lisitsyn describes the decisions of this 1274 council, the territory Novgorod, andits relationship to the Great Church Typikon. Its use not only continued, but five yearsafter the Vladimir council in 1279, Kliment, Bishop of Novgorod, prepared a copy of theGreat Church Typikon. Because the influence of Novgorod stretched over all northernRussia until its subjugation to Moscow in the fifteenth century, one can confidently speakabout Constantinopolitan practices in the five Novgorodian “corners” well into thefourteenth century. Doubtless, during this period these practices were also employed inother places in Russia.15This discussion of typikonal usage in Medieval Rus’ illuminates several importantpoints about the kondakar and Kondakarnoie Pienie:(1) The greatest evidence of Constantinopolitan liturgical and musical practices,especially the All-Chanted Office, in Rus’ are found in the Pasapnoaria, Polieleos, andAzmatik sections of the twelfth-century Blagoveshchensky Kondakar, as well as in thoseindividual chants containing numerous epechemata or intonation formulae with the samenumber and placement as their Greek counterpart.l4Loc. cit.,p. 29; cf. I. Mansvetov, UepKoBmr YcTaB, pp. 271-271. Lisitsyn goes on to saythat Metropolitan Kyril was elevated not in Constantinople but in Nicaea where the Great Church Typikon,especially after the 1204 occupation by the Latins, was not employed in its fullest capacity. Obolenskyconcurs with Lisitsyn and adds, “About 1250 the Russian monk Cyril, sent to Nicaea by Prince Daniel ofGalicia for consecration as metropolitan, returned, duly consecrated to Russia.” (D. Obolensky, TheByzantine Commonwealth, p. 241.)15ncpr pp. 30-31.49(2) The Alexian Studite Typikon, brought to Rus’ in the eleventh century andtranslated into the Church Slavonic language by the Venerable Theodosius of the KievMonastery of the Caves, and which survives only in its Slavonic translations, is a hybridtypikon comprised of elements of the Great Church Typikon and the monastic order ofservices. The oldest surviving exemplar of this order also includes the oldest of thekondakars, the Tipografsky Ustav.(3) A similar liturgical usage appears in the Italo-Greek cloisters of Magna graeciain the twelfth century, notably in that of San Salvatore of Messina. The majority of allsurviving copies of the Byzantine Asmatikon which preserve the same genres and melodicstyle as the kondakars come from this monastery.(4) At the Council of Vladimir held in 1274 and headed by Metropolitan Kyril,attempts were made to extirpate Constantinopolitan liturgical elements from RussianOrthodox liturgical practices. At this time the Alexian Studite was most fully embraced--especially its more monastic aspects--and the Jerusalem Typikon in St. Sava’s Slavonictranslation was beginning to be introduced, brought to Rus’ by Serbian monks of MountAthos who maintained contact with the Russian clergy. The mid-thirteenth century marksthe approximate date of the last of the kondakars (Sinodalny); their disappearance coincidesroughly with the reforming actions that followed this council.(5) The territory of Novgorod the Great, whose influence spread all over theRussian North, was unaffected by the decisions of the 1274 council; evidence reveals thatConstantinopolitan liturgical practices were still in use in Novgorod until the annexation ofthat city-state by Moscow in the fifteenth century. All five kondakars employ the northernRussian recension of the Church Slavomc language. If any elements of KondakarnoiePienie survived, they would most likely be preserved in documents from this region.(6) Among those elements taken from the Great Church Typikon are the practices oftroparion singing for the Great Feasts, especially the cycle of troparia and stichoi forChristmas and Epiphany.50The Definition of the Genres Troparion, Hypakoe, and Katavasia, and theirLiturgical Position According to the TypikonAs a technical term, the word “troparion” is used both generically andspecifically. Generically, it may be applied to most poetic texts intended for singingand for liturgical use, thus to the entire contents of the Heirmologion andSticherarion, but it is seldom applied to Biblical texts, and never to the Trisagion, tothe Cherubic Hymns, to non-Biblical texts used as communions, to the stanzas ofthe kontakion, or to short refrains. Specifically, it is applied to the troparia sungbefore the dismissal at Vespers and with the “Osoç Kvptoc”, to the “GreatTroparia” of the Christmas and Epiphany vigils, to the troparia of the Christmas,Epiphany, and Good Friday hours, to the troparia on the gradual psalms (“otavaPcLO!.toL”), and to the stanzas that follow the heirmoi of the canons.’6In short, a troparion is a non-scriptural hymn that employs a refrain.In the cathedrals of Byzantium during the ninth and tenth centuries, the musicalexecution of the major hymnodic forms usually involved either the antiphonal exchange oftwo bodies of chanters or the responsorial alternation of a solo precentor with a chorus orcongregation supplying stock refrains. Writing elsewhere, Strunk provides yet anotherdefinition:In Byzantine liturgical usage, the word “antiphon” means a selection from thePsalter, followed by a doxology. Such a selection may consist of severalpsalms, not necessarily consecutive, it may consist of one psalm only, it mayconsist of single verses. The presence of a refrain is not essential, but when wefind one it will be called “vnoia?qia”, “4n,!ivtov”, “v3tct1coT”, “tpoiraptov”-the name “antiphon” is never given to the refrain itself, as it is in the West.17In addition to “hypakoe”, those hymnodic forms definable as troparia manifestthemselves under many labels, among them “katavasia”, “theotokion”, “exapostilarion”,“photagogikon”, but in the case of the VG codex employed in the analyses below, simply“antiphon”. Wellesz, in his now classic A History of Byzantine Music andHymnography,18 classifies these other hymn types as hymnodic forms of widely differingcharacter and poetic value. These particular forms were inserted between the Odes of theKanon in the Orthros or Matins Service. Concerning the liturgical position of these16Oliver Strunk, “Tropus and Tropanon,” Essays on Music in the Byzantine World. (New York:W. W. Norton & Co., 1977), p. 268n.l7Idem., ‘°The Antiphons of the Oktoechos,” Essays in Music in the Byzantine World, (NewYork: W. W. Norton & Co., 1977), p. 166.18Second Edition (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1980), pp. 239-240.51hymns, Velimirovic elaborates:Emulating the division of a kathisma into three staseis, the Kanon is neverperformed in its entirety without interruptions but is divided into three segmentswith interpolations after the third and sixth Odes. Thus for instance, after Ode 3follows the singing of a different type of hymn--hypakoe and a short collect,whereas after Ode 6 the singing of one stanza of the now drastically reducedKontakion takes place together with the readings from the synaxar and anothercollect. Furthermore, after Ode 8 and Ode 9 there is a requirement that the choirsleave their places on the sides of the nave and join in the middle of the church tosing together the “katabasia” hymn and upon the completion of the Kanon followsthe singing of the “exapostilarion” hymn which, during Lent is replaced by anotherhymn called the “photagogikon”.’9This description can be rendered in the following schema:Figure IVOde IOde IIOde IIIHypakoeOde IVOdeVOde VIKontakionOde VIIOde VIIIkatavasiaOde IXExapostilarion or PhotagogikonIn the early church, “hypakoe” referred to the refrain for the antiphonal psalms; inlater liturgical usage this genre was generated by the verse, the refrain to the whole ode, toa particular troparion and separated from its original function. But its original role inantiphonal hymnodic practice has been preserved in part up till the present. Mansvetov,citing an eleventh-century Greek Tropologion, where the use of the expressionartXoAoyLa rrjç vraKoflç , which implies the verse or the division of the psalm to which19M. Velimirovic, “The Byzantine Heirmos and Heirmologion,” Gattungen der Musik inEinzeldarstellungen; Gedenkschrift Leo Schrade, (Bern and Munich: Francke Verlag, 1973), p. 203.52the “hypakoe” is meant as a refrain •20 Wellesz notes that the hypakoe wasoriginally the liturgical term for a Troparion which was chanted in the MorningOffice as Ps. cxviii “Blessed are the Undefiled”; it seems that it was sung by thewhole congregation as a response to the chanting of the psalm by a singleprecentor.21As the above schema shows, the hypakoe was the name later given to a troparionwhich was sung after the third Ode of the Kanon.According to Wellesz, the katavasia is the liturgical term for the Heirmos repeated atthe end of the Ode22 and rendered in a highly melismatic style. Like the Heirmoi of theKanon, the katavasia texts number nine, most of which date from the eighth century, thetime of St. Cosmas of Jerusalem. Apparently, during the Morning Office, St. Cosmaswould leave his seat in the choir, move down to the middle of the church and sing a songhe composed (e.g., on the Nativity of Christ: “Christ is Born, Glorify Him!”) The actsymbolised Christ’s descent as the Word Incarnate.This tradition of descent in later times was continued by the bishop who wouldcome down from his seat to sing the first katavasia. Later the practice was undertaken bytwo groups of singers, the right- and left-handed choirs, who descended from their seats tothe center of the church and sang together as an ensemble.As evidenced by both Greek and Paleoslavonic musical manuscript sources, as wellas by liturgical documents, one and the same hymn can be given different designations inits various sources. This multiplicity of labels and their interchangeability raises someimportant liturgical questions concerning their usage. For example, when a hymn isdesignated “katavasia”, does this imply that it is to be sung as a “hymn of descent”, with adivided choir assembling on the amvon23 for its performance; and is its position betweenthe Odes of the Kanon in the Morning Office different when the same hymn is labelled“hypakoe”; or is it simply repeated as such with one text and melody functioning as both arespond and as a hymn of descent? When the same hymn is titled “troparion”, does this20j. Mansvetov, “0 flecIIeimoM Hoc iejoaanan,” p. 780.21j.oc cit. p. 240.22Ic, p. 240.23 “Amvon” or “Ambo”, the pulpit in early Christian churches. More specifically for ourpurposes, the center of the church.53mean that its last line is detachable and can function independently as a refrain interpolatedbetween psalm verses; or does the concept of “Troparion as refrain-form” apply exclusivelyto the Great Troparia for Christmas and Epiphany? This variety of terminology couldsimply be an illustration and application of Strunk’s “generic” definition, “troparion”simply used as a general term encompassing all hymn-forms that function as antiphons inthe broadest sense. This problem of designation is clearly demonstrated by the Secondkatavasia for Christmas (Chant No. 5 below), which is seen to carry all three labels. Nouniformity or concurrence is found in either the liturgical or musical sources consulted forthis study except that the hymns are performed by an ensemble of psaltes and not by asoloist.In subsequent centuries, the elaborate performances of the troparia, katavasia andhypakoe underwent a process of simplification. In contemporary practice the latter areoften omitted except in major feasts. Nevertheless, the cycles of Great Troparia forChristmas and Epiphany retained the original verse forms which were brought directly toRus’ from Constantinople. In this early period, Velimirovic does not even rule out thepossibility of a dramatic performance for these two feasts:As far as indirect evidence is concerned, Wellesz pointed out some time ago that thesuccession of “stichera” for Christmas appears to have been arranged in such anorder as to suggest the possibility of a dramatic performance. Wellesz did not arguethat the hymns represented a play but rather inferred that a theatrical play could havedeveloped from such an order.24Indeed, the sources themselves suggest some sort of action.In an earlier Russian-language study, Uspensky quotes anecdotally from atwelfth/thirteenth-century list kept in the Moscow State Historical Museum (GIM)concerning the performance of the “Kolyadi” in the Kiev Monastery of the Caves at thetime of the Venerable Theodosius (c. 1060).25 Folio 21 lv of this source gives instructionsfor the singing of “Kolyadi” at table on festive occasions in the monastery. These weresung on the feasts of Christmas, Epiphany, and the Dormition (15 August, the monastery’spatronal feast).24M. Velimirovic, “Liturgical Drama in Byzantium and Russia,” DOP 16 (1962), pp. 351-2.25Ms Sin, no. 339/380.54At the end of the meal, before the serving of the sweet dish, the Igumen gave asignal to the Domesticos. Next, having received from him a blessing, according tohis choice, he invited the best singer from among the monks. Then he stood on thehighest step of the rostrum of the Igumen’s table and began to sing the chantmelody of the troparion. At the same time the Domesticos went between the tablesof the monks and selected a choir from them, which stood on the lower rostrum ofthe Igumen’s table--half the singers on the right side and half on the left. And whenthe soloist who stood on the rostrum sang the kontakion, the choir echoed itsrefrain. Then the domesticos and the soloist bowed to the Igumen and went to themonastery treasurer, from whom they received a monetary recompense. Havingreceived the “Blessing with Silver”, the Domesticos stood in the middle of the choirand sang the first strophe of the kontakion, which the other singers repeated.26It seems that these “Kolyadi” were none other than the troparia for the feasts performedoutside of the Divine Office.Uspensky reports that such antiphonal practices were recorded in Byzantium byEmperor Constantine Porphyrogenitos in his “De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae” (c. mid-tenth century), and in the Byzantine court the singing began with the blessing of thePatriarch. But in the Monastery of the Caves, the blessing was given by the Abbott.27In “De cerimoniis,” we learn that:The distinctive feature of the services in the Great Church was the predominance ofsinging and ritual dramatism. The singing was produced by organised choirs ofsingers, which were called “Hagiosofitai”. This labour was shared by the cathedralclergy. The singing was chiefly antiphonal and performed in rotation by twosides....”28An eyewitness account of this practice is provided by the Russian pilgrim toConstantinople, Anthony of Novgorod, from the end of the twelfth century:When they sing Lands at Hagia Sophia, they sing first in the narthex then the gatesof Paradise are opened and they sing a third time before the altar. On Sundays andfeast days the Patriarch assists at Lands and at the Liturgy; at this time he blessesthe singers from the gallery and not ceasing to sing, they proclaim the Polychronia;then they sing again as harmoniously and sweetly as the angels and they sing in thisfashion until the Liturgy. After Lands they put off their vestments and go to receivethe blessing of the Patriarch; the preliminary lessons are read in the ambo; whenthese are over the Liturgy begins, and at the end of the service the chief priestrecites the so-called prayer of the ambo within the sanctuary while the second priestrecites it in the church beyond the ambo; when they have finished the prayer, bothbless the people. Vespers are said in the same fashion, beginning at an early26Translated from N. D. Usperisky,“BH3 coe HenKe B KIIeBCKO PycK “ . 644, bythis writer.27pj. pp. 644-645.281. Mansvetov, LIepgomu,i YcraB, p. 233.55hour.29This recollection is reminiscent of some of the dramatic ritualism from the account of theKiev Monastery’s festival.290. Strunk, ‘7he Office of Hagia Sophia,” in Essays on Music in the Byzantine World. p. 112;I. Mansvetov, 1jepKoBm YcTaB, p. 233.56CHAPTER SIXTHE NOTATIONAL SYSTEMS AND CHANTCONSTRUCTION; THE BYZANTINE ANDPALEOSLAVONIC MUSICAL NOTATIONALSYSTEMS COMPAREDIn his seminal study on the origin of the Latin neumes, “The Early History of MusicWriting in the 1 Treitler provides observations which also apply to the study of theByzantine and Kondakarian notational systems. Treitler believes that the oral transmissionof chant melodies was translated into writing after the ninth century and that written sourceswhich originated during this period show vestiges of the continuing oral tradition. Theconcurrent written traditions seem to support rather than vie against the oral, with thewritten score serving as a blueprint for a musical performance.2 From the study ofprosody, Treitler further derives two classifications of neume function: the “symbolic” andthe “iconic”, and traces an evolution in the various Latin notational dialects from the formerto the latter.The trend toward more informative notations must have been motivatedby the need to represent non-traditional matter, and also by the need torepresent even traditional matter for singers who were not as well versed in thetradition.3In the evolution of the western notations the iconic forms died out having been maderedundant by the establishment of diastemy, which “succeeded, presumably, because itwas a simpler principle that could at the same time absorb the function of the iconicprinciple.”4Herein perhaps lies the explanation of the disappearance of kondakarian notation inthe later thirteenth century and the beginnings of the later Russian chant notations. Treitlertranslates “diastematic” to mean intervallic, and notes that the first scnpts writtendiastematically were in fact iconic.5 In the case of kondakarian notation we see a uniqueamalgam of the symbolic and iconic since the lower row of signs obviously indicates1JAMS XXXV (1982), p. 237.p. 237.3Loc. cit., p.261‘L cih, p. 262.5Loc. cit., p. 265.57intervallic and rhythmic functions, while the upper row of Great Hypostases retains thesometimes pictorial functions and visual cheironomic gestures of a symbolic type.In another article, “Centonate’ Chant: Ubles Flickwerk or E pluribus unus?,”6Treitler provides a three-part description of the reformation of Gregorian chant:(1) The repertories of Gregorian chant are transmitted in melodic familiesthat are consistent with respect to liturgical category, to modal designation, and tocertain musical features, comprising principally melodic strategies or form andrecurrent melodic material. The members of a melodic family are related throughthose features, and they are distinguished from one another in that they havedifferent texts. That will clarify what is meant by “family” and what by“transmission.”(2) In the transmission of melodic families, it is the more melismaticpassages that are most stable from one melody to another. A certain number ofrecurrent melismatic passages, or formulas, provide one of the definingcharacteristics of melodic families of certain types.(3) These are primarily the psalmodic chants of the Mass andOffice that come down from a time before the practice of musical notation.Underlying every psalmodic chant is a stereotyped melodic procedure with verysharply defined points of departure (intonations and initial formulas) and arrival(medial and final cadences) that articulate the melody. It is at these points ofarticulation that the melodies show the most stereotyped formulas and that theyshow them most often.Standard formulas tend to occur with decreasing frequency as the melodymoves away from the opening and with increasing frequency as it moves towardthe cadence. That is, a melodic family may have a standard opening formula thatoccurs with high frequency at openings. There may be a formula that immediatelyfollows the opening formula, and the tendency is that it may occur in fewermelodies than the opening formula, but not in more melodies, and so on. For eachsuch family, then, a certain number of formulas may be identified, and individualmelodies of the family will show these in greater or lesser degree, separated bypassages that are more variable. The principal genres thus characterised are certaingroups of Office Antiphons and Responsories [corresponding to our Byzantine andkondakarian Hypakoai], certain groups of Introits and Graduals of the Mass, andall the Tracts. The phenomenon of stereotyped openings and cadences is notrestricted to these categories, but of all the chants, the psalmodic ones proceed withthe highest degree of regularity through phrases marked by cadences andreinitiations, and they show the phenomenon of formulaic stereotyping in thehighest degree.7In addition to his observations on the symbolic and iconic aspects of neumaticnotation and its parallel in the Byzantine and Slavonic notational systems, all that Treitlerhas ascribed to the Gregorian repertory with regard to formulaic structure, stereotyped6JAMS XXVIII (1975), pp. 1-23.7lbid., pp. 9-10.melodic procedure, sharply defined points of arrival and departure, and recurrentmelismatic passages as defining characteristics of melodic families, is also equally anddirectly applicable to the Byzantine and kondakarian repertory. These features will beprovided ample illustration in Chapter Seven below. In preparation for undertaking theanalyses, a digression into the nature of Byzantine and kondakarian musical notation isnecessary.5859The Byzantine and Paleoslavonic Musical Notational Systems ComparedAs inferred at the beginning of this chapter, the Byzantine and Kondakariannotational systems do not fix pitch but indicate interval, direction and melodic shape. Arelative starting pitch is provided by either a modal signature or an intonation formulapreceding a chant; mode can change several times during the course of a chant. While theprecise meanings of the Paleoslavonic notations remained elusive, the Byzantine systemsattained full diastemy and precision by the end of the twelfth century; we can transcribe thenotation in these sources with little difficulty. Known as Middle Byzantine notation, thissystem comprises a stock system of signs and hypostases that include pitch-repetition, stepand leap ascent and descent, accentuation, and rhythm.The following section introduces a complex and unfamiliar terminology. AllByzantine neumes bear colourful Greek epithets which in most cases describe the melodicfunction they represent. This Byzantine nomenclature has been applied with reservation tothe signs in the Paleoslavonic kondakarian notational system, although in subsequentcenturies, those signs absorbed into the Znamenny chant system were given equallydescriptive Slavic labels that also depicted their melodic function. Where possible, for agiven neume, an attempt has been made to provide the etymological origins, definitions forthese terms, and their musical applications in the citations. Readers are requested to refer tothe neume illustrations on pages 63 and 64, and in the tables at the end of the chapter.Byzantine musical notation, its various types, its stages of development and theproblems of its decipherment have been thoroughly documented in numerous studies overthe past century. The following discussion builds on the latest paleographical researchposing new solutions for some long-standing problems.The table of Chartres hypostases and their corresponding Koukouzelean DidacticSong representations, shown at the end of the chapter, scarcely exhausts the list of possiblemelodic figures absorbed into or developed by the kondakarian system. The identificationand nomenclature ofPaleobyzantine, and in turn, kondakarian musical notation, is indeedbeset with many difficulties. Velimirovic (see Chapter One above) noted that anexamination of the very shapes of the neumes themselves shows that musical notationcontinued to develop in Byzantium from the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries. A60comparison of the tenth-century Chartres L.avra-amma 67 (hereafter Ly67) neumecatalogue with later charts provides ample evidence.8In their oldest forms many of theneumes bear striking resemblance to one another, .g., the Tromikon,9 Anatrichisma,Parakalesma, Parakletike,10 Rapisma,I’ Choreuma,l2etc. Others have no representationin the oldest lists, e.g., Plasma;’3 while some are obviously later evolutions from aprototype, most evident in the so-called “Theta” group--those based on the stylised GreekTheta (0) letter. Then there are those that do not appear at all in the later system, e.g.,Gronthisma.l4 Evidence for this latter point can be found in the Ly67 chant which liststhe Theta sign in its primal form, while later tables provide its subsidiary forms: theThematismos Eso and Exo, Thema Haploun, and Thes kai Apothes,15 which share similargraphic designs and melodic functions.The mere evolution of the graphic shapes of signs also suggests an evolution offunction. Extreme caution must therefore be exercised in the identification of the melodicformulae stenographically depicted by the old hypostases. Such caution, for example, is8Folio 159r of Athos Lavra-gamma 67, a tenth-century Triodion, has been reproduced from 0.Strunk, Specimina Notationum Antiguiorum, pars princjplis, (MMB VII, Copenhagen: Munksgaard,1965), plate 12, and appears as Appendix I.9A11 definitions for the notational terminology have been drawn from Conomos’ study ByzantineTrisagia and Cherubika of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, (Thessalonika, 1974), pp. 334-367, orfrom Gertznian, Biina1rracKoe My3Io3anane, (Leningrad: MynjiKa, 1988), pp. 212-222 and pp. 241-245. Tromikon (Conomos, p. 354) derives from the Greek word “Tptw”tI tremble, and implies the vocalornamentation of an agitation or trembling of the voice. The Anatrichisma shares a similar function(Gertzman, p. 215).lOParakletike and Parakalesma jConomos, pp. 351-363) share the same root, “Hapxicati”= tosupplicate or entreat, implying melodic passages of a prayerful nature, without intensity but with joy (p.352).iFrom “ tleLv”= to strike or hit, implying perhaps a percussive quality to the voice. Itslater manifestation was the Kolaphismos, which had a similar function (Gertzman, p. 219).12From “XopsLw”=tI dance, suggesting a circular melodic motion (Gertzman, p. 219).l3From “(av)3tLw”=I squeeze or compress, a sign applicable to vocal quality (Conomos, p.350; Gertzman, p. 215).14The Gronthisma is also based on the Theta, and appears in two forms in the Ly 67 list (seeappendix). As in the case of other Chartres signs, the first form of this hypostasis appears in the KS codex.According to Gertzman (p. 221), who cites Floros, the melodic motion implied by this hypostasis involvesthe step of a third. For a related hypostasis, see Table VIII of the comparative chart, Chants I (K8), 2b, and4.lSTo these three signs can be added the Thema Haploun.61shown by Levy in his early studies, concerning the medial “cadential idiom” , thecombination of Ouranisma-plus-Thematismos Es16 among the earliest of thekondakarian formulae with Chartres counterparts tentatively identified by him.17The position of kondakarian musical notation and that of K8 in the course ofchronological development of Byzantine notation is called into question. Many of the“positive” identifications of the kondakarian hypostases have been made on the basis oftheir similarities to the later developmental stages of the Byzantine neumes and not on theChartres stage (.g., the Tromikon). Others, because of their unique, stylised and oftenhighly ornamental designs (while having similar appearances to some Chartres signs, .g.,the Katabatromikonl8and kondakarian Ouranisma), have either different melodicrepresentations in counterpart transcriptions or are unidentifiable.Identification problems encountered in the K8 Asmatikon are made even morecomplex by the late date of that source’s compilation, since it was written long after theheyday of the Asmatikon and the Chartres neume-tables. As discussed in Chapter Four onthe Greek sources, this manuscript dates from the fourteenth century, its small signs areMiddle Byzantine neumes, and except for some peculiarities, they can be transcribed withlittle difficulty according to the methods outlined by Tillyard, Wellesz, HØeg and theMonumenta Musicae Byzantinae.19 The great hypostases, however, bear directcomparison with the oldest forms of the Chartres signs (.g., the Synagma)2°like thosefound in the Ly67 list, as well as those manuscripts preserving this type of notation. Tocite but a single example, the K8 sign identified as the Ouranisma (see formula No. 6 in thel6Oup.jsma from “oi pcvkz”=heaven1y, indicates the ascent of the voice (Gertzman, pp. 216-217).17n a footnote (no. 9) to his Study, “An Early Chant for Romanus’ Contacarium TrimnPueroruna,” (Classica et Mediawalia XXII (1961), pp. 172-175), concerning the above-mentioned figure,Levy says:The interpretation of Slavic neumes is in its infancy and the parallel I suggest here is quitetentative; at best this may be a notational counterpart but not a melodic equivalent. (p. 175,emphasisadded.)18 See Tromikon above.19H. J. W. Tillyard, Handbook of the Middle Byzantine Musical Notation MMB SubsidiaVol. I, (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1935).20Synagma from “avvcyw”= I assemble, suggests the assembling of a group of four to six notes(Conomos, p. 346).62appended table), in its function and position is identical with that found in the Chartresmanuscripts Lavra-gamma 74 (f. liv) and Sinai 1219 (f. 49r).2l Many others have a moreor less direct visual similarity to the kondakarian neumes, especially those found in the BKcodex.22To what extent the melodic functions represented by these signs have changed, theanswer is unknown; we have only those later pedagogical tools such as the Didactic Songscomposed in the fourteenth century by Glykys, Koukouzeles and others, which list thesesigns and their functions as known in the fourteenth century.23 If, however, as in thejudgment of Levy and Floros, we can trust the conservative and consistent transmission ofthose identifiable melodic formulae found in the South Italian Asmatika and theirPaleoslavonic parallels, then our basis for making more positive identifications of thosemelodic formulae transmitted orally and recorded by the older Slavic sources is on moresolid ground.The chart following this discussion is a comparative table showing in the leftcolumn the Chartres representation of the Paleobyzantine Great Hypostases which havebeen drawn principally from the Ly67 neume list. The other main source is the cataloguefound in the St. Blasien manuscript published by Gerbert in his 1774 monograph De Cantuet Musica Sacra.24 In his 1988 Russian-language study of Byzantine music, Gertzman25provides a more comprehensive list of Paleobyzantine neumes and their descriptions whichcould give additional information for the task at hand. Those hypostases not shown in thetable can be found in a second list on page 64. Other later Chartres catalogues reproduced2iLevy, p. cit., p. 174.22See Chant 2b below, line 2, and the sign tentatively identified after Floros as the Stavros apoDexias23To illustrate that sign meanings have changed, the Isojpitch-repetition) and Baitia, two of themost basic signs which survive from the oldest strata of Byzantine notation can be cited as examples. In itsoldest manifestation, the Ison was identical to the Oligon, a sign indicating step ascent. It did not take onits current form or function as a sign for pitch-repetition until the advent of the Middle Byzantine system atthe end of the twelfth century.The original function of the Baiia was for melodic descent, the complement of the Oxeia, the signfor accented pitch-ascent. In its Middle Byzantine guise the Bainia lost this function, and served only as anaccent sign.24Gp, Austria, reprint 1970.2SS note 9 above.63by Toncheva, Kujumdzieva, as well as by Wellesz and Floros, have also been eitherconsulted or included as Appendices II to IV.26For the transmission of the Koukouzelean Didactic Song in the chart’s right-handcolumn, selections from its oldest known versions, as found in the fourteenth-centurycodices A2458 and A2444 (reproduced as Appendix VI), have been used.27 Floros’choice of appropriate signs have also been edited; most of those without Chartres and/orkondakarian representation have been omitted. At the same time the list includes some thatFloros does not mention.28 The present number stands at thirty-three melodic formulaewhich are as follows:(1) Kratemokatabasma/Psephiston (Ly67/A2458)29(2) Tromikon/Katabatromikon (Ly67/St. BlasienIA2444)(3) (Ek)Strepton (St. BlasienJA2444)3O(4) Thes kai Apothes (St. BlasienIA2444)(5) Thematismos Eso (St. BlasienIA2444)(6) Ouranisma (Ly67/CHRJCBG300/St. BlasienIA2458)(7) Seisma (Ly67/St. Blasien/A2444)326Floros, gp. cit., p. 47. These include the Codex Chrysander (CHR), Codex Barbarinus graecus300 (CBG300), and the Messina Papadike (MP). Also Elena Toncheva, “HpemcR naXKpoHoMa’wcoTo fleB’IecKo YnpazuenKe na. loan KyKy3eJI,” in flpo6neMn na CTapaTaThnrapcKa My3na, (Sofia: HitaiencTno HayKa K H3KycTBo, 1975), PP. 53-58 for Codex A899; andSvetlana Kujumdzieva, “Uber die Zeichen während der spat- und post byzantinischen Periode,” inMusikkulturgeschichte: Festschrift für Constantin Floros zum 60 Geburtstag, (Herausgegeben von PeterPetersen, Sonderdnick, Breitkopf & Hartel, Weisbaden, 1990), pp. 449-460. I would like to thank ProfessorKujumdzieva for the offprint of her article.271n a Masters Thesis presented to the Department of Music of the University of Virginia in 1966,I also included a transcription of the Didactic Song from the fifteenth-century codex A899.Appendix V is a reproduction of the fifteenth/sixteenth-century St. Blasien redaction of the DidacticSong as found in Gerbert De Cantu et Musica Sacra, Tables XII -XVII.28This table does not include the kondakarian hypostases.29According to Conomos (p.348), Psephiston derives etymologically from the word “to count” or“enumerate”; “it is placed where the sounds are to be separated and not said together, but as if counted out.”3OThe (EkiStrepton, from “otpw”= I turn about (Conomos, p. 354), depicts a turning inmelodic motion and is usually found in close proximity with the Tromikon.31The Seisma, like its Greek stem “ae iw”= move or shake, implies similar musical motion.64(8) Anatrichisma (Ly67/A2458)(9) Synagma (Ly67ISt. Blasien/A2458)(10) Kylisma (St. BlasienIA2458)32(11) Krousma (no Chartres representationlA2458)33(12) AnavasmafKatavasma (no Chartres representationlA2458)34(13) Parakalesma (Ly67ISt. Blasien)A2458)(14) AporrhoelHyporrhoe (no Chartres representationlA2458/A2444)(15) Antikenoma (St. BIasienIA2444)35(16) Rapisma/Kolaphismos (Li67/A2458)(17) Parakietike (Ly67/St. BlasienJA2444)(18) Choreuma (Ly67/St. BIasienICHRJCBG300/A2444)(19) Klasma (Ly67/A2458)36(20) Chairetismos (no Chartres representationlA2444)37(21) Bareia (Ly67it. BIasienIA2458)(22) Piasma (Ly67/St. BlasienIA2458)(23) Echadin (Ly67IA2458)38(24) Thema Haploun (Ly67ISt. BlasienIA2458)32Kylisma from “Kiñ.(w”= I roll or revolve, implies melodic motion of this sort (Gertzman, p.243).33Krousma, from “Kpoiknc”= striking, sounding, implies melodic accent.34’rhe exact meaning for these terms was not found.35conomos (p. 334) claims that the term Antikenoma derives from two Greek words “&vxt”(instead of or opposite to) and “Kvwa” (empty space), “thus its use may be to avoid any lingering onthe notes to which the hypostasis is attached.”3tiKlasma from “K”= I cut, another sign for vocal quality, implying that the voice should be“cut” wth roughness (Conomos, p. 342).37Chairetismos seems to derive from the Greek word “XaipexUw”= I hail or salute.38Echadin often interchanges with the word ‘xoc” or mode, and its function is often found “speltout” in intonation formulae (Gertzman, p. 219)65(25) ApothemaJEpeerma (Ly67ISt. BlasienIA2458)39(26) StavrosfStavros apo DexiaslMeta Stavrou (Ly67ISt.BlasienICHRIA2444)40(27) NaNa (Ly67/A2458)41(28) Phthora (Ly67/A2444)(29) Enarxis (St. BlasienICHR/MP/A2444)42(30) Tessara (Ly67IA2444)(31) Tria (Ly67/A2444)43(32) Strangisma (Ly67/A2458)44(33) Gronthisma (Ly67IA2444)Those signs not represented in the Didactic Song but found in later neume tables(and having ample kondakarian representation), or not mentioned in the list above becauseof identification problems, include:(1)Tinagma:45(2) Stavros apo Dexias:46(3) Parechon:4739Epeenna, from “ujspw”= I arise, may imply some melodic ascent. According toConomos (p. 345), it usually accompanies a medial cadence.4OThe Stavros or cross, is found only in the sixteenth-century Codex Chrysander transmission ofthe Didactic Song. The Meta Stavrou, shown by Gertzman (op. ct., p. 216), immediately follows theSynagma in the Ly67 catalogue, and appears to be a ligature of that sign with the Stavros apo Dexias(literally “a cross from the right”)4lFound only in the A2458 codex.42This term means beginning, opening or introduction.43Formulae nos. 30, Tessara (literally “four”) and 31, Tria (literally “three”) were omitted fromFloros’ initial list.44Strangisma, from “otpayyte(v”= I squeeze45Tinagma etymologically derives from the word to shake, and suggests a shaking melodicfiguration.46See note no. 19 above.47From “nxzpix1wcL” for a succession of sounds or an alliteration.66(4) Revma:48 LAA.”(5) Pelaston:49(6) Kondevma:50To this list, should be added yet one more fundamental sign, theLygisma:51It is important to note that many of the Chartres signs bear strong resemblance toone another, as do the kondakarian hypostases, while their functions in the Didactic Songalso seem to overlap in melodic shape, direction and interval content. Moreover, many ofthe Paleobyzantine Great Hypostases recur in Middle Byzantine notation in new guises.These include:(l)Bareia: \(2) Seisma: J(3) Psephiston:..J(4) Parakalesma: 14%(5) Parakletike:(6) Kylisma: >—‘(7) Antikenoma: ,...-il(8) Antikenokylisma: )—r,(9) Tromikon: 5”(10) Strepton: “(11)Omalon:52—-,(12) Thematismos Eso: 0(13) Thematismos Exo: ..--‘(14) Thema Haploun:(15) Synagma: ‘EZ48From “pErn”= flow, torrent, or stream. Again this depicts a specific type of melodic motion(Gertzman, p. 214).49The exact origins of this term are unknown.50 Kondevma derives from the word for shortening or abbreviation (Gertzman, p. 218).51lncluded by Floros, the Lygisma (from “).vy lw”= I turn or bend) resembles the Antikenoma infunction, with which it freely interchanges. It suggests a bending of the melody (Conomos, p. 338).52From the word meaning even, level, smooth, etc.67Most of these have drastically altered shapes and it is only by means of latersurviving neume charts, the Koukouzelean Didactic Song, and the testimonies of theoriststhat they can be shown to be survivors from the older system. Even with such evidence itis difficult to ascertain stability of transmission of a given melodic formula; if shapes canchange so can function. The relationship, therefore, of these signs to the kondakariansystem remains tenuous at best.To answer the question posed concerning the chronological relationship of thekondakarian notational system to that of the Chartres, we admit that many of thekondakarian hypostases have been identified by means of the later neume tables and by thegraphic designs of those signs in their later guises. It seems that the kondakarian systembelongs midway in the course of notational development between the Chartres and MiddleByzantine systems.CI{ARTRESHYPOSTASISDIDACTICSONGREPRESENTATION1)____L67PEPHIS[ttm—A.24582)/_____L67TROMIKON7KATABATROMIKONA.2444St.BlasienT1MIKONCIIARTRESHYPOSTASISDIDACTICSONGREPRESENTATION.bF3)Z•)f ‘cJJ.St.BlasienEKSTREPTONA.24444)ST.BLASIENItoQ”’‘E$THESKAIAPOTHESA24445)EEFEZST.BL2SIEN—OSTHEMATISMOSESOA2444CIIARTRESHYPOSTASISDIDACTICSONGREPRESENTATION7)ST.BLASIENOtJRANISACodexCI.,ysanderG*,CodexBarberinusgraccus300---a•‘-L67SEISMA ‘v-I—ST.BLASIENSEISMA0—-• A2458elII.t -A2444C’CIIARTRESHYPOSTASISDIDACTICSONGREPRESENTATION8)—‘JcLLS?ANATRICHISMAA2458./em-..TS;91L67SYNAGMA2458a,war111:T.BLASINSYNAGMACHARTRES11YPOSTASISDIDACTICSONGREPRESENTATION10)I.ST.BLASIEMKYLISMAiZ___j__._.__.A2458NOCHARTRES)REPRESENTATION---___—o—d.cIA’-’ A.—.A2458zjazzNOCHARTRES12)REPRESENTATION—--.---—•--•..—----___-A2458CIIARTRESHYPOSTASIS13)L67PAJ1SWSt.BlasienParakalesma—*zz.LiDIDACTICSONGREPRESENTATION.0••—iL245.:NOCHARTRES14)REPRESENTATION--.,—-—------.--..—-—--—____-o.-a.1-A2458A2444CHARTRESHYPOSTASISDIDACTICSONGREPRESENTATION--15)-.—.-—-.-—-ST.BLASIEJANTIKENOMAA2444in1e.L.16)L67RAPISMA0-a‘oZ*LZ•oe.a-o.o-oL4A2458CIIARTRESHYPOSTASIS17)L67PARAKLETIKESt.B1as±enPARAKLETIKEDIDACTICSONGREPRESENTATION-w-.————.---—-------—--—-----.--..--rg.kbk\-\-‘“444-CJcxC1iysaiderCdexBai-tiirinwsjraecus300“z!‘j•Z--a..A245818))C L67CHOREUMAST.BLASIENCHORUMA.——T’wiZE’•zI0__•__.ij------_CHARTRESHYPOSTASISDIDACTICSONGREPRESENTATION19)L57KLASMAM4a(,•eo.ToA245820)NOCHARTRESREPRESENTATION.,.-$oLL..A244421)L67BAREIA-.—-.i.-.--—--—--——______--.--,--.-..L(.U1fUøJBLASIENA2458BAREIA22)CHARTRESHYPOSTASIS/•cL67PlASMAST.BLASIENPlASMADIDACTICSONGREPRESENTATION-A245823)4—F.U•_pZE0L67EXDHADINA.2458CHARTRESHYPOSTASISDIDACTICSONGREPRESENTATION24)ST.BLASIENTHEMAHAPLOtJU:-‘j___.__w#_w_._._._-L’)4—A2458—‘,CC—-—L67THEMA25)_LL.eww.L67APOTHEMAST.BLASIENEPEGERMA14‘e.A2444CHARTRESHYPOSTASISDIDACTICSONGREPRESENTATION26)STBLASIENSTAVrOSOtLu CODEXCRRL67STAVRO5APO..DEXIAS•L67METASTAVROU27)L67aNaA2458CIIARTRESHYPOSTASISDIDACTICSONGREPRESENTATION,Iz-z1•zzzz28)JJZZZJZL67PHTHORAA2444.1—.29)ST.BLASIENENARXISLvCoderBarberirna,graecus300VCoderChysanderA2444PapadikevonMcsslna‘F30)ru:AJL67TESSARA.SZA2144CIIARTRESHYPOSTASISDIDACTICSONGREPRESENTATION31)7•L67TRIAA244432)A2458L67SThZNGISMATA,,-•.0‘4*l—roj/-Fyr—a---.1------.---------L67GRONTHISMATAA24440082CHAPTER SEVENTHE METHOD OF COUNTERPART TRANSCRIPTION;TRANSCRIPTION AND ANALYSES: THECOMPARABLE CHANTSThe term “counterpart transcription” of kondakarian musical notation was coinedand its method was pioneered and first presented more than twenty-five years ago by Levyin a series of seminal articles. A similar and even more exhaustive technique wasdeveloped independently somewhat later by Floros.i To recount in detail Floros’ elaboratemethod would exceed the scope of this study. Briefly, however, he followed four basicsteps:(1) identification of the kondakarian signs by comparison with the Chartres signs asfound in the oldest neume catalogues, such as Ly67, as well as the Russian Azbuki--lists ofZnamenny neumes--of the fifteenth through seventeenth centuries;(2) transcription and analysis of those Byzantine hymns from the Asmatikon forwhich there exists a Paleoslavomc counterpart;(3) intabulation of the Paleoslavomc settings with their Byzantine asmaticanalogues;(4) the identification of the transcribed melodic formulae by means of theKoukouzelean Didactic Song, whose oldest redactions date from the fourteenth century.2Roros provides copious illustrations of the identifications made by means of hissystem. Yet at the same time, caution is advised in the acceptance of any identification asabsolute. Firstly, for our purposes, it must be constantly borne in mind that the1K. Levy, “The Slavic Kontakia and their Byzantine Originals,” Twenty-Fifth AnniversaryFestschrift (1937-62), Department of Music, Queens College, (Flushing, New York, 1964), pp. 79-87;“The Byzantine Communion Cycle and its Slavic Counterpart,” Actes du Congres Intemationale d’Etudesbyzantines, II, Ochride, 1961, (Belgrade, 1963), pp. 571-4; “The Earliest Slavic Melismatic Chants,” inFundamental Problems of Early Slavic Poetry. (MMB, Subsidia VI, ed. C. Hannick, Copenhagen:Munksgaard, 1978), Pp. 197-210; C. Floros, “Die Entzifferung der Kondakarien-Notation,” Musik desOstens III (1965), pp. 7-70; IV (1967), pp. 12-44; Universale Neumenkunde, Vols. I and II (Kassel, 1970).2The remarkable stability of the Koukouzelean Didactic Song is demonstrated in the above chartand in Appendices V and VI. Appendix V is a transcription of the song from the fourteenth-century codexA2444, the other is a reproduction of the Song from the St. Blasien codex of the fifteenth-sixteenth century,and reprinted by Gerbert as tables XII-XVII of his 1774 monograph De Cantu et Musica Sacra. Minorvariants notwithstanding, the transmissions of the song in these disparate sources are identical.83employment of melodic formulae--kondakarian or asmatic--and their interpretation mustmake sense within the context of the mode and the composition of the hymn as a whole.Figures, and their rendering in musical notation, serve a defining role to create musicallythe syntax of the text.Secondly, one must also be cautious when using Chartres nomenclature for theidentification of both kondakarian, and to a lesser extent, the K8 large signs. Although ithas been shown that some of the terminology can be applied to both, there are as manyinstances in which it cannot; kondakarian notation and the K8 signs are chronologically andgeographically quite distant from the Chartres system and a notational correspondence doesnot necessarily constitute an absolute identification.Thirdly, those early musicians responsible for engineering the kondakariannotational system and adapting it to the Slavonic texts obviously had a working knowledgeof the extant Paleobyzantine systems and freely borrowed signs from them, as well as thecentonate procedure of musical composition. But not all was borrowed. Other signs werenewly created to fit the translations. The best illustration is the unique sign which isidiomatic to the kondakarian system: that corresponding to the Strangisma, but whosemanifestation--usually a Stavros followed by five short lines (Floros’ “Ftinfergruppe”)-has no foundation in either the Chartres or Coislin Paleobyzantine systems. Itsidentification and function can only be determined through extensive comparative analysiswhere the transcription of the figure consistently agrees with the Didactic Songtransmission of that melodic formula. Further support of the identification comes from theK8 Asmatikon, whose Strangisma in this case is identical to that found in the Ly67 neumechart.3 It must be repeatedly emphasised, however, that kondakarian notation is, above all,a system of codified cheironomic gestures, and that this sign has its origins in specificmusical practice.Other factors must also be taken into account. The deployment of the small intervaland rhythmic signs with the great hypostases serves multifarious roles; the text (word orname choice) and choice of mode, and of melodic formulae within a calendaric cycle are allcontributing factors. This mnemonic nature and relationship between text and neumes3See formula no. 32 above.84adds further support to the oral transmission theory.Although Floros’ method is the most thorough to date, it does not give us the finalword on the deciphering of kondakarian notation. He does not take into account theconsiderable disparity of ages of the sources employed, maintaining that the melodies andnotation found in all sources from the eleventh through fifteenth centuries resisted any typeof evolutionary development. Furthermore, all figures identified by Floros have beenobserved in isolation rather than presented in the context of the hymns in which they arefound.4The four basis steps of counterpart analysis outlined above were followed for thepreparation of the examples presented below.4Perhaps the first to show the structural roles of the kondakanan notational system in chantconstruction was Levy in his article “Die Slavische Kondakarien-Notation,” in Anfänge der SlavischeMusik (Symposia I, Bratislava, 1964), pp. 77-92. Levy provides an interesting structural analysis of thebilingual Hypakoe for the Feast of the Elevation of the Cross (14 September) as found in the BK (f. 85r).85Transcription and Analyses: The Comparable HymnsIn the first part of his monumental article on the transcription of kondakariannotation,5Floros determined the following five categories of melismatic chants common toboth Asmatikon and kondakar that are suitable for comparative analysis:(1) the two Oktoechal cycles of Hypakoai;(2) the two Oktoechal cycles of Koinonika;(3) the Great Troparia for the Vigils of Christmas and Epiphany;(4) some miscellaneous hymns of the Ordinary;(5) three isolated exemplars from the asmatic kontakion repertory:(i) the KontakionlHypakoe for the Sunday of Orthodoxy;6(ii) the KontakionlHypakoe-refrain for Palm Sunday;(iii) the Kontakion for the Dedication of a Church.7To this list can be added as the sixth category the katavasiai and hypakoai for all theGreat Feasts of the Fixed Liturgical Year, for which there is full kondakanan and asmaticrepresentation. It is especially noteworthy that the cycles of hypakoai and koinonika existin the two melodic styles, solo and choral, as can be found in such mixed-type Asmatika asthe codices VG, Fy5, and M129, which contain both repertories.8It is from this sixth category that the body of chants chosen for analysis in thisstudy have been drawn, in particular those chants that exist as veritable “cycles” within theliturgical calendar. All are in plagal modes, employing predominantly one modal area--Mode VI (Mode II Plagal in the Byzantine system). The cyclic correspondence opens thedoor to greater levels of comparative analysis, that of the calendaric or inter-festal. All are5c. Floros, “Die Entzifferung der Kondakarien-Notation,” Musik des Ostens III (1965), pp. 7-70.6The first Sunday of the Great Lenten Fast.7c. Floros, p. cit., p. 26.8Levy, in his article, “A Hymn for Thursday in Holy Week” (JAMS XVI (1963), p. 150),remarks:The repertories of the Asmatikon and the Psaltikon are generally independent, but in afew cases they complement one another, as the Asmatikon supplies the choral refrains for some ofthe solo verses in the Psaltikon. And in one case they overlap, as full cycles of the Responds(Hypakoai) have come down in the characteristic styles of both collections. The reasons for thedouble tradition are not clear, although it seems likely that the choral versions were intended forprocessional use, while the ones for the soloist were reserved for stationary functions within thechurch.86selected from the Pre-Christmas, Christmas, and Epiphany church festivals. The tenchants are:(1) The HypakoeIKatavasia for the Feast of the Archangel Michael andAll Angels, a contrafactum chant modelled on,(3) The First Troparion for Christmas;(2) Two Hypakoai for the Forefeast of Christmas:(a) The Sunday of the Forefathers;(b) The Three Children in the Fiery Furnace.(4) The First katavasia for Christmas;(5) The Second katavasia for Christmas;(6) The katavasia for Epiphany;(7) The Second Troparion for Christmas and Stichoi;(8) The First Troparion for Epiphany and Stichoi;(9) The Second Troparion for Epiphany and Stichoi.As recounted in the discussion on the notation in Chapter Six, the use ofPaleobyzantine labels for the kondakarian hypostases remains a problem. For want of analternative nomenclature, labels appropriated from the Chartres system have been appliedwith certain reservations. The method of transcription used for the Byzantine material alsodeviates from that pioneered by the Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae.9 Instead the methodhas been simplified to a system of “shorts” and “longs” rendered in note-heads withoutstems; the longer note values are indicated by tenuto marks (-) and fermata signs. The aimis to show as clearly as possible the melodic shape of each formula absorbed into thekondakarian system from the Byzantine. The chants are discussed in the order in whichthey are found in the kondakars and not according to the typikon, since typikonal ordervaries among the sources. Readers are referred to the end of this study where the chantanalyses are presented in their entirety, as well as to the neume charts in the previouschapter and in Appendices II through IV. All transcriptions are written in the treble clef.9See H. J. W. Tillyard, A Handbook of Byzantine Musical Notation, MMB Subsidia Vol. 1(1935).871 & 3: The HypakoefKatavasia for the High Feast of theArchangel Michael; The First Troparion for10“AaOwv EtExOqc”/”Th £oirM”- -“Aion 4,w’These two chants are discussed together (see p. 226 below for the analysis) becausethey are provided with almost identical neumation; the former is a contrafactum of the latter,and as far as is known, is the only extant exemplar of a katavasia modelled on a troparion.Their inclusion and analysis provide fine examples of interchant-interfestal correspondence.For the first time, those sources which were previously unavailable--the Lavrsky andSinodalny Kondakars--have now been included in the comparative analyses.The First Troparion for Christmas is found only in the LK (ff. 109r- 109v) and SK(f. lOOv), from which it has been drawn and tabulated with the transcription from the fyicodex (f. 18v) and the neumation from K8 (f. 52r).il The St. Michael hymn, however, isfound only in the older BK codex (f. 86a) and the LK (f. 19v). Rubrics for this chant aresparse; according to the typikon and the kondakars, two dates are prescribed in honour ofthis saint: 6 September and 8 November (for the High Feast). The katavasia is indicatedfor the latter, while a kontakion is reserved for the former date.These chants bear special significance for three principal reasons: (1) there is noknown Greek setting in Middle Byzantine notation; this analysis will therefore provide aunique opportunity to see how the neumation of the troparion is adapted to the Slavonickatavasia and how both in turn match the melodic construction of the Byzantinetranscription; (2) the fact that a troparion can provide a model for a katavasia demonstratesthe flexibility and interchangeability of these hymn forms, and the economy with which thelOThe published edition of the Great Church Typikon (J. Mateos, Le Typicon de Ia Grande Egiise.2 Vols., OCA 165-166(1962-63), pp. 148-151) provides the following rubrics for the performance of theFirst Christmas Troparion, which is included for the Lucemarium (Lychnikon or “Office of Light) on theevening of 24 Decemberthe “Incline, Lord” (Ps. 85), the last antiphon, and the “Lord, I have cried unto Thee” (Ps.140) together with the Mode II Troparion, “We have known God incarnate.” After theentrance of the Patriarch, he says the evening Prokeimenon, the three little antiphons are thenperformed, which is followed by litany with petitions. These are followed by the readings fromGenesis 1, 1-13, Numbers 24, 2b-18, and Micah 4, 6-5, 3.1lWith the exception of the St. Michael chant, which has no Byzantine representation, all thechants are also found in VG. The First Christmas Tropanon can be found on f. 37r followed by threestichoi in the psaltic style, ff. 37v-38v.88adaptors reused materials to create something new; (3) it seems that in Rus’ the Feast of theArchangel Michael bore some special significance to that land.12Chants 1 and 3 are exemplary for their composition in large centonate blocks(shown by large brackets over the upper-most line). Musical unity is attained on twostructural levels: by line and by recurrent melodic formula. These are aligned by hypostasisand punctuation (i.., dots which serve as internal line breaks). The chants are divided intoten lines according to textual division, with lines 1 and 2 forming a pair. Textually, line 7of the Christmas Troparion constitutes the refrain, raiseing the question whether the St.Michael chant was also treated as a refrain-form, and if so, whether its refrain occurred atthe same spot.It is significant that both LK and SK include the verses with the rubrics forperformance, but without notation. Apparently, the first Christmas Troparion withneumated verses was also once a part of the UK codex, but discrepancies in foliation at theapproximate spot in this manuscript show that they have been lost.l2Lisitsyn records that, “according to the chronicles, the Venerable Theodosius received a preparedcopy of the Ustav from the icon of the Archangel Michael. But in his Vita, it says that he purposely sentto Constantinople for it.” Further on the same author writes: “One might think that in the icon of theArchangel Michael, the Venerable Theodosius saw the image of St. Theodore Studite” (HCPT, p. 165).Professor Gail Lenhoff, in her article “Christian and Pagan Strata in the East Slavic cult of St. Nicholas:Polemical Notes on Boris Uspensky’s “L oiortiecae paaiican a o6aacm cnanaacxtpeanocTe,” SEEJ Vol. XXIX, No. 2 (Summer 1984), pp. 147-163), notes that St. Michael wasvenerated as the patron of royalty and that in medieval Rus’ there was some confusion with St. Nicholas.Although the evidence is thin and at best circumstantial, the particularly good representation of chants forSt. Michael in the BK possibly implies that the source’s place of origin was in a noble household orprincely cathedral.89The AnalysisLine 1:Four melodic formula-neume sequences have been bracketed in line 1. The lineopens with a figure identifiable as a recurring incipit formula-signature: a four-noteconjunct ascending pattern incorporating the step wise motion of the Echadin. 13 Thekondakarian hypostasis has two forms, both of which are represented in the openingfiguration. All four kondakarian lines are consistent, while the K8 line has a hypostasisresembling the Chartres Gronthisma in one of its Ly67 guises:ivLK . °A HLLJiL••iBK fI°4H pQK8 £fyi)S93V eThe second formula is the Lygisma-plus-Parakalesma,’4shown here in a single row in allfour kondakarian lines and in K8 as a ligature:LK HH’hHH’HH-rL c. >. ‘ry4tz.•TL5L - St3The Echadin-Gronthisma appears three times in lines 1, 3, and 7, and consistently displays twovariants, it can be found in all the chants surveyed in this study often as a four-note rising figure at thebeginning of lines, but can also occur medially in a free melisma or cadence, and in final cadential patterns.14These two signs appear in proliferation in all kondakarian chants. In Chant 1 it occurs fourtimes in four different combinations-variants. These signs are used consistently as medial figures in eitheras a constituent of a free melisma or medial cadence, but rarely in an incipit or final cadence.90The Lygisma and Parakalesma are two of the fundamental kondakarian signs,which occur equally among the small signs and the great hypostases. The former has noChartres representation, although it has a cognate in the Kylisma, but appears in the laterMiddle Byzantine notation. The Parakalesma, however, with its cognate the Parakietike, isfound in the oldest Chartres lists. Both signs appear in combination and in ligature withother signs.The third phrase has been subdivided to illustrate best its composition with twofigures. The first is a Theta formula which recurs as part of a cadential composite in line10.15The last hypostasis, found only in the BK line and which recurs in the cadence tothe second phrase of line 3 and in the incipit figure of line 4, is identified as theTromikon,16which is an integer of the Theta:., r4-BKK8€. 7I £ EI rSjl5dentification of this figure in line 1 as the Thema Haploun is oniy tentative. The transcriptioncorresponds to a complex of kondakarian and K8 signs that bear considerable structural importance. Similarrelated formulae occur in lines 2, 3, and 10 of this chant for total of five times. Similar Themata are foundin Chants 4, 5, 7, and 9 as components of cadential composites. Only in Chant 4 is it found in a medialcadence.‘6This census takes into account all possible variants of the TromikonlStrepton, including theChartres form known as the Katabatromikon, as well as the late manifestation known as theTromikoparakalesma ligature, recognisable among the K8 hypostases. The Katabatromikon retains thecircular motion of the Tromikon, often appearing on the pitches d-e-d-c-b, or as a step-wise descendingpattern, g-f-e-f-e-d, as cited by Gertzman (p. 218). The Chartres Katabatromikon bears a strikingresemblance to a form of the kondakarian Ouranisma, to which its melodic function has only a cursorysimilarly.The figure corresponding to the Strepton in line 2 is identical to that cited by Conomos in hisstudy of the Tnsagia and Cherubika (1974, pp. 354-357). The Tromikon is found in all the chants of thisstudy.91Line 2:Three melodic formula-groups have been bracketed and labelled in line 2. Each ofthe three has been positively confirmed by its transmission in the Chartres neume-tablesand corresponding melodic function in the Koukouzelean Didactic Song. The incipitfigure, mentioned in connection with line 1,is the Strepton:LKcLi %‘ ;7K8 ‘-‘‘.‘ rm •i or- -.--1’_____________iyi—.J -rtthe second, the Katabatromikon:‘‘-?LK 1b r1’TcZ), 3... c._/K8iz1’ I .jyl—I-kand third, the rarely-encountered Antikenoma:17LK,tJeaXa o X x’FyiThe transmission of the Antikenoma is complicated since it is perhaps the leaststable of melodic figures represented. There is no concordance among the K8 hypostases;its presence here is as the Antikenoma-plus-Parakalesma, an example that corresponds to17A signs resembling the Antikenoma is also found in Chants 2a, 6, and 7 below.92examples presented by Conomos.18Line 3:As a composite of lines 1 and 2, line 3 exhibits a remarkable economy ofneumation; the first two phrases are appropriated from line 1, the cadential sequence fromline 2. Two figures have been bracketed, but only the second is identified from line 2: theKatabatromikon (see line 2 above). Particularly noteworthy in the LK contrafactum to St.Michael is the increasing proliferation of Coislin-type signs substituting the kondakarianhypostases.Line 4:The KS line presents different textual and simpler, more skeletal melodic materialfor line 4. It has therefore been provided with its own transcription positioned below theFyi line. Three melodic formulae within one phrase have been identified. The first, whichcorresponds to the single-step rise in the transcription, occurs in lines 1, 2, and 3; thesecond is a form of the TromikonlStrepton (see line 2 above), and is found in three of thefour kondakarian lines; the lowest of the LK lines (St. Michael Hypakoe), has only Coislinneumes. The identification of the third melodic figure has been absolutely verified by itsChartres and Didactic Song transmission, and is particularly apparent in the transcription ofthe K8 fragment, the Epegerma:19181). Conomos, The Byzantine Trisagia, p. 362. The Antikenoma occurs only once in this chantas part of the medial cadence. It can be found in Chants 2a (in a free melisma), 6 (in the medial cadence),and 7 (as part of the final cadence).l9The actual appearance of the Epegeniia ‘s melodic feature has been displaced in the transcription,but is nevertheless an exact replication of that found in the Didactic Song. The Epegerma is structurallyimportant to this chant and occurs only this once. It can also be found in Chants 2a and 8 (in the initium),4 and 6 (in the medial cadence), 9 (as a component of a free melisma), and in the Epiphany Stichoi.Line 4 of Chant 1, along with lines 6, 7, and 8 discussed next, also has elements of the Katabasmaand Stavros apo Dexias.93,_. / i’ t• •• •Ia1,. 0 0K8--•’’- 1 6A. ‘ r YX Z, XCL ,I, ‘K8‘ )cL -Line 5:Line 5 divides into two distinct phrases, designated A and B, which almost form apalindrome with each other, Nothing has been identified although some of the figurationreappears in lines 7 and 8.Lines 6,7, and 8:Again this chant’s economical construction is apparent; these three lines arecomposites of one another and also form the structural midpoint of the chant. Of particularnote is the textual discrepancy between the BK and LK transmissions of the St. MichaelHypakoe: the BK line includes the name of the saint.The figure dominating the incipit and first phrase of line 6 is a component of line7’s cadential sequence and line 8’s central phrase, and is introduced each time by the samehypostasis-ligature in the K8 line. Although there is minimal correspondence betweenneumation and transcription, each of the lines is distinguished and characterised by anoscillation around the pitch a, and a descending four-note internal cadence. It is alsointeresting to note the melodic-syllabic correspondence (irpo...tpoo) with the recurrenceof these patterns--not evident in the neumation of the Slavonic versions--as if the figureswere chosen to match the assonance of the text.Only the incipit of line 7, which recalls line 1, has been identified; the step-motionand repeated pitch suggest the Echadin (see line 1 above for the illustration).94Lines 9 and 10:This pair of lines comprises the refrain for the Christmas Troparion, andcoincidentally the St. Michael chant shares the same text, adding support to the theory thatthis hymn is also a refrain-form, one which would reclassify it as a troparion rather than ahypakoe or katavasie. The questions remain as to whether its Byzantine counterpart existsand if there is an Paleoslavonic source containing notated alternating verses for a soloist.The transcription shows a low vocal tessitura. Only the last figure of line 9 hasbeen bracketed, showing a complex composed of a Tromikon, found only in the BKtransmission of the St. Michael hymn:..-,-, ?CBK€€< ..t_/; $ I. ‘K8,Fyi EELine 10 has a quasi-isometric design; the first phrase is composed of the Thetafigure, which recalls line 1, the second, identified as the Thema Haploun, is the caclentialcomposite concluding line 1, but occurs here at a transposition a sixth lower:.. .4 / 4. r •LKHKS 7’f/-o95The KatavasiailHypakoai for the Forefeast of Christmas:2A. The Feast of the Holy Fathers, Mode IIPlagallMode VI“ELç Apouov totç HaLoL”I”g Lor’S’ O’rpoio&x”- - “Luwrai*The Forefeast of Christmas is represented in this study by two principal chants, thekatavasialHypakoe for the Sunday of the Holy Fathers (see p. 236 below), and the ThreeChildren in the Fiery Furnace (see p. 248 below). Both are approximately of equal length—six to seven lines--and are particularly appropriate for illustrating interchant correspondence(if any). It cannot, however, be overemphasised, that the identification of kondakarianneumes and the formulae they represent is only tentative; local variants of a melodictradition are often serious impediments. Identifications are made and consolidated onlywhen there is consistency in the neumation and concordance among the sources.The BK and LK also include the Stichoi for these chants in the same melodic style,one for each. These have not been considered in this study for the following reasons: (1)the corresponding Byzantine versions are in the psaltic or soloist style; (2) there is no K8representation which is essential for the comparison of the hypostases; and (3) mostimportantly, they do not appear to have the same internal link to the katavasiai/hypakoai asdo the Christmas and Epiphany Stichoi to the Great Troparia.For the analysis, the manuscripts employed have been limited to the BK (ff. 87a-87b), LK (f. 93r), K8 (f. 45r), with the transcription prepared from codex fyi (f. 16v).The chant is characterised by extreme line length and a regular metrical structure ofAABCCD (shown below by the upper case letters after the line numbers). For theanalysis it has been divided into six lines according to textual division with further20”iwr,q 3wom”, which appears first in the order of chants in the manuscript, is unique tothe BK, and is a mystery since it is not indicated in any of the liturgical sources consulted. For theprincipal hymn, “ poc’ o’r,oicol. “, Lisitsyn provides some interesting details concerning itsperfonnance. According to the Alexian Typikon:In the first week of the Holy Forefathers after the first Kathisma, the Hypakoe in Mode VI,“ ,or(o1rpoIom orn n wwm” is sung with the following instructions: “first by thepsalte; also by the people. Then the psalte says the stichos. Again the hypakoe is sung by thepeople; and again by the psalte; also by the people. At this point, the psalte joins in only at theend of the hypakoe.” (HCP’l’, p. 210)Lisitsyn is citing manuscripts Nos. 1136, f. 1; Ustav No. 330, 1. 9; and Ustav No. 144, f. 5v., allliturgical typika.96subdivision into hemistichs owing to line length where necessary. To regulate line length,the epechemata from the fyi transcription have been omitted. Paired lines are discussedtogether.The AnalysisLines 1 and 2: AOwing to their lengths, both lines have been divided into two hemistichs, eachhaving almost identical neumation. There is a displacement of hypostases, with the K8 linerepeating the opening figure, a hallmark feature of the chants transmitted by this source,suggesting that the opening syllable or word is sung by a solo precentor which is thenrepeated by the choir.21 The transcription is also noteworthy, showing melodic movementin thirds.Six figures have been bracketed, illustrating how the kondakarian hypostases formlinks of interconnecting musical ideas; graphically similar signs are found in the K8 line asligatures. They have been tentatively identified by means of the Chartres neume-cataloguesand the Koukouzelean Didactic Song. A sign unique in its design to the kondakariannotation, which has been labelled Strangisma (Floros’ “ftinfergruppe”), is one of the mostconsistently represented and transcribed melodic formulae transmitted to the kondakariansystem. It occurs twice in this line and in each remaining line of the chant for a total offifteen times, accompanied by the same figuration in the transcription. One may regard it asa notational idiom for Model! and Model! Plagal/Mode VI chants.22 If the transcriptioncan be trusted, this five-note figure most typically depicts two oscillating thirds, usually onthe pitches gb ac (b).2lThis is implied by the abbreviation of the word “a?oç” (another) separating the repeat of theopening word.22This notational idiom is perhaps the most easily recognised and charactetistic kondakarianmelodic formula. It first appears in the initium for the Mode II Kontakion for the 1 September feast of St.Symeon the Stylite (the Indiction of the Byzantine Liturgical Year) which provides a model for numerouscontrafacta. Roros (“Die Entzifferung,” MdO III, pp. 43-45, and Tables I and II) has misinterpreted thissign--usually a Stavros followed by five short lines, or some variant thereof--as the Laimos, a Chartresneume that has no physical resemblance to this unique kondakarian figure.The Strangisma is often found in combinations with other hypostases and is represented as aligature in the K8 lines, which bears strong resemblance to its oldest Chartres form. It is also wellrepresented in Chants 2b, 4, and 9, and will be included in the discussion of those chants below.97Other melodic formulae identified by the same means and also showing remarkableconsistency among the sources are: the Tinagma and a form of the Epegerma:2 J-J21), ‘ 9BK c.T’ ‘z.4-/z-I (J.- DK 8 , -- -,,—:c Leo C C C. oa - I .—,.; •atwo forms of the Ouranisma:23-BK ‘‘VMkbK817 17 ‘Fyi 0the Tromikon: cli (—BKKSand a complex comprising the Tinagma, Parakalesma, and the Synagma-Hyporrhoe:24/ i, U-‘ uBK ‘t’’-’.-J7KS ;-..;7•, -These figures are exhibited in the kondakarian lines as individual hypostases and in the K8line as ligatures.23The Ouranisma is usually found in tandem with the Thematismos Eso, They do not, however,appear so in this chant (fragments of which are found in lines 5 and 6). The Oumnisma also shares some ofthe same intervallic content as the Piasma. The more common manifestation of Ouranisma-plusThematismos Eso is found in a medial application in Chants 2b to 7.24The Synagma and its integers, the Seisma and Hyporrhoe are found in the medial cadences ofChants 2a though 9 inclusive.98Line 3: BAll figures in line 3 have been bracketed to show its centonate construction with noless than ten complexes represented. Not all have been identified. The first two formulaeare the Lygisma-plus-Parakalesma, shown as a ligature in the K8 line:2—BK Mo’K8r. x. -fyiThis is followed by the somewhat enigmatic figure always associated with the four-noteconjunct rise--Echadin/Gronthisma--which introduces the next melodic phrase:I’ ‘ VBK b’VfyiCv a.vThe kondakarian Strangisma, shown here with the Stavros apo Dexias, is remarkablyconsistent in all four manuscript transmissions:254 1T?BKK8po ZLSfyiThe complex, a ligature combination of the Lygisma-plus-Strangisma, ending thefirst hemistich of line 3, seems to serve as a half-cadence:25The Stavros apo Dexias (SAD) occurs four times in this chant, in three of which it appears inconjunction or as a ligature with the Strangisma, as it does here. It is used medially in the context of a freemelisma. The SAD is, with the Tinagma and Ouranisma, a sign that exists in variant forms, with eachmanifestation suggesting different functions.Its significance structurally is particularly evident in the highly stylised form that occurscadentially, as in Chants 2b and 5. Some form of the SAD is found in all the chants in this study, and isnot associated with any particular position.99;. ‘.BK X’b’c’K8 2eI O oc.c;fyiThe second hemistich opens with the Thes kai Apothes hypostasis-melodicformula, depicted in the kondakarian lines by a combination of two different hypostases,the second of which is the Tromikon:26B KK8fyiXThe line concludes with the Strangisma.Lines 4 and 5: CA sign akin to the Paleobyzantine Parechon opens both lines, indicated by stepascent in the transcription:L’t)T: VBKCA ‘YK8_fyiThis enigmatic sign is one of the most difficult to identify and classify; it exists onlyin the oldest Chartres sources and apparently also is in the kondakarian system, but hasneither Middle Byzantine nor Didactic Song representation. This sign seems to have somestructural significance, positioned usually in the incipit of a line or in the penultimate phrasebefore the final cadence. Floros has noted that, depending on the mode, it usually involvesmelodic motion around the pitches c and d. It can be observed, however, that in spite of26The Thes kai Apothes finds its best and most idiomatic representation in Chant 2b. Roros hasdiscerned two different types of fla. conveniently designated A and B (“Die Entzifferung,” MdO Ill,Tables XVIII and XIX.100modal designation, this sign corresponds in transcription to the note a.27 In its Chartresguise, it is commonly accompanied by the Chamele (X), while in the kondakarian form it ispresented with Kentemata:..Six additional formula-complexes have also been bracketed, but only fourtentatively identified: a fragment of an Ouranisma, the Lyisma-plus-Parakalesma, shownas a ligature in the K8 line, and the Strangisma-with-SAD, presented here with a differentinterval content but retaining the same melodic shape as its appearance in line 3:.. ,BK W-K8-1Th.- —fyiThe neumatic complexes preceding the cadence of line 4 include a figure tentatively labelledas the Katabatromikon:I,..—, lBK rcooo1.K8FyiThe K8 line shows two of these hypostases in succession, which are represented in thetranscription as descending melodic sequence (f ed c dc b, then d cb b b). Theunidentified BK contrafactum (top line) has a figure resembling the Chartres Psilon whichseems to correspond to the pitch d in the transcription.28Line 5 is slightly longer than line 4; its last extended phrase shows differentneumation. The antipenultimate figure is once again a form of the Strangisma.27C. Horns, “Die Entzifferung,” MdO III (1965), pp. 66-67. Also E. Gertzman, p. ., p. 213.28E. Gertzman, . cit., p. 212.101.Line 6: UThe first hemistich of line 6 exhibits a quasi-isometrical design, evident by theneumation of all three kondakarian lines and K8. The BK contrafactum is somewhatshorter, concluding in line 6a. It is particularly interesting to see how the text and finalcadence are extended to accommodate and conclude the longer hymn.Five ligature-formulae have been bracketed and labelled; in the opening phrase theEchadin corresponds to the four-note ascending figure in the transcription:BKy,-’ _iT17-fyi —The Lygisma-plus-Strangisma have combined to create the Thes kai Apothes ligature in theK8 line, is the principal melodic formula concluding the BKcontrafactum:ii ii —s €-€.•BKK8Fyi zzzThe Tinagma is the dominant hypostasis used to continue the Forefeast chant:TZ •.I1%.K8Fyiwhile two Strangismata in the second phrase are the most easily recognised in the secondhemistich. Two other possible identifications in this last phrase are a fragment of the Theskai Apothes and an archaic form of the Ouranisma which immediately precedes theStrangisma.1022B The Three Children in the Fiery Furnace, Mode IVPlagaJ/Mode V11129“Ayykoç Hcaöctç”I “&riix M’poI’oMz”For the second chant of the Forefeast, the Hypakoe for the Three Children in theFiery Furnace, the number of sources has intentionally been limited to only the BK (f.89a), LK (f. 94v, part), and K8 (f. 47r).30 Moreover, the LK transmission is incomplete.Owing both to its generally poor condition and to its sometimes irreconcilable notationalpeculiarities, chants from the K8 codex are almost impossible to transcribe accurately. Thissetting, however, is completely readable. Using the VG transmission of this chant only asa reference (f. 31r), the K8 version has been transcribed into modern staff notation,providing a version that is more directly comparable with its Paleoslavonic counterpart (seep. 248 below).Unlike the previous hymn of the Forefeast cycle, with its clear-cut metrical structureand line repetition, this chant is through-composed, showing no large-scale interlinearcorrespondences but some isometry. For analytical purposes it has been divided into sevenlines according to textual breaks, with lines 6 and 7 further subdivided into two largephrases. In line 3, the BK setting interpolates additional text not found in either Byzantine29Velimirovic writes about this feastIn the menaia, the remembrance of the Three Children falls on December 17. Dmitrievsky alsopointed out that the Patmos manuscript of the Typikon of the Great Church records the memoiy ofthe Three Children both on December 17 and on the Sunday before Christmas, while a SinaiticKanonarion of the eleventh century records the remembrance of the Children only on December 17and on that date links their memory with that of the Forefathers. (“Liturgical Drama in Byzantiumand Russia,” DOP 16 (1962), p. 371.)Velimirovic echoes Lisitsyn, who compares the Alexian ordo prescription of this chant with othertypika of the same type and writes:The Hypakoe “ porl( orpoo*i “ is sung at the first Kathisma in the Alexian Ustav, but inthe Evergetis after the Amomos [Psalm] (HCPT, p. 293).In a note, this same author acknowledges the general influence of the Great Church Typikon,saying that the indication in the Alexian ordo is repeated in the Evergetis, but adding the important rubric:“First by the Psalte, then by the people with cheironomiae (emphasis added).” But his following remark isagain echoed by Velimirovic on the Liturgical Drama:Both the placement of the indicated troparia for the service in question and their solemnperformance by the established order of the Great Church, apparently in this case points to theorder of the Three Youths in the Fiery Furnace. At least with regard to the sixteenth century onemay already establish without a doubt, that the order of the Fiery Furnace existed inRussia...(Ibid., n. 51).30Codex VG, f. 3 lr, reverses the order of the two Forefeast chants. The latter is followed by twoverses in the psaltic style.103setting examined; only the final phrase is comparable. The melodic construction of eachline shows regular partitioning by text and punctuation which is complemented by themelodic fonnulae and the hypostases representing them. As in other examples, there is analmost uncanny resemblance between the kondakarian large signs and those of K8, withgroups of kondakarian figures presented as conjunctions or ligatures in the K8 line.Regarding the K8 version, its setting is often characterised by extreme intervallicleaps. This peculiarity was confirmed by the VG transmission, and in order to keep thechant melody within the mode and voice range, certain of these leaps were intentionallydisregarded when the transcription was prepared.31The AnalysisLine 1:Four principal hypostases compose the melody of line 1: a form of the Tromikon:BK Tfrk000’K8 r’the Tria:32BK o”’x3(5:) _;:Jc’yj - x q - .L.K84,±,and the three bracketed kondakarian hypostases and the corresponding K8 ligature,identified by its Didactic Song transmission as an almost note-for-note rendition of the Thes3lFor example, the Hypsele over the syllable “ta” in line 432The along with its cognate the Tessara. is rarely encountered in this collection of chantsand its identification is tenuous. In their Didactic Song transmission both are distinguished by largeintervallic leaps: the Tria by a downward fourth, as seen here, the Tessara by a downward fifth. Theyresemble each other in appearance.104kai Apothes:33rDBK ‘— •-/) I_4 T74,,.K 8 - I .,-. _-K8Similar figuration occurs in two places in line 2, providing and interlinear link. Themelodic cadence of the line corresponds in the transcription to a form of the Stavros apoDexias (hereafter abbreviated SAD), although the K8 figure is dissimilar:D • —i:iVK8 S /.C0K8?,EELine 2:A chain of nine melodic formulae, each delineated by text and punctuation, has beenbracketed to show the relationship between the kondakarian and K8 hypostases, and toillustrate the line’s centonate construction. Although not all have been labelled, thefollowing constitute positive identifications: the Strangisma initium idiom:.•BK-)•;— ‘, s-,,K8K8EEtwo variants of the Thes kai Apothes , linked to a similar figure in line 1:331n the transcription, the first of the two highly stylised figures that forms the incipit of line 7bis represented by a melodic fragment which seems to have the same intervallic composition as those inlines 1 and 2.105I €.t, :€€,eK8. -i-, ,., K8 .:o 0 a o rr& ‘ ‘ I’ ‘ iKS ——. KS-the ascending conjunct four-note figure followed by a third descent, resembling theGronthisma:34I:BKcE-€’77 — 1 77KS c - -and a form of the SAD, an example that best illustrates the graphic similarities of the twonotational cognates:BKKS •I I I ,.vK8Y____Line3:The BK line has been considerably expanded with additional text not transmitted inthe Byzantine sources; only the final phrase shows any correspondence among the sources.The penultimate BK hypostasis is identical to the Ly67 depiction of the ChartresRapisma:3534This identification was based on its melodic exposition in the Didactic Song, as well as by thephysical resemblance of both kondakarian and K8 hypostases to the first of the two manifestations of thissign in the Ly67 neume-catalogue.35This is by no means a positive identification. Moreover, the corresponding K8 hypostasisdefies description, but the transcription retains some of the melodic shape of that sign--known in latersources as the Kolaphismos--as transmitted by the Didactic Song. The Kolaphismos appears medially inChants 5, 7, and 9.106BK-The final figure recurs five times in different guises and seems to correspond in thisexample to the Synagma:36BK_______Cooo’ c-re.K8 .. —-K8D— -Line 4:Line 4 divides into three melodic phrases, each delineated by three largecomponents of formula-complexes. The first phrase corresponds in neumation andmelodic figuration with the cadence of line 1, providing yet another good illustration ofinterlinearconnection:BK ,o- 1id’L(, ‘‘(‘(‘iI.-’, .J ‘- P°•-The final phrase is composed of perhaps the most consistent of all formulae: theStrangisma:BKK8K80Nothing has been identified in the middle phrase group.36As in most instances, each appearance of this hypostasis in the K8 line relates to a combinationof hypostases in the kondakarian line. It freely interchanges with the Seisma and Hyporrhoe which serve asintegers or components of the larger melodic formula.107Line 5:Lines 5 and 6 form composites. Both clearly show division and subdivision of lineby formula. The first is identified by means of an example provided by Levy and DidacticSong as a form of the Ouranisma.37Others include Tinagmata, Thematismos Eso, andSynagma:I i)I-‘j, ?2.B K ? ‘ / t.’ s—’ / V c.j ,!D 1-‘ ,.-. _) 2. ., .£ #Q r r(76t C 0 0 pK 8 ‘ —---f. I IThe antipenultimate formula is a complex of three neume-groups: the Strangisma,Ouranisma, and Tinagma:r1 —II-, \ ‘. ‘. ‘. ‘‘• ‘ (..L.BKK8K’’-‘Although the transcription is incomplete owing to the condition of the manuscript, itappears that the closing sequence parallels that of the incipit with similar melodic shape inthe transcription.37K. Levy, “An Early Chant for Romanos’ Contacarium Tnum Puerorum?”, p. 174. Bothkondakarian and K8 forms of the Thematismos--shown without the Ouranisma with which it is oftenlinked--are identical to the Chartres forms found in the codices Ly74 and Sinaiticus graecus 1219, as well asto the transcription presented by Levy from ms. Paris graecus 265 (Loc. ç., p 174). It seems that in thekondakarian system this sign has a double form and therefore possibly a double function: one that isidentical in graphic design and function with its Chartres counterpart, the other a distinctly kondakariantype, more closely resembling the Chartres Katabatromikon, but usually encountered in combination withthe Thematismos Eso.108Line 6:Line 6 exhibits a fine instance of structural interlocking with line 5; the openingSynagma-Tinagma sequence is a repetition of a pattern found in the middle of line 5, thetwo sharing an isometrical relationship:F ilL..) 4-DI’K8 - —I\ rK_____________‘cIThis concurrence between lines is confirmed by the transcription, which shows a melodicrepetition of line 6. The line concludes with a figure similar to that found in line 2; a relatedsequence also opens the second phrase of line 6. The step rise concluding the same linehas also been bracketed.Line 7:Line 7 is divided into two large melodic phrases, a and b, because of itsconsiderable length. Three figure-groups have been bracketed and labelled. The first is thenow-familiar Strangisma. The second, which opens line Th, is an ornate neume whosedesign is typical of the stylized notational forms found in the BK. This is a complex figureand seems to be a form of the Thema Haploun, previously encountered in this chant. In thetranscription, it is depicted by leaps of a fourth, but it is not an exact replica of that found inthe Didactic Song. It is presented here with its K8 analogue (encountered for the firsttime):L) 1BKK8#This is followed by a second related figure also designated Thema Haploun:109BKcsKSK8E5ETogether, the two seem to form a melodic sequence, dividing the first musical phrase intotwo.110The Cycle of Great Troparia, Stichoi, and Katavasiai forthe Vigils of Christmas and Epiphany:384. The First Katavasia for Christmas“Tv A2Eapqv twv £Ovwv”/”Ha’IvrEKx M3iIKX”39By way of an introduction, it is worth noting that all the chants selected for thisstudy which are designated as Troparia--including Chant 3 discussed above—share muchthe same melodic figuration, especially in the final cadences, which are in each case almostidentical. A similar instance occurs with the hypakoai and katavasiai but to a lesser degree.This is an important consideration when seeking out those factors that bind these chantsinto a cycle.One finds a discrepancy of modal designation, which is not uncommon among thekondakars; the LK indicates Mode VI while the BK and UK designate Mode VIII.Furthermore, this chant shares the same initium formula with the Mode V Katavasia, “OtEtq ErrL4cxveLa aoi,” I”IFrM M&FHHifMh TiouMh”, for Epiphany, but with a slightlydifferent transcription on a different set of pitches.The Christmas Katavasia is found in five of the available sources:BK (f. 90b), LK (f. 95v), UK (f. 155r), fyi (f. 19v) from which the transcription was38Lisitsyn provides and appropriate introduction to this important collection of hymns, by sayingthat,The singing of the troparia with the verses and in turn that by the soloist, the choir, or bythe congregation is encountered in the Typikon of the Great Church for every festive service.(HCPT, p. 212).Robert Taft, in his celebrated study of the Byzantine Great Entrance, provides the formula for theperformance of these genres and succinctly summarises the Byzantine musical practice of the Troparia forthese feasts:lithe Troparion was rather long, it was sung in its entirety only at the beginningand the end of the psalmody. After each psalm verse the respective choir [or congregation] wouldrespond with only the “wcpotevttov” or final phrase of the refrain. This explains why manyByzantine tropana conclude in a final phrase, intelligible in itself, and hence easily detachable fromthe rest of the composition. The final psalm verse was always followed by the “gloria patri.”We have a clear example of this type of psalmody in the antiphons which interrupt thereadings on the vigils of Christmas and Theophany. (The Great Entrance: The Transfer ofGifts in the Offices of the East. OCA 200, p. 87).39For some reason the Great Church Typikon does not include this hymn, even though it has fullrepresentation in the manuscripts used for this study. it is, incidentally, found in the modern GreekMenaion (p. 350, Athens, 1971) for December and is classified as a Mode II Plagal Hypakoe.111made, and K8 (f. 49r).0 The chant is one of the longest in this study and has been dividedinto fourteen lines according to its textual divisions (see p. 256 below).The AnalysisLine 1:Two figures have been bracketed and tentatively identified by means of theKoukouzelean Didactic Song. No labels have been applied to the initium pattern, althoughall four manuscript sources show a figure that strongly resembles the Synagma:BK-As observed in the opening of Chant 2B above, a distinguishing characteristic ofmany of the K8 settings is the intoning of the initium, probably by a soloist, which isimmediately followed by its repetition and the continuation of the chant in its choral setting.The two bracketed formulae are faithful renditions of the Epegerma and Tessara.The kondakarian lines seem to reproduce the former by means of two hypostases intandem, while the K8 line presents a ligature. This particular K8 ligature bears a strongresemblance to the Chartres Apothema, as found in the Ly67 neume-catalogue:4BKiy4OIt is also found in the VG codex, f. 41r.41The Epeerma in this chant is a complex entity. The figure found in line 1 in the K8 line andin the F1 1 transcription is in accordance with all the neume-charts consulted and the Didactic Songtransmission of that melodic formula. The kondakarian lines show something different: a combination of aTinagma-like hypostasis with an unidentified sign. The same neume-combination appears in line 14, butwith a different corresponding transcription. In the other three occurrences, the K8 neume is identified bythe neume-chart found in the fifteenth-century A899 codex (see the Appendix) as the Tromikoparakalesmaligature. Its exact function is unclear, although a transcription of the K8 small signs might provide a clue.Compare this K8 sign with that found in Chants 1 and 3 above, and Chant 6 below.112The second figure is identified by its characteristic descending leap of a fifth, as theTessara, which is found here on the same pitches as its Didactic Song transmission:w 2I7XKS7J *‘ 7d1 /1yFyi___cEAn intonation formula appears at the end of the first line in the BK and fyitranscription while the UK has a modal signature in the form of a cipher. A singlehypostasis has been tentatively identified in the epechema, the SAD, whose design closelyresembles that found in the BK line, and is implied in the transcription by the single stepmotion, g a:42BKK8 .‘..y. ,.—. . rc...ri_________ __L -L.. .—Line 2:Line 2 is composed of three melodic phrases, with the first of these comprisingthree formulae: the Echadin ascending scalar figure, which appears each time with the samekondakarian neumation; the Strangisma, also consistent in its form and transcription; andthe Lygisma:1B K Hôl.K8—fr rrFy1The second phrase is made up of two figures: the Tinagma, concurrent amongkondakarian, K8, and the transcription; and the Tromikon:4342For a discussion of the intonation formulae found in the Christmas Katavasiai and theirsignificance, see J. Raasted, Intonation Formulas and Modal Signatures in Byzantine Musical Manuscripts,MMB Subsidia Vol. VII (Copenhagen, 1966), pp. 102-118.43The K8 line shows one of the later Tromikon ligatures.1133,UT( ‘ri. J•II r4X1’rw(L ..-LKSfyi .• .,The third complex, which forms the cadence of the line, employs two kondakarianhypostases, the TinagmalHyporrhoe, to compose one figure, the Synagma; the K8 lineshows a ligature:9,I IBK ‘KSryi,.4____________i, p—Lines 3 and 5:These two form a pair, as do lines 4 and 6, and are therefore discussed together.Lines 3 and 5 are among the shortest lines of the chant, both conclude with the sameintonation formula, and they are made up of melodic formulae classifiable as kondakariancompositional idioms: two forms of the Ouranisma, the first in its older Chartres form, thesecond, more “kondakarian” and paired with the Thematismos Eso. The latter are oftenfound in tandem at medial cadences:BK .4U0 rfKS ;;-;7/;,WC’p LLLfyi ,1 ; ‘ ;9;,,A dominates the epechema, recognised here by its characteristic downwardleap of a fourth in the transcription:114T ‘ I .._. ,D1 rAM4Arw.. .-K8r I •-.T•FyiThe transcriptions of these lines, while exhibiting some of the same melodic shapeand rhythmic patterns, differ sharply. Line 3 is distinguished by an octave leap at thebeginning of the Ouranisma formula, while the intervallic value in the corresponding spotof lineS is reduced to a fourth. Line 5 also begins a step higher.Lines 4 and 6:These, although of different lengths, have basically the same neumation andmelodic construction; line 4 occurs a fourth higher than line 6. Five formulae have beenidentified in line 4, the first of which, the Echadin, presents few difficulties, although thehypostasis depicting its melodic shape is found only in the BK and LK lines and isaltogether absent in line 6. The Echadin is recognised in the Didactic Song by its oscillatingmelodic motion around two pitches, a a b a b a. It appears at a transposition a thirdhigher in the transcription: c d(e) c d.M?i$BK_::yK8fyi rThe Echadin is elided with the formula immediately adjacent to it a form of theSAD, which manifests itself three times in this form, the third of which is in line 7. Witheach occurrence it coincides with the same descending four-note pattern in the transcription,although each time at different pitch-levels. Its rhythm is also the same each time:LKTy1(.115The Epegermata, shown in the second bracket, appear in exactly the same form anddisposition in the next chant. The first is recognised here by the ascending second-descending fourth-ascending second, a b f g (the tritone has not been corrected), in thetranscription, a step lower than in the Didactic Song. This pattern repeats a fifth lower inline 6:/ — ‘O C4 XQ CLdC OLLKK8fyi •.The cadences of lines 4 and 6 are worth particular attention, especially the form inwhich they appear in the BK line. Together they constitute another kondakarian idiomwhose melodic shape is consistent with each appearance. The figure appears in therecurrent cadential composite of Chant 5, the Second Christmas Katavasia, providing anexcellent illustration of interchant correspondence within the cycle. The formulae arepresented here in more complete forms:44CA h b VBKK8 -,.,‘,fyi ZZh.Line 4 has an intonation formula appended to it in both the BK and fyitranscription. The kondakarian hypostasis resembles the Chartres Strepton-Gronthisma.The corresponding transcription exhibits the same interval content as the precedingEpegerma, found in the same line, as well as the Tromikon in line 10. Line 6 lacks theintonation formula:IBKTTTY ••7f 711IU 1 .. CL ri .fyi44This cadential sequence resembles the Thema Haploun, already encountered in Chants 1 and 3.116Line 7:Only the initium of line 7, which is composed of the Tinagma, has been bracketedsince it is an identical recurrence in neumation and transcription of a figure first encounteredin line 2:-‘ ic‘ ‘ ‘ 3 .i..B K tAA6”r.K8fyi_______This is the form in which it is found in all the chants analysed in the cycle.As encountered in lines 4 and 6 above, the next two bracketed formulae are theSAD and Katabasma, whose melodic functions, according to their Didactic Songtransmissions, complement each other. The K8 hypostasis complies but is more oftenassociated with the Katabatromikon:BK C.pAA4AK8? i.-’. “L )éfyiLine8:Although the neumation is consistent in all its transmissions, no specific figure hasbeen labelled in this line, nor does this line share any correspondence with the others in thischant.Line 9:The imtium and cadential patterns have been bracketed in line 9. The opening is theascending scalar pattern that opens many lines but the corresponding kondakarianhypostasis resembles more the SAD in the form most frequently encountered in cadentialpatterns. Some of the corresponding transcription recalls the melodic motion of that figure:117.. lilt‘. flQCfIpIb14CC6BKK8.... 9 IifyiThe second, tentatively labelled Epegerma, is notable for its recurrence in lines 4and 6 (also line 7), distinguishable by a descending leap of a fourth. Here the intervalliccontent has been reduced to a third while retaining much of its characteristic shape. Itsoccurrence is also on different pitches:BKa—K8—. ‘-A”-Fyi-Lines 10 and 11:Lines 10 and 11 have almost identical neumation and melody with only slightvariation. Although the kondakarian and K8 hypostases bear strong resemblance to eachother, only a form of the Tromikon has been labelled. It is an exact repetition a step lowerof the Tromikon in line 2:B K , I IK8 L— 7i fl — So XC OVi A”(fl,__I__._I,I •The transcription of cadential hypostases recalls the Thema Haploun-like figure in line 4:2bprbBKK8FyiEBoth lines end with intonation formulae in the BK and fyi transcription, but only theepechema at the end of line 11 is neumated.118Line 12:Line 12 is the shortest line of the chant, consisting of a single word. Yet it isimportant structurally. A sign resembling the Chartres Parechon is discernible and alwaysseems to herald the approach of the final cadence. Its exact function, however, isunknown:BKK8II liThe Ouranisma, recalling lines 3 and 5, is the only other melodic formula in thisline. This fragment is third lower than its Didactic Song transmission:, p ,LKKS../. 7;fy1No signs have been identified in the intonation formulae found at the conclusion of the line.Line 13:Line 13 divides into two asymmetrical phrases, each of which is dominated by andends with the same hypostasis, identified by its Didactic Song transmission as the SeismaSynagma: f.BK Q<-cK8. ,,— ec e o Of r. T:fyi—J’%‘In the second phrase, only a fragment of the Antikenoma, recognised by its upwardleap of a fourth, has been bracketed:B KfyiThe appearance of this formula in the chants of the Asmatikon and thecorresponding kondakarian settings is fairly consistent, although it is usually a variant or a119fragment of that provided by the Didactic Song. The figure immediately adjacent, ae f, inthe transcription and with the corresponding neumation, is the same as in the initium of theopening line.Line 14:Only two figures are shown in line 14: a rare appearance of the Choreuma,recognised by its Didactic Song presentation, and a hypostasis that is also found in lines 10and 11. The K8 line shows the Synagma:fl °LKK8FyiThe second melodic formula is the cadential form of the SAD, recalling that in line 9above. The kondakarian and K8 hypostases are identical, both of which appear in themiddle of the line and resemble the figure first encountered in line 1. The transcriptions,however, differ: 4LKK8Ce1205. The Second Katavasia for Christmas, Mode V:“Au?.wv HoqvtKwv”I”GouAk llAc’rIi,anczIx”As in the following example, this chant deviates from the set in its modaldesignation: Mode I Plagal/Mode V. It has, however, a particular significance andrelevance to our study in that the kondakarian settings, especially the BK, contain the mostpurely Byzantine elements. Consistently identical intonation formulae of the same type,number, and position occur correspondingly in the BK and fyi transcription.This second Christmas Katavasia is found only on the folios of the followingsources: BK (f. 91b), LK (f. 97r), UK (f. 156v), fyi (f. 18r), and (K8. 51r).45The hymn exhibits a remarkably symmetrical construction and has been divided intoten lines according to textual division with the following line pairings:Line 1=3Line 2=4Line 5=7Line 6=8A cadential composite is found at the ends of lines 6,8, and 10. Structural unity isfurther reinforced with the presence of the enigmatic Parechon-line sign, which serves inthis case as some sort of introductory figure, at the beginnings of lines 1,3, 5, 6, 7, (8),and 9. Each line pair will be discussed together (see p. 270 below).45The Great Church Typikon provides the following infonnation concerning its position in theservice, stating that the Mode IV Plagal (note different modal designation) is sung in the Orthros or Matinsimmediately following Psalm 50. This chant is not found in the VG codex.121The AnalysisLines 1 and 3:Six melodic formulae have been distinguished and labelled. Of these, four havebeen positively identified by means of the Didactic Song. The opening Parechon-likeformula, in each case, seems to correspond to the pitches g b in lines 1 and 3 (with the e);g a b ofline5;a a bofline6;a bofline7;andg g aofline9:464..LKCc’fyi EA”The second bracketed figure is only tentatively labelled Thematismos, whichcorresponds to only a fragment of that figure a step lower than in its Didactic Songtransmission. The large sign found in the K8 line resembles more a Tinagma, although itsappearance almost always coincides with a Thematismos in the transcription:BKK83Vfyi =r—The corresponding spot in line 3 presents a different sign in the transcription.The Stavros concurs in all four settings, represented by an ascending fragment inthe transcription:BKfyiThe Tromikon is displaced in the K8 line, the actual hypostasis appearing before theactual figure is spelt out in the transcription:46This sign is best represented in this chant, occurring in the openings of six of its ten lines.Parechon-like signs can be found in Chants 4 (two appearances in line 12 and 13, above), 6 (once in line12), and 8 (also once in line 4). In each instance it forms part of the initium complex.122r”rF— .—%_ .,KSfyi AE. yThe third melodic formula is interlinked with the figures immediately preceding andfollowing it. While bearing a strong resemblance to the Kratemokatabasma, it correspondsalmost note-for-note with the Didactic Song transmission of the Antikenoma. It ispresented a third lower in line 3:z-..# ..,BKK8fyi) 1L yeThe last sign in both lines appears to be an Ouramisma:TlQLXI, 7_ 7t so 0 0 0FyiThe intonation formula in the BK line is notated.Lines 2 and 4:These two lines share a more flexible relationship than do lines 1 and 3. Both openwith the ascending conjunct figure; line 4 begins a fourth lower. As in its manifestation inother chants, its neumation is consistent in each case: two sets of Dyo Kentemata overlaidby a great hypostasis. The BK version of this line shows a sign resembling the Tinagma,while the LK, UK, and K8 settings have a sign, designated Echadin-Gronthisma, that isconsistent in function with other appearances:47The K8 figure at this same place in the chant preserves the Chartres form of this hypostasis, butthe transcription corresponds to the Didactic Song transmission of the Ouranisma-plus-Thematismos Eso.123•I ILK {K8 c--’-.3a. ‘tLThe K8 line presents a ligature at this same place in line 4. The BK line also has thestraight Ison-plus-tria-kentemata, which is consistent in the corresponding transcriptionwith a rhythmic repetition of pitches, d e d e.The Parakalesma, which appears as a ligature in the K8 transmission in both lines 2and 4 and is enclosed in the next set of brackets, concurs with the Didactic Songtransmission:J?9--IBKK8 ‘—Fy1 ‘‘-E, Vs. Xv. )(v\The last set of figures is noteworthy. Related patterns conclude lines 4, 5,6, 7,8,and 10. The individual functions of the hypostases forming this chain of figures appear tobe amalgamated into a form of cadential composite, and can be found in some of the otherchants in this analysis. Although difficult to identify with any certainty, the hypostases-clearest in the BK line--and transcription recall the Thema Haploun:48BKfl, ,,K87I’y1izE 9L a. .Lines 5 and 7:Once again this line pair opens with the Parechon-like hypostasis, the K8 lineexhibiting a similar neume (see the illustration in the discussion of lines 1 and 3 above).The three signs that follow successively, though fragmented, present few identification48Although no two appearances are identical, each shares the same general shape and cadentialfunction. In the case of a final cadence, the neume is missing from the composite; its function, however, isexplicit in the transcription, which is the same as that found in line 6. In general, the BK settings are themost notationally detailed. In this chant, the corresponding K8 hypostasis is absent.124problems. That labelled at c b c in the transcription, is identical in shape to thatfound in the Ly67 neume-list:VLKK8fy1The Stavros is also clear in function, appearing here over the two-note ascendingfigure, a c.The Kolaphismos, which is obviously an amalgam of signs in the K8 line, isconsistent with most of its occurrences in the other chants, and is identical in this case withits Chartres manifestation (as the Rapismaj and with its presentation in the Didactic Song.A fragment of this figure is found here but is distinguished by the descending leap of afourth,c-ga:BKHY—K8 _..fyiTwo corresponding signs are found in all three kondakarian lines, the second ofwhich resembles a Tinagma:..LI g, -41BK” FOr-AKS;Its appearance is also consistent here. Line 7 presents a different fragment of this figure,and has in addition a second SAD.Lines 6 and 8:The relationship between these two lines is only slight. Line 6 opens with the sameintroductory Parechon-like figure, which is absent in the K8 line. The Lygisma andstraight seem to define the melodic shape of the passage; the a b a b motion isdetermined by the Lygisma, the pitch-repetition by the Ison:125gBKfyi ‘‘- tN 4&LThe second bracketed set of formulae has not been identified, although part of theThematismos Eso is suggested. The K8 sign bears a strong resemblance to the Ly67version of the Plasma:f•BK MHHJH•K 8 c.,5i•‘-_““fyi..The kondakarian lines have what seems to be a Parakalesma, reminiscent of whatappears in line 2:BK DXO>XOThe second sub-phrase of both lines opens with the familiar ascending conjunct passageand corresponding neumation:H IJBK ‘“fyiPcLine 8 reproduces this passage a step lower and the K8 line has a figure more closelyresembling the kondakarian hypostasis. While line 6 concludes with the first of threeidentical cadential composites which are also found at the ends of lines 8 and 10:1 —.BK .€€K 8_ _9-2.——c.i.,€.L oVfy?_____________________-•. . .€£ ovThe BK epechema is again notated.126Lines 9 and 10:Lines 9 and 10 do not constitute a pair but can be conveniently discussed together.The opening of line 9 is like that of lines 6 and 8 above, sharing both the Parechon-likeopening neume and the same pitch-oscillation, g g a g a, with the previous lines, althoughthe K8 figure is amalgamated with the Lygisma that follows:,‘, I.BK HHyjK8—fyi_______The remaining hypostases, the Thematismos Eso, ab c c b a, Lygisma, ag a, (theK8 shows the Parakalesma), and Stavros, (g) e f, though fragmented, were easilyidentified by means of their shapes and their Didactic Song transmissions:;. 4 ..lLK c% jcpM ‘4 b4K8F— /C-’ L d L.1 0 ‘Fyi i I1 a.— — — ‘ •.(: IcKxp Ao1f_j LH—4.7 —‘-— —...3 -; ?‘ ,ç0-4••_• Dig— — ,_,•Line 10: 0L1. )(t L oLL L .h.c) A2 9 eSLine 10 opens with the characteristic conjunct rise followed by a descent of a third;the figure in the K8 line--a Theta--recalls the transcription of the Gronthisma:fyiAll three kondakarian lines concur in the selection of neumes. The penultimatefigure preceding the final cadential composite is, in the K8 line, an amalgamation into aligature of the three figures found in the kondakarian lines and previously encountered in127Chant 4. They could easily be any number of combinations of melodic formulae presentedin the Didactic Song. The K8 hypostases, although providing few clues, show an uncannyresemblance to the kondakarian signs:I ijtBK Z’”’K811)?c ;-The aforementioned cadential composite is similar to those found in lines 6 and 8.The transcription is consistent in each case:BK ‘‘I.’ IK8 ‘ -‘ ‘ric(.v1/ ‘efy1.• •• .•.cv1286.The Katavasia for Epiphany, Mode I Plagal/Mode V“OtE tq EirL4xxvLa aov”I”IirM Muunir*u Thonu”49The Epiphany Katavasia is considerably longer than either troparion for this feast.It has been selected for analysis from the following sources: BK (f. 92b), LK (f. 98r), UK(f. 160v), fyi (f. 21v for the transcription), and K8 (f. 54v).0 The chant has beendivided into fourteen lines according to its textual breaks, but is incomplete in the BK(breaking off part way through line 7) and in the LK which, for some unknown reason,continues with completely different text and neumation after line 10 (see p. 280 below).Like the second Christmas Katavasia, this chant is also marked by a uniquestructural parallelism and regularity of cadential patterns. Both also share the same imtium,which precedes the first line of the chant with the pitches abc d c (b) c b a. In thetranscription, this figure begins and ends the first line. This melodic uniformity does not,however, extend to the kondakarian neumes, which are different for the correspondingplaces in that line.“Interlinear Structural interlocking” is the hallmark feature of this chant, withelements of lines 4 and 8 recalling line 1, whose initium and cadential pattern form thecadence of line 4 and the imtium of line 8. Similar interrelationships unify lines 4 and 5.Line 5 is very short, consisting of a single word that is set elaborately in two musicalphrases, the second of which recurs cadentially in line 6 (the chant’s structural midpoint)in variant form in the final cadence of line 14.49Like the first Katavasia for Christmas, the typikon makes no mention of this chant. It is,however, found on p. 142 of the modem Greek Menaion for January.50Once again the VG codex changes the order of chants. It is found on f. 52r.129The AnalysisLine 1:Chants 4,5, and 6 share a common imtium figure in spite of a difference inmode.51 The cell of the initium begins and ends the first line of the transcription; thecadence on a is modally correct for most of the lines. Line 1 is clearly composed of twomelodic phrases which do not coincide with the textual breaks, occurring in the middle andeliding the Greek and Slavonic words “tL4avELa”-- “tdr,.AIIirnEMk”. The first phrasesubdivides into two formula-complexes, the first, the initium, can be identified with no lessthan five melodic formulae transmitted by the Didactic Song: the Synagma, Parakletike,Hyporrhoe, Krousma, and Seisma. The hypostasis found in the K8 line is clearly theChartres form of the Synagma: 2-2? \1,,BK €rArK8 —- I•> ——‘J 0 Q Cfyi_________The second hypostasis, corresponding to the six-note disjunct figure in the fyitranscription, ab fg e a, is possibly a form of the Thes kai Apothes which recurs in analtered form in line 3:BKzfyi_The second phrase of line 1 is an excellent illustration of the choice of kondakariansigns used for pitch-repetition as transmitted by the three manuscripts: Apostrophus-plusDyo Kentemata (BK), and the Stroka and Straight Ison-plus-Tria Kentemata (LK and UK),all corresponding to the repeated a in the transcription:5lThe cell of this incipit is found in the intonation fonnula of the Fyi transcription preceding thefirst line of the chant with the pitches abc d c (b) c b a. It has not, however, been included in theexample because of lack of space.1302> I—BKfyiThe Seisma, with the Hyporrhoe as an integer, comprises the cadence of line 1:I.BK i’K82I. -, . .fyiLine 2:Line 2 shares similar cadential figuration--kondakarian, K8, and transcription--withline 1 but transposed a step higher. This pattern recurs in lines 4, 5, and 12, and serves asa strong unifying device. It is again identified with the Seisma formula, which is one of themost stable transmitted. The two-note rise, corresponding to the kondakarian hypostasesfound in all three lines, is identified with the Echadin. Perhaps most noteworthy are thedifferences among the kondakarian transmissions; there is concordance between the BKand UK lines, but the LK, in keeping with its own manuscript tradition, includes a non-textual trope. The Apostrophus as a sign for pitch-repetition is also a distinguishing featureof this line.Line3:Two figures have been bracketed in line 3, the first of which was found in line 1; itstranscription shows some change in transmission, with altered interval content and areduction to five notes:BK 1C4< çr’ I•-----The second is clearly the Lygisma, which is a component of the line’s cadence:BK 2fyi____131Line4:Line 4 is composed of two unequal phrases. The cadential pattern, which is alsofound in lines 5 and 12, was mentioned in the discussion of lines 1 and 2:BKCT H L )-l t-K8The two other bracketed figures are worth mentioning because of their correspondence withthe two-note rise in the transcription; the latter is the Echadin, and the former introduces thelonger of the two phrases.Line5:Line S is introduced by the four-note conjunct rise, which, because of its frequencyand consistency of occurrence can be classified as an idiom. The kondakarian hypostaseswhich represent this pattern, as in other examples are absent. The cadence, a SeismaSynagma formula, is shared with lines 1, 2, 4, and 12, and has already been discussed.Line 6:This line is clearly composed of three phrases, each demarcated in turn by threeformula-complexes. The first of these is the older form of the Chartres Ouranisma, whosedesign is consistent in all four neumated versions, and in the four-note figure bracketed inthe transcription:BKK81_’.YIE3j5ZZJ__.132The central figure in the transcription repeats in line 7, 10 and 14, and in the notation (lines10 and 14 only), recalls the Antikenoma:BKN’•L),. r’ “ 5sfyi E5E!Only the BK line has a great hypostasis for the cadence, which remainsunidentified. The fyi transcription concludes with the characteristic double-gamma (Eyy—yys) rise usually reserved for the final cadence.Line 7:In transcription, line 7 shares the same central figure and cadence with line 6,although the neumation in all four manuscript traditions differs between these two lines.Together lines 6 and 7 form the structural midpoint of the chant.Line 8:Although the notation of the kondakarian lines recalls the initium of line 1, there isno concordance in the transcriptions shown here. More interesting, however, is the figureenclosed by the box. It recurs in a number of chants with similar and correspondingtranscriptions. Yet although there is no exact relationship with the Didactic Songtransmission, the characteristic descending leap of a tritone (b to f, shown by the asterisk),and its general melodic its shape, distinguishes this figure as the Epegerma:52BK --‘2--XAA4,.K8 -fyiThe identification of this sign has also been verified by Roros.52The Epegenna is also found in Chant 7. See: C. Floros, “Die Entzifferung,” MdO III (1965),Tables XXIX and XXX.133Line 8 is in two phrases, the second of which is dominated by the Epegerma.line 9:Line 9 is also clearly made up of two unequal phrases, demarcated by text,punctuation, and melodic formulae. The figures concluding the first phrase are acombination of the Lygisma and the Strangisma. The K8 ligature resembles the Tinagmaplus-Lygisma:2—B K itillctK8I-.Line 10:Line 10 opens with a distinctive upward leap of a fourth followed by the descent ofa third.3 This figure occurs cadentially with the same neumation in line 11, and can befound in other chants of the cycle:BKK8o’vFyi______The Antikenoma, comprising the central formula, has been positively identified by meansof the Chartres catalogues and Didactic Song:B K CAA PiflfyiThe cadential pattern of this line recalls that found in lines 6 and 7. Mostimportantly, this line is the point of divergence for the LK; its line concludes with adifferent word and resumes with entirely different text and neumation not included in this531t is possibly a form of the Echaclin-Gronthisma134example.Line 11:The BK also breaks off at this point simply because there is a lacuna in themanuscript. The central melodic formulae in this line each have been positively identifiedas the Ouranisma-plus-Thematismos Eso idiom, consistently represented in its kondakarianform by a complex of two great hypostases:54BKI•.’K8—_______IFyi-This line concludes in the transcription, with a descending conjunct pattern which links itwith line 12. There is, however, no hypostasis correspondence.Line 12:Line 12 has a unique construction, evident in the kondakarian and K8 neumation,each identified as the Hyporrhoe-Synagma. The notation demonstrates that the first twophrases have an isometrical relationship, not shared by the transcription. Here, the lineopens and closes with the same four-note descending pattern that concluded line 11,illustrating a structural link between these two lines:•1UK 3AK86 evro oP4 • ,I54These were thought by Levy to be a combination of the Ouranisma-plus Thematismos Eso.(9’he Slavic Kontakia and Their Byzantine Originals,” Actes du Xlle Congrès Intemationale d’EtudesByzantines, II. Ochride, 1961, (Belgrade, 1963), p. 81) Only the latter, however, is explicit in each of itappearances.135Line 13:Because of its length, line 13 has been divided into two separate lines, eachconsisting of two phrases. The second phrase of the first half opens with the four-noteascending pattern, but shows no corresponding great hypostases; only the UK presents thischant in a complete form. Three formulae have been identified: the Ouranisma, found onlyin the K8 line and in the transcription:c e. efyithe Echadin:UK H H BaK 8fyi_________and the Hyporrhoe-Synagma, all in the second phrase. Line 13 shares the same scalarcadence with lines 11 and 12.Line 14:Two features characterise line 14. The first is the scalar Echadin-Gronthisma risefrom a with the corresponding hypostasis; this, however, occurs in the middle of the line:UKfyiThe second is the cadence, which has been identified as the ALntikenoma, recalling line 10(see above in line 6 for the illustration). This is an uncommon cadential figure::1K8 Cz*fyi—‘-‘--l1367. The Second Troparion for Christmas and Stichoi,Mode VI“AwtEL).aç Xpiot”I”e3mIz Ifni X,.i’r”The Second Troparion for Christmas is found in the following sources: LK (f.11 ir), UK (f. 153r), SK (f. lOOr), VG (f. 38v, from the which the transcription wasmade), and K8 (f. 53v).This chant is remarkable for its structural organisation and large-scale symmetricaldesign. The centonate construction is evident in the first line where kondakarian figuresform an interlocked chain of melodic formulae, reflected by the graphically similarhypostasis-ligatures in the K8 line. These formulae consist of neumatic complexes whichare seamlessly linked, yet differentiated by text and punctuation.The chant is incomplete in the UK as the incipit has been omitted, beginninginstead with the second line. All three kondakarian settings are tabulated with atranscription from the VG codex. There is a paucity of great signs in the UK line and onlythose neumes which have been positively identified have been bracketed. It is divided intosix lines according to the lines of text (p. 295 below). The following observations on thechant’s construction are appropriate:(1) Lines 1, 4, and 6 are linked by the Theta--here the Thema Haploun--figure,which opens and closes the chant, and comprises a “cadential composite” in lines 4b and6b, lines subdivided owing to length:55For the Second Troparion for Christmas, the Great Church Typikon provides the followinginformation (Mateos I, pp. 150-151). After the readings from Isaiah 11, 1-10, Jeremiah 3:35-4:4, andDaniel 2, 31-45, the above troparion is sung. The seventh reading from Isaiah (9, 5-6) immediatelyfollows. After which the deacon says the little litany and the three antiphons for the Liturgy.In his annotations to the published edition of the Typikon, Mateos echoes TaftStichos means here the chant comprised of psalm verses. Each stichos is followed by thetropanon in its entirety...(p. 151).Concerning who sings the refrain, choir or congregation, Mateos cites the rubrics of one the sources used tocompile his edition of the Typikon:According to ms. P. it is the people who respond: “with them, have mercy on us,” aftereach stichos. (. cit., p. 151).137CI FLK “7’-’ —‘_s-,,s’ .— ,KS ç (, FO t•VGza-’ j, .(2) The second phrase of line 4a shares neumation and melodic figuration with thefirst phrase of line 1:‘ 7 7K8— -- ., Z’ 7,‘- ‘e 0 a .c. j4. C r -çTi1_________________________•_________---(3) Line 3 is composed of two isometrical phrases, although K8 and the VGtranscription show a lacuna in the second phrase, the first of which corresponds with thatof line 4a;(4) Line 5 constitutes the first line of the refrain, whose opening Ouranismacomplex is found in line 2. This comprises a link between the main body of the troparionand its musically-detachable refrain:Y’b”)c bl H1’LKKS -—-----——— .a .,VG(5) Finally, many lines contain a Tinagma-like neume-complex that corresponds tothe same set of oscillating pitches, (b) g a g a, which are consistent in their recurrenceeach time:7 i1T’i %4j..JLKK87T° &eVG138The AnalysisLine 1:Line I is composed of six linked neume-complexes, each clearly demarcated by thepunctuation in the kondakarian lines and K8. Of these, the Thema Haploun, Echaclin, andTinagma, whose functions overlap and interlink, have been identified and bracketed:LKq* $ •s • ê.IK8. ., / ,,;-i.MLL L E L )ioc X( -rz:VG ‘ ‘The Thema Haploun, in the form in which it appears here, is usually thecomponent of the final cadence, and occurs as such in line 6b. The K8 hypostasis is truerin shape to the Chartres Psephiston.Line 2:Line 2 shows three hypostases: the Tromikon:LK,K8_____VG:the Ouranisma-complex, which is fragmented:LK__VG4E139and the cadential form of the SAD:56•.—LK-1 4,KS C 0 oI‘3 t I ,fThe transmission of the Ouranisma-complex is in accordance with the DidacticSong but presented here a fourth lower.Line 3:Three complexes are bracketed in line 3. The kondakarian row defines the motionin the transcription of the first group. The remaining two groups can be found in line 1 ofChant 8, and in succession in line 1 of Chant 9, in each case preserving some of themelodic motion of the Katabatromikon:\ %# \. % .il•LK r x LK ‘T7 D 12 0VG_______VGLine4:Line 4 divides into two phrases, labelled 4a and 4b. Phrase 4a is furthersubdivided into two phrases, which is best observed in the transcription. Only the smallsigns in the kondakarian line suggest the ascending step-motion of the opening phrase.The ending of the first recalls the second of the two figures bracketed in line 3:L.K8VG ‘56The hypostasis found in the K8 line more closely resembles the late Byzantine ligature,Tromikoparakalesma, an example of which can be found in Svetlana Kujumdzieva., “Uber die ZeichenAphona während der spat- und postbyzantinischen Periode,” Musikkulturgeschichte: Festschrift fürConstantin Floros zum 60 Geburtstag, (Herausgegeben von Peter Petersen Sonderdruck, Wiesbaden:Breitkopf und Hartel, 1990), p. 450.140Nothing has been labelled in the first half of line 4a. Line 4b consists of only twosyllables of text which are provided special emphasis by the dominant Thema Haploun:LK , /ç-“-tT20 ‘‘ —‘-‘ —,—I0>4VG—• S• • •This formula in turn recalls the incipit of line as well as the final cadential composite of line6b.Line 5:Line 5 is the beginning of the refrain, and only one figure has been labelled, anunusual manifestation of the Ouranisma-plus-Thematismos Eso combination which isusually found in a medial cadence:IUK vr)çF/ H:1SKAX fHLine6:Line 6 is the second line of the refrain, and like line 4 is divided into two largephrases, a and b, by the epechema, clearly exhibiting an isometrical relationship betweenthem. There is an interesting textual correlation between this line of the refrain and therefrain of Chants 1 and 3. Similar neumation also complements this chant interrelationship.Line 6a divides into two irregular phrases; the first is the ascending incipit, which isprovided with a single kondakarian hypostasis resembling the Tinagma:LK ,,C’ NMH€€.I,—K8— • ,,,..e Grf-•o:VG141The continuation of the chant melody features much oscillation around the pitches g and a,implied by the kondakarian Echadin-Gronthisma formula in both its guises:___-----------LK ,3€)L€ EA€MK8__ 7VGV.Line 6b also divides into two phrases, each with two formula-complexes. The firstof these continues the neumation and pitch-motion of phrase 6a:LK 04 A’ )(K8 — —-ar(d;cD o?cdVGt.LThe second phrase is dominated by the Thema Haploun cadential composite:LKc/ A 1‘.K 8 ‘0 o142The StichoiThe first set of Stichoi are drawn from Psalm 92, verses 1-2,3, and 4-5, and thesewere sung by a solo precentor. Confirmation of this practice is provided by the sourcesthemselves; the UK and at least one of the Italo-Greek sources used in this study (codexVG, ff. 39r-40v), include not only the troparion and notated verses, but also theinstructions as to how they are to be performed by a soloist and chorus. Moreover, Buggeadds:The psalm verses of this group of three stichoi are in the Greek Menaiondivided into five stichoi, after each of which the last half of the precedingTroparion (rubric “H Axi”) is recited, in accordance with generalpractice.57The inclusion of both troparion and notated stichoi within one source is unique tothe UK and may provide a rare glimpse at how the two genres of psalmody and freely-composed hymnody and their contrasting musical styles, complemented each other, andhow the whole practice of responsorial hymnody was brought to Rus’ and rendered in theChurch Slavonic language.A close examination of their musical construction reveals an interesting andcomplex handling of interwoven and recurring melodic patterns which are employedinternally to unify all six psalm-strophes into a cycle. Each of the Stichoi has three to fivelines which are set in a florid musical style. Most have been divided into two largeasymmetrical phrases showing an antecedent-consequent construction. The first three linesof Stichos I have a stock cadential pattern (designated A) comprising the consequent phraseand mechanically applied regardless of the text (shown below). Line 4 of Stichos Iincludes only a fragment of the cadential pattern (Al).The last line of all the verses in the set is usually the shortest and the mostinteresting. It breaks the pattern of the previous two, and significantly introduces the nontextual letters and syllables into the text of its cadential pattern, concluding with the samedouble-gamma rise as the Troparion (Greek version only). This is interpreted as anindication that the chorus enters on the last half of the last strophe, like a codetta ordovetailing, providing a continuous and musically unified musical fabric, as well as a57A. Bugge, MMB VI, p. xxv.143smooth transition to the refrain, which in this case is a restatement of lines 3 and 4 of thetroparion. This final cadential figuration is shared by the stichoi in both Christmas andEpiphany cycles.The Paleoslavonic settings of these verses are texturally less florid than their Greekcounterparts. The lines show a curious mix of neumation with the introduction ofkondakarian hypostases into a Coislin-like notational setting. The result of this blending isthe creation of a hybrid or intermediary stage of musical notation suggesting a process ofcustomization by the Slavic adaptors of this music. Those kondakarian hypostasestentatively identified are the Tromikon (Stichos I, lines 1,3, and 4; Stichos II, line 2;Stichos III, lines 1B, 2, and 3), the Strepton (Stichos I, line 3), and the Katabasma(Stichos I, lines 1 and 2; Stichos II, line 2; Stichos III, line 2). The sign resembling theKatabasma is found in both phrases of each line, and where it is applicable, perhapsrepresents and defines the descending melodic motion in the transcription.The construction of Stichoi II and III is like that of Stichos I but with the cadentialpattern less rigorously applied. Line 3 of the Slavonic setting of Stichos II shows theStrangisma (not apparent in the transcription), which is a notational link to the final line ofStichos III.One last and curious point occurs in line 3 of Stichos I. Exclusive to thekonclakarian line is a brief passage which has been bracketed and marked with an asterisk(*). Apparently the Slavomc word “cIMl1W’ (“Tv OKovvrlv”t”the inhabitedearth”) has been subjected to some special “asmatic” treatment, as if the chorus interjects atthis point to add some textual emphasis.58These same three stichoi accompany the Second Epiphany Troparion and are heardafter the second set of Old Testament readings as designated by a truncated set of rubricsfound in both the UK (f. 160v) and VG (f. 53r). This is the strongest evidence supportingthe liturgical and musical treatment of this set of troparia and their verses as a cycle.59Concerning the choice of mode, the VG codex provides a Mode III Plagal signature58Thjg text is a key refrain or hvpopsalmos in the Constantinopolitan All-Chanted Office.S9Following these rubrics, the VG codex supplies three additional stichoi with much the samemelodies and treatment.144for each stichos, one indicating a start on f for the first and third verse, and on a for thesecond. By contrast, the modal choice for the first set of Epiphany Stichoi is Mode IVPlagal for the first voice but Mode III for the second and third. Yet regardless ofdesignation, melodic figuration common to both sets of verses occurs at the same pitchlevels in transcription.In the UK immediately following these rubrics are the instructions to perform theMode V Katavasia for Christmas, Chant 5 above.The set of Stichoi to which this discussion refers, follows overleaf.L.,.1:-I°rHu7z>tLiL1 1I-U i: CHii’0.0 ot‘‘—‘Tr_.1- U*l•‘ 4’.0 0C‘V r 0 -7w Cl)II b(0 0r1I>rI C;’0 ‘-SC-) H Cl) Cl) CI) H C-), 0 (n H0 0 ‘C.(U 0 >.1 C> C C 0 01:-IfH0 0 0 U-cU-$C.’It.-V0-1,.Jl‘-a9 r.t:rJ3 0’oiVt 414rn (t0:1,‘0 (p DI Ir3:1 .4. •8440 I 0c—21I...4I.0 C C C,rI16p0 XI>cr r xiz-.I.rd 0 0 ci a 0o.t:-lH 2: Li Ui<c::G)1:-IH 2: Li1r(1 -IF 0 >In ‘—I ci 0 ‘p 0 0 ci 0 0 1 2 0 C‘I0 C >cCt,C (C,I-‘I.b 0’. 0\IIE34.0C‘.3:I1.400U‘04\0—4IQi.ljo•-oIo‘‘20UH!!,•isiiL00‘1\E7i1HI.j0(.31}\I—.23IU070U)1:11F-i2‘20Hbi1El‘toHHU)0C-)HF-iCl)(I)F-’U)HC-)100-I0000)330000‘10‘31‘32LA3‘4C->.(c.’-z*VH00::(.3D>i--i0H z tlj b:I0L H ti0’ ,1 vJ’0 <It?,a. vIrI\0—t-tHt I—.2• b‘7 0 gx tiI•g IX •1gxrdIw rJ)C-) H (n F-] (f-i (f-i F-] H C.) 0 C’) H I-I I-I0 I 0 0 I,Io oH z LIIH z Li00 0 D.VtcILip.’V. 1. 1>cl.aC- Cr’ :4 ni Cr’ ii C.’(J C C £ C c.IIC c. C1508. The First Troparion for Epiphany, Mode IIPlagal/Mode VI“Ext4xv&c v tqi Kó w”/”Nnn c h AUIp4”6oThe first Troparion for the Epiphany is by far the shortest chant of the cycle. It isthe third Troparion of the set and is found in the following sources: LK (f. 1 13r), UK (f.157r), VG (f. 49v, from which the transcription was prepared), and K8 (f. 56r). Thechant divides into five lines according to the text (see p.303 below).The AnalysesLinel:The opening of this chant shares the same neumation with that of the Hypakoe forthe Holy Fathers (Forefeast); unfortunately, the K8 version is missing the incipit. The firstline divides into two symmetrical phrases but no signs have been identified. In the secondphrase only the Tromikon, or possibly in this case the Katabatromikon, has been providedwith a label:LK‘3 QLine 2:Lines 2 and 4 constitute a pair and together constitute a link between the Troparionand its autonomous refrain. Line 2 opens with the idiomatic conjunct rise, which it shareswith line 4, and which is frequently encountered in other chants of the cycle. This rise isdesignated in the kondakarian lines by three sets of Kentemata (.. .. ..), but with adifferent hypostasis:60According to both the Great Church Typikon (Mateos I, pp. 176-177) and the Prophetologion(MMI3 Lectionary I, C. Høeg and G. Zuntz eds., Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1970-1980/81, p. 61), on theEve of the feast (5 January) after Psalm 140 (“Lord, I cry”) when the Patriarch and the prieats enter with theGospel, a litany with the responses is sung. The Patriarch ascends his throne and the readings arecommenced: Genesis 1, 1-13, Exodus 4, 15-29, and Exodus 15, 22-16:1. Then follows this troparion inMode III, with verses alternating with the refrain, after which the troparion is sung in its entirety.Immediately after, the readings resume: Joshua 3, 7-9, 2 Kings 2, 4-14, Kings 5, 9-14.151LK ,,, , /NIHK8________VGThe Tromikon-like hypostasis is also shared by line 4. This structural parallelism isalso carried over to the bracketed hypostasis which strongly resembles its Chartresanalogue and melodic representation in the Didactic Song as the Kratemokatabasma:/LK H pCV-K8 ‘..—VGLine 3:Line 3 is the beginning of the musically independent refrain, and with line 4constitutes two phrases of one line. The shape, number and placement of the hypostases isremarkably consistent in the kondakarian and K8 versions. Three of them have beenidentified in line 3: the Strepton, Katabatromikon, and two occurrences of the LygismaParakalesma. These last two have been clarified by an examination of the K8 line whereboth consistently recur as ligatures:‘—J..,,LK ujNHHT( 2L 13 ....VG ,2’Line 4:Line 4 was discussed in conjunction with line 2, which in itself comprises thesecond phrase of line 3. The opening neume in all three kondakarian lines stronglyresembles the Chartres Parechon, in combination with a form of the Tromikon, and seemsto function here as in other cases, as a signal to the approach of the final cadence; smallkondakarian signs substitute the hypostasis in indicating the scalar-rise of the passage:152LK-r;KSXT,q •—The bracketed figure in the second phrase resembles the Kratemokatabasma. Line 4also shares some structural parallelism with lineS in that they both have the same cadentialfigure—in the transcription at least--tentatively identified in the K8 line with one of the Thetaneumes. Although the notation is inconsistent in line 5, the pattern recurs in a number ofchants in this cycle: /LKK8.i ..JVG EEEEELine 5:The opening shows consistency of neumation between two of the three kondakarianand K8 figures bracketed: the Lygisma and Tinagma:,____ ?i—’ ,, •.LK “ — ‘‘ ‘ ‘ ‘‘s A O( 3(K8 a-’ ‘-vVG EEEEThe sign and melodic pattern that introduce the second phrase and final cadence, areby their regularity of occurrence and Echadin-Gronthisma, distinguished here by a single-note rise, a repetition of the second pitch and the downward leap of a third:LKK8-9Th 6VG____153The final cadence is, according to the K8 transmission, composed of the ThemaHaploun in its final cadential position:LK •—“- - ‘-‘16 ‘L.K8 —•— —. —oVG___0 a154The StichoiThe texts for the Epiphany verses are drawn from Psalm 66: 2-3,4-5, and 6-8.Again, only the UK provides notation for their Slavonic transmission (ff. 158r-159v); thetranscription was prepared from the VG codex (ff. 49v-SOv). Like those for the ChristmasTroparion, each has from four to six lines which are set in a florid musical style sharingsimilar notational and melodic figuration. The lines of the stichoi have been divided andbracketed to illustrate the regularity of this figuration, internal and cadential. As in the firstset of verses, the last line of each stichos introduces asmatic elements--and in this casekondakarian hypostases--in order to execute a smooth transition to the refrain.However, musically and notationally, the Epiphany Stichoi are more complex. Inaddition to variants of the A-cadential patterns employed in the Christmas Stichoi, theseverses employ and alternate a new form (designated B), which concludes lines 1 and 2 ofStichos II, and line 1 of Stichos III. More important is the appearance of the Epegerma as amedial and final cadential pattern, suggesting the interjection of the chorus into the soloist’srepertory. This sign is a cheironomic gesture recurrent in the choral chants and normallydirected at a group of singers as well as a notational element foreign to the predominantlyCoislin notational fabric. According to the transcriptions, the Epegerma is fairlyconsistently represented, occurring in lines 1, 2 (medially) and 4 (final) of Stichos I; line 5of Stichos II (final); and line 6 (final) of Stichos III. The Tromikon also recurs in theseverses as it did in the Christmas set, and is found in line 3 of Stichos I, and line 3 ofStichos III.Rubrics in both kondakar and Asmatikon corroborate the practice of the refrainbeing repeated after each verse: folio 159r of the UK and 51r of VG have the words “414n,orWkrtLIH”—”L’vu 4xonjoqç” , respectively, implying that the refrain should appear aftereach stichos. Both Typikon and Prophetologion also record that after the last statement ofthe refrain there is a Lesser Doxology followed by a full restatement of the Troparion.6lInthe UK, the Second Epiphany follows immediately.61Prophetologion I, g. cit., pp. 61-62.00Os(5H Li<cC)—o 0t—IH z01 EH z LiC,.Eci1 0 0 l0L.Ic zr0 t1“1riiz > 3:‘C V. 0 Xr‘4 aP C 1p LAI-rj 11:1 0 tn‘I-tiIi H z Cl)‘-3 H C-) 0 Cl) IHXrJ::II#1I’ C 0aa c C 0 C 0 C(0III;?:1;I1.x4zI’3:—:k 1,‘1 r.<cC)H z Lj MZr1:-I H z L-1 -s0() 0 0 0IC’ 00 0 1 F$C) ‘Htl CC’,.x0? -3II’I-4i()0IaI061QtV..’ruUv.r(-e ( iiP P4 V...C’ .-1p“II.I,tLi U).JI.47.>“V.r.-U 0-xt6:XrZrZrIt.LZi•II.C’ .331:11 tI H I-3 H C) 0 C,) H H> 4 21 3:C’0 C.. 0>$* x0x16 II0:1:”‘S0 0 0 0 1C”(‘ 7’(12< ,bLi (-U1’<c ycH tijH Ii0 0& (‘l<cC) EL II (pI3,tC,b e 4r0rj H C’) I-SI H C) 0 Cl)G3U crv’CT)b C he I. I0 1’ 0 r 1 5?6 f-.I0 I-060 a‘73,10 0 0 01’ot iDfr0)qC Ct) •1P0 0 0 acjr (p(‘I0 0 maa,o)0•o olo or0 aa:-8 0I—Iz Lti0H za 0a,,0,1ZrH z 1:1:1ZI’U,gCC0 0 LAC’-,4’ c-iatcitC’) 0 C) 0,1 C c0Lf’-p0 v-i1609. The Second Troparion and Stichoi for Epiphany,Mode II Plagal/Mode V162“ActptwoZc icct( TEthvaLg”/”r’kIIkHl.coMk II IXir4FMx”The Second Troparion for Epiphany (labelled Antiphon in codex VG, ff. 50v-51r,from which the transcription was made), is longer than the previous chant and structurallymore interesting. In addition to MS VG, this chant is found in four other sources used inthis study: LK (f. 1 14r), UK (f. 160r), SK (f. 104r), and K8 (f. 53v). As in each of theother chants, this hymn has been divided according to text into seven lines with lines 2 and3 forming a pair. Within each are two isometric phrases apparent in kondakarian and K8neumation, and in the transcription of the Byzantine melody (see p.308 below).The AnalysisLine 1:Line 1 opens with the scalar idiom like that found in the First Troparion forEpiphany. The K8 transmission has a hypostasis which is often paired with itskondakarian cognate that is in this case absent. Two figures have been bracketed, theTromikon and the Katabatromikon, each corresponding to the descending melodicsequence in the transcription. Although dissimilar in shape, the second K8 sign isfunctionally the same:LK \• •..‘1 .{ ‘HXTM)UH? E )... — .uK8--VG’’ ‘The last hypostasis, the kondakarian figure identified by its striking similarity to theChartres Enarxis, remains unidentified.62According to the Great Church Typikon (Mateos I, pp. 176-179), the Psaltes sing anothertropanon, Mode II Plagal, with the stichoi drawn from Psalm 92, 1-2, 3-4a, 4-5. Each verse is interruptedby the troparion’ s refrain. Then follows a Lesser Doxology and a complete restatement of the troparion.161Lines 2 and 3:These two constitute a pair. In the transcription both open with the leap of a fifth,recalling some of the Tinagma figuration of Chant 7:LK ‘ , ,- N eK8VG _____This is followed by two internal isometrical phrases, identified with the two Epegermata.In line 2, these are in turn linked by the Strepton-like figure, shown once again by the two-note rise and repeated pitches, ga a, in the transcription:LK ‘-‘- 4.4.J? ?j-’/ V’..%.) 1, ,‘ ,, lj/ , \ /QQCfl.fM H HH’49_—‘-S., — 5— — - -S.--- •-S-’K8 -•VG ‘ ‘ ‘ .! !.-The conclusions of lines 2 and 3 are different; while line 2 shows an extended freemelisma, the concluding hypostasis in line 3 is consistent with both the Synagma and itsintegers, the Seisma and Hyporrhoe.Line 4:The beginning of the refrain opens with a truncated form of the scalar-rise idiom.The kondakarian and K8 hypostases bear a striking resemblance to one another, especiallythe second large sign in the K8 line; their identification is unclear. In general thekondakarian lines show a paucity of neumes, with only the Lygisma-plus-Strangismafollowed by a tentatively labelled Kolaphismos. The latter is frequently found among thekondakarian neumes and “spelled-out” with small signs in the Middle Byzantine Asmatikonsettings. It is recognised by its oscillating motion, but in this instance there is nocorresponding sign in the K8 line. The transcription is, however, explicit in its162presentation of this figure and is consistent with most of the occurrences of it in the otherchants:LK ,4 X4;_g-LTr 7— x- ?•c””VG ‘—.Line 5:Most of Line 5 is missing in K8 where it is represented only by a single hypostasiscorresponding to the large kondakarian sign in the UK and SK lines but not in the LK.Again there is compliance with the transcription: a conjunct rise, for the most part depictedby a set of Kentemata in the kondakarian lines and the Echadin-Gronthisma hypostasis inthe UK and SK:UK=SK r’tcVG ..-.The Tromikon, found in the SK line, has also been bracketed, but in melodic expositionrecalls the Strepton in its Didactic Song transmission:cTr!VG-. T.They are apparently interchangeable.The figure resembling the Choreuma (marked X) is an exact replication of afragment in line 2, suggesting a motivic correspondence between lines. The figuration alsorecalls the Hyporrhoe which is evident in all three kondakarian lines:163SK SVG •Line6: CThis line consists of a single melismatic intercalation. The figure bracketed hasbeen identified again as the Kolaphismos, which is consistent with the transcription of thatformula in line 4. This second Kolaphismos is an exact duplication of the Didactic Songmelodic formula and the K8 hypostasis also bears a marked resemblance to this sign’sChartres manifestation, where it can be compared to the Chartres Apothema, as seen inChant 4:LK / ,, ,• ,K8 c(N’. 6VG • £ ,It is also consistent with appearances in other chants in the cycle.Line 7:Two identical kondakarian hypostases have been bracketed in the phrases precedingthe final cadence. Although the K8 signs are dissimilar, they have been identified with theTromikon:cp ,-f’The final cadence is a regularly recurring pattern composed of the Thema Haplouncomplex. Its appearance here as the final cadence is consistent with most other occurrencesin the cycle:165Summary of AnalysesGenerally speaking, the differences between verse and troparion suggest variouslevels of contrast. Both are written in virtuosic styles, but the verse lacks the non-textualmelismatic supports of the troparion, an indication that it was reserved for a single cantor.Solo performance is also confirmed by the rubric found in the VG codex (f. 52v), “0,6)xiic .ovo4xvwc.” Yet by the same token, the Slavomc setting is far less florid thanthe Greek; where a single neume stands in the Slavonic line, a melisma is built on thecorresponding Greek syllable, while at the end of both lines, a common recurrent cadentialpattern is shared. Three possible reasons for this apparent disparity between Greek andSlavonic transmission can be suggested:(1) local variants in the tradition must always be taken into consideration when anykind of comparative analysis is undertaken; an exact correspondence is impossible;(2) one must always bear in mind the active role of oral tradition in the transmissionof chant melodies, and how much was extemporised by an individual soloist. The notationin the Slavonic manuscripts merely supply a syllabic skeleton;(3) the more conservative Paleoslavonic settings may preserve an older musicaltradition, suggesting that the florid Greek version has the same syllabic underpinning,perhaps based on a pre-Oktoechal archaic psalm tone presented unembellished in the Slavicmanuscripts.166CHAPTER EIGHTSUMMARY RECLASSIFICATION OF THE KONDAKARIANHYPOSTASES; A STATISTICAL CONCORDANCE OFTHE GREAT SIGNSThe following notational categories for the modes represented can be derived andsummarised from the above analyses of the selected chants. As a reminder, Chartresnomenclature has been applied, but with some caution.Six basic classifications have been given for those signs with multiple occurrences.(1) Among the small kondakarian signs for pitch-repetition are the Straight Ison,Apostrophus, Kentemata, the combination of Apostrophus-plus-Dyo Kentemata, and theTria Kentemata-plus-Straight Ison, resembling the Seximata (a sign composed of threedots:...) of the Ecphonetic and Chartres systems.(2) In the second classification are included those signs which frequently showfunctional interchange, are analogues or cognates, are integers, are substitutions for oneanother, or are used in combination with each other. Among these are the Ouranisma-plusThematismos Eso, TromikonlStrepton, Katabatromikon, KolaphismosiTinagma,SynagmalHyporrhoe/KylismalSeisma, TrialStavros apo Dexias, Echadin/Gronthisma.(3) To the next group belongs those signs that are for the most part unidentifiable,ambiguous, or unique to the kondakarian notational system. These include the Theta-groupCadential composites resembling the Thema Haploun; the Thes kai Apothes, the uniqueform of the kondakarian Strangisma, the Gronthisma, and the Parechon.(4) The fundamental signs, the Lygisma-Parakalesma and Parakletike-Kylismafrequently recur as ligatures, especially in K8 transmissions.(5) A category is also provided for those signs consistently associated intranscriptions with conjunct melodic ascent, and those frequently encountered in incipits ormark beginnings of phrases. These include the Stavros, Strepton, Echadin, andGronthisma.(6) In the final category are those signs having special structural functions:167(a) for the incipit: the Echadin-Gronthisma;(b) medial cadential patterns: the Ouransima-plus-Thematismos(c) well-defined final cadential patterns: the Thema Haploun; or,(d) those categories that can include both incipit or pre-cadentialfigures.The sign most frequently associated with this final classification is the enigmatic hypostasisresembling the Chartres Parechon.Below is a statistical concordance or catalogue of fifteen kondakarian formulae andformula-complexes selected from the cycle of nine chants analysed in this study. Each hasbeen provided with a representative illustration of the kondakarian form. While this by nomeans exhausts the repertory of melodic figures found in the kondakar and represented inthe Asmatikon, this catalogue presents the most stable and commonly recurrent figures.Another aim of the compilation is to summarise by formula the cyclic and inter-hymnodicrelationships among these hymns.168Statistical Concordance of KondakarianHypostasesI. Formula: Tinagma 1 c2<., .J2_$4j—Chant Nos. 1 & 3: The HypakoefKatavasia for the High-Feast of the Archangel Michael! The FirstTroparion for Christmas1 Line numbers 6, 7, 82 Occurrences 53 Vars./Combs. 24 Initium 25 Medial Melisma 16 Medial Cadence 1Chant No. 2A: The Hypakoe for the Forefeast ofChristmas/The Holy Fathers1 Line Numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 62 Occurrences 63 Vars./Combs. 14 lnitium 25 Medial Melisma 26 Medial Cadence 2Chant No. 2B: The Hypakoe for the Forefeast ofChristmas/The Three Children1 Line Numbers 4, 6a, 6b, 7a2 Occurrences 43 Vars./Combs. 24 Initium 25 Medial Melisma 2Chant No. 4: The First Katavasia for Christmas1 Line Numbers 2, 7, 10, 11, 12 Occurrences 63 Vars.Içombs. 24 Initium 15 Medial Melisma 5Chant No. 5: The Second Katavasia for Christmas1691 Line Numbers 5, 102 Occurrences 213 Vars./Cornbs. 2J4 Medial Melisma 21Chant No. 6: The Katavasia for Epiphany1 Line Numbers 1 12 Occurrences 13 Vars./Combs. 14 Medial Cadence 1Chant No. 7: The Second Troparion for Christmas1 LIne Numbers 6b2 Occurrences 93 Vars./Combs. 24 Initium 35 Medial Melisma 4Chant No. 8: The First Troparion for Epiphany: Line Numbers 1, 52 Occurrences 23 Vars./Combs. 14 initium 3Chant No. 9: The Second Troparion for Epiphany1 Lines Numbers 2, 32 Occurrences 23 Vars./Combs. 14 lnitium 2170—II. Formula: Ouranisma/Thematismos Eso 2-Chant No. 2A: The Hypakoe for theChristmas: The Holy Fathers1 Line Numbers 1, 2, 5, 62 Occurrences 53 Vars./Combs. 14 Initium 35 Medial Cadence 2Forefeast ofChant No. 2B: The Hypakoe for the Forefeast ofChristmas: The Three Children1 Line Numbers 52 Occurrences 23 Vars./Combs. 14 Initium 15 Medial Cadence 1Chant No. 4: The Ffrst Katavasia for Christmas1 Line Numbers 3, 5, 122 Occurrences 33 Vars./Combs. 24 Medial Cadence 3Chant No. 5: The Second Katavasia for Christmas1 Line Numbers 1,3, 6, 8, 92 Occurrences 73 Vars./Combs. 14 Initium 45 Medial Metisma 16 Medial Cadence 1Chant No. 6: The Katavasia for Epiphany1 Line Numbers 11, 132 Ocurrençes 23 Vars./Combs. 14 Medial Melisma 15 Medial Cadence 1171Chant No. 7: The Second Troparion for Christmas1 Line Numbers 2, 52 Occurrences 23 Vars./Combs. 14 Medial Melisma 15 Medial Cadence 1III. Formula: Strangisma ± t 7Chant No. 2A: The Hypakoe for TheChristmas: The Holy Fathers1 Line Numbers All2 Occurrences 153 Vars./Combs. 84 Initium. 25 Medial Melisma 106 Medial Cadence 3Forefeast ofChant No. 2B: The Hypakoe for the Forefeast ofChristmas: The Three Children1 LIne Numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 7a2 Occurrences 63 Vars./Combs. 54 Initium 15 Medial Melism 36 Medial Cadence 2Chant No. 4: The First Katavasia for Christmas1 Line Numbers 92 Occurrences 1Vars./Combs 14 Medial Melisma 1Chant No. 9: The Second Troparion for Epiphany1 Line Numbers 2, 42 Occurrences 23 Varss’Combs. 24 Medial Melisma . 15 Medial Cadence 1172IV. Formula: TromikonlStreptonlKatabatroniikonl S T, ‘9Chant Nos. 1 & 3: The HypakoelKatavasia for the HighFeast of the Archangel Michael/The First Troparionfor Christmas1 Line Numbers 1-5, 92 Occurrences 83 Vars./Combs. 44 Initium 35 Medial Melisma 36 Medial Cadence 2Chant No. 2A: The Hypakoe for the Forefeast ofChristmas: The Holy Fathers1 Line Numbers 1, 22 Occurrences 23 Vars./Combs. 14 Medial Cadence 2Chant No. 2B: The Hypakoe for the Forefeast ofChristmas: The Three Children1 Line Numbers 1, 22 Occurrences 23 Vars./Combs. 24 Medial Melisma 2Chant No. 4: The First Katavasia for Christmas1 Line Numbers 2, 10, 112 Occurrences-- 53 VarsJCombs. 14 Medial Melisma 35 ‘Medial Cadenc 2Chant No. 5: The Second Katavasia for Christmas1 Line Numbers Ji, 32 Occurrences 23 Vars./Combs. 14 Medial Melismj 2tThe Tromikon and Strepton occur throughout both sets of Stichoi for Christmas and Epiphany.Chant No. 7: The Second Troparion for Christmas1 Line Numbers j2, 32 Occurrences 23 Vars./Combs. 24 Medial Melismal 2Chant No. 8: The First Troparion for Epiphany1 LIne Numbers 1, 32 Occurrences 23 VarsJCombs. 24 Medial Melisma 2Chant No. 9: The Second Troparion for Epiphany1 Line Numbers Ii, 5, 72 Occurrences 1 53 Vars./Combs. 34 Initium 1S Medial MeIism 4V. Formula: Thes kai Apothes . c—; j..1Chant No. 2A: The Hypakoe for the Forefeast ofChristmas: The Holy Fathers1 Line Numbers J 6a ....2 Occurrences3 Vars./Combs. J -4 Medial Melima J 1Chant No. 2B: The Hypakoe for the Forefeast ofChristmas: The Three Children1 Line Numbers 1,22 Occurrences 33 Vars./Combs. 2Initium 15 Medial Melism 2Chant No. 6: The Katavasia for Epiphany1 Line Numbers 12 Occurrences 13 Vars./Combs. 14 Medial Melisma 1173174VI. Formula: Hyporrhoe/Seisma/Synagma i -J “—‘Chant No. 2A: The Hypakoe for the Forefeast ofChristmas: The Holy Fathers1 Line Numbers 1, 2, 3, 52 Occurrences 43 Vars./Combs. 44 Medial Cadence 4Chant No. 2B: The Hypakoe for the Forefeast ofChristmas: The Three Children1 Line Numbers 2, 3,4, 6a, Gb, 7a2 Occurrences3 Vars./Combs. 74 Initium 35 Medial Melisma 36 Medial Cadence 1Chant No. 4: The First Katavasia for Christmas1 Line Numbers 1, 2, 1 3, 142 Occurrences 53 Vars./Combs. 34 Initium 35 Medial Melisma 16 Medial Cadence 1Chant No. 6: The Katavasia for Epiphany1 Line Numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 132 Occurrences 83 Vars./Combs. 34 Initium 25 Medial Melisma 16 Medial Cadence 5Chant No. 9: The Second Troparion for Epiphany1 Line Numbers 32 Occurrences 13 Vars./Combs. .4 Medial Cadence 1175VII. Formula: Lygisma-Kylisma/Parakalesma-Parakietike vChant Nos. 1 & 3: The Hypakoe/Katavasia for the HighFeast of the Archangel Michael)The First Troparionfor Christmas1 Line Numbers 1, 32 Occurrences - 43 Vars./Combs. 44 Medial Melisma 2Chant No. 2A: The Hypakoe for the Forefeast ofChristmas: The Holy Fathers1 Line Numbers 3-62 Occurrences 83 Vars./Combs. 44 Medial Melisma 65 Medial Cadence 2Chant No. 2B: The Hypakoe for the Forefeast ofChristmas: The Three Children1 Line Numbers 5, 6a, 7a2 Occurrences 53 Vars./Combs. 14 Initium 15 Medial Melisma 16 Medial Cadence 3Chant No. 4: The First Katavasia for Christmas1 Line Numbers 1(LK), 2,8, 10, 11, 132 Occurrences 63 Vars./Combs. 2 --4 Initium 4S Medial Cadence 2Chant No. 5: The Second Katavasia for Christmas1 Line Numbers jK8), 6, 8, 9, 102 Occurrences 103 Vars./Combs. 24 lnitium 35 Medial Melisma 7176Chant No. 6: The Katavasia for Epiphany1 Line Numcrs_ 3, 4, 9, 132 Occurrences - 43 Vars./Combs. 24 Medial Melism 35 Medial Cadence 1Chant No. 7: The Second Troparion for Christmas1 Line Numbers 6a2 Occurrences 13 Vars./Combs. 14 Medial Melisma 1Chant No. 8: The First Troparion for Epiphany1 Line Numbers 3, 52 Occurrences 33 Vars./Combs. 14 Initium 15 Medial Melism 16 Medial Cadence 1Chant No. 9: The Second Troparion for Epiphany1 Line Numbers 42 Ocurrences 13 Vars./Combs. - 14 Medial Melisma 1VIII. Formula: Echadin, Gronthisma (Scalar Rise and Variant Forms) 1-LiChants Nos. 1 & 3: The HypakoelKatavasia for the HighFeast of the Archangel Michael/the First Troparionfor Christmas1 LIne Numbers 1, 3, 72 Occurrences 33 Vars./Combs. 24 Initium 3177Chant No. 2A: The Hypakoe for theChristmas: The Holy Fathers1 Line Numbers 3,42 Occurrences 23 Vars./Combs. 24 lnitium 15 Medial Melisma 1Forefeast ofChant No. 2B: The Hypakoe for the Forefeast ofChristmas: The The Children1 Line Numbers .j2, (3i 72 Occurrences 2 (3)3 VarsJcombs.tL?4 Initium5 Medial Melismj 2Chant No. 4: The First Katavasia for Christmas1 Line Numbers 2, 62 Ocurrences 23 VarsjCombs. 24 Initium 15 Medial Melisma 1Chant No. 5: The Second Katavasia for Christmas1 Une Numbers 2,(4), 6, 8,10_2 Occurrences 4 (5)3 Vars./Combs. 14 Initium 2 (3)5 Medial Melisma 2Chant No. 6: The Katavasia for Epiphany1 Line Numbers 4, 10, 11, 12, 13,142 Occurrences -. 103 Vars./Combs. 24lnitium -.- 15 Medial Melisma 76 Medial Cadence 17 Final Cadence 1178Chant No. 7: The Second Troparion for Christmas1 Line Numbers 1, 6a, 6b2 Occurrences 53 Vars./Combs. 24 Initium 15 Medial Melisma 36 Medial Cadence 1Chant No. 8: The First Troparion for Epiphany1 Line Numbers (2), (4), 52 Occurrences 3), 13 Vars./Combs. (2), 14frtium-25 Final Cadence 1Chant No. 9: The Second Troparion for Epiphany:1 Line Numbers 1(1, 4, 5)2 Occurrences 03 Vars./Cornbs. [ -4 Initium -3IX. Formula: Thema Haploun,Chant Nos. I & 3: The HypakoelKatavasia for the HighFeast of the Archangel MichaellThe First Troparionfor Christmas:1 Line Numbers 1,2, 3, 102 Occurrences 53 Vars./Combs. 44 Medial Melisma 25 Medial Cadence 26 Final Cadence 1Chant No. 4: The First Katavasia for Christmas:1 line Numbers 4,6,10,11-2 Occurrences 43 Vars./Combs. 24 Medial Cadence 4179Chant No. 5: The Second Katavasia for Christmas1 Line Numbers 2, 5-8, (10)2 Occurrences 5(3 Vars./Combs. 64 Medial Cadence 55 Final Cadence- 1Chant No. 7: The Second Troparion for Christmas1 Line Numbers 1, 4b, 6b2 Occurrences 33 Vars./combs. 24 Initium 15 Medial Cadence 26 Final Cadence 1Chant No. 9: The Second Troparion for Christmas1 Line Number 72 Occurrences 13 Vars./Combs. 14 Final Cadence 1X. Formula: Apothema/Epegerma2 4 • IIChant Nos. 1 & 3: The HypakoelKatavasia for the HighFeast of the Archangel Michael/The First Troparionfor Christmas:1 Line Numbers 42 Occurrences- 13 Vars./Combs. 14 Medial Melisma 1Chant No. 2A: The Hypakoe for the Forefeast ofChristmas: The Holy Fathers:1 Line Numbers 1, 22 Occurrences 23 Vars./Cornbs. 14 Initium 22The Epegerma occupies a significant medial and final cadential role in the Epiphany Stichoi.180Chant No. 4: The First Katavasia for Christmas1 Line Numbers 1,4, 6, 92 Occurrences 43 Vars./Combs. 24 Medial Melism 35 Medial Cadence 1Chant No. 6: The Katavasia for Epiphany1 Line Numbers 82 Ocurrences 13 Vars./Combs. 14 Medial Cadence 1Chant No. 8: The First Troparion for Epiphany:1 Line Numbers 12 Occurrences 13 Vars./Combs. 14 Initium 1Chant No. 9: The Second Troparion for Epiphany:1 Line Numbers 2, 3, 62 Occurrences 53 Vars./Combs. 24 lnitium 15 Medial Melisma 4XL Formula: Kolaphismos/Rapisma I’ +Chant No. 2B: The Hypakoe for Forefeast of Christmas: TheThree Children1 Line Numbers 32 Occurrences 13 Vars./combs. j 14 Medial Cadence 1181Chant No. 5: The Second Katavasia for Christmas1 Line Numbers 5, 72 Occurrences 23 Vars./Combs. 14 Medial Melisma 1Chant No. 7: The Second Troparion for Christmas1 Une Numbers 52 Occurrences 13 Vars./Combs. 14 Medial Cadence 1Chant No. 9: The Second Troparion for Epiphany1 Line Numbersj4, 62 Occurrences 23 Vars./Combs j -. 24 Initium 15 Medial Mehsmaj 17XII. Formula: Antikenoma ‘..‘a ‘7 -‘Chant Nos. 1 & 3: The HypakoefKatavasia for the HighFeast of the Archangel MichaeL’The First Troparionfor Christmas1 LIne Numbers 22 Occurrences 13 Vars.!Combs. 14 Medial Cadence 1Chant No. 2A: The Hypakoe for the Forefeast ofChristmas: The Holy Fathers1 LIne Numbers 32 Occurrences J 13 Vars./Combs. j 14 Media) Melismaj 1182Chant No. 6: The Katavasia for Epiphany:1 Line Numbers 10, 142 Occurrences 23 Vars./Combs. 24 Medial Melisma 15 Final Cadence 1Chant No. 7: The Second Troparion for Christmas:1 Une Numbers 6a2 Occurrences 13 Vars./Combs. 14 Medial Cadence 1XIII. Formula: KatabasmafKratemokatabasma/Psephiston ‘ ‘Chants 1 & 3: The Hypakoe/Katavasia for the High Feastof the Archangel Michael/The First Troparion forChristmas:1 Line Numbers 4, 6, 7, 82 Occurrences 43 Vars./Combs. 14 Medial Melisma 4Chant No. 2A: The Hypakoe for the Forefeast ofChristmas: The Holy Fathers:1 Line Numbers 4, 52 Occurrences 23 Vars./Combs. 14 Medial Cadence 2Chant No. 2B: The Hypakoe for the Forefeast ofChristmas: The Three Children:1 Line Numbers2 Occurrences 23 Vars./Combs. 14 Initiurn- 15 Final Cadence 13The Katabasma occurs throughout both sets of Stichoi, although its representation in thetranscription is inconsistent.Chant No. 4: The First Katavasia for Christmas:1 Line Numbers 10 (BK), 142 Occurrences 33 Vars./Combs. 14 Initium 15 Medial Melism 16 Medial Cadence 1Chant No. 5: The Second Katavasia for Christmas1 Line Numbers 12 Occurrences 13 Vars./Combs. 14 Medial Melisma 1Chant No. 6: The Katavasia for Epiphany1 Line Numbers 1, 3, 5,92 Occurrences 43 Vars./Combs. 14 Initium5 Medial Cadence 1Chant No. 7: The Second Troparion for Christmas1 Line Numbers 2, 3,4(,5__2 Occurrences 53 Vars./Combs. 14 Initium5 Medial Melisma 36 Medial Cadence 1Chant No. 8: The First Troparion for Epiphany:1 Line Numbers 2, 42 Occurrences 23 Vars./Combs. 14 Medial Cadence 2183184XIV. Formula: Stavros/Stavros Apo Dexias/Meta Stavrou and AllVariant Forms, I,Chants Nos 1 & 3: The HypakoelKatavasia for the HighFeast of the Archangel Michael/The First Troparionfor Christmas1 Line Numbers 4, 5, (7), 8, 92 Occurrences 63 Vars.ICombs. 44 lnitium 25 Medial Melisma 16 Medial Cadence 3Chant No. 2A: The Hypakoe for the Forefeast ofChristmas: The Holy Fathers:1 Line Numbers 3-62 Occurrences 43 Vars./Combs. 24 Medial Melisma 4Chant No. 2B: The Hypakoe for the Forefeast ofChristmas: The Three Children1 line Numbers 1, 2, 6b2 Occurrences 33 Vars./Combs. 34 Medial Melisma 15 Medial Cadence 2Chant No. 4: The First Katavasia for Christmas:1 Line Numbers 1,4. 6-11, 142 Occurrences 123 Vars./Combs. 64 Initium 45 Medial Melisma 26 Medial Cadence 27 Epechemata 38 Final Cadence 1Chant No. 5: The Second Katavasia for Christmas:1 Line Numbers 3, 5-8, 102 Occurrences 63 Vars./Combs. 24 lnitiurn 25 Medial Cadence 46 Epechemata 1 (BK)7 Final Cadence 1Chant No. 6: The Katavasia for Christmas:1 Line Numbers 72 Occurrences 13 Vars./Combs. 14 Initium 1Chant No. 7: The Second Troparion for Christmas:1 Line Number 2, 52 Occurrences 23 Vars./Combs. 24 Medial Melisma 15 Medial Cadence 1Chant No. 8: The First Troparion for Epiphany:1 Line Numbers 2, 42 Occurrences 23 Vars./Combs. 14 Initium 2Chant No. 9: The Second Troparion for Epiphany1 Line Number 4, 6, 72 Occurrences 43 Vars./Combs. 34 Medial Melisma 25 Medial Cadence 2185XV. Formula: Parechon $Chant No. 4: The First Katavasia for Christmas1861 Line Numbers 12, 132 Occurrences 23 Vars./Combs. 14 ntitium 2Chant No. 5: The Second Katavasia for Christmas:2 Occurrences 63 Vars./Combs. 34 Initium 6Chant No. 6:The Katavasia for Epiphany:1 JLine Numbers 122 jOccurrences 1jVars./Combs. 14jlnitium 1Chant No. 8: The First Troparion for Epiphany:1 Line Numbers 42 Occurrences 13- Vars./Combs. 14 Initium 1187CHAPTER NINECONCLUSIONSThe Paleoslavonic Kondakars were the books of the Domestiki or choir leaders.These sources comprised not only a compendium of musical and liturgical material for theOffice and Liturgy, but the melodies and all the musical information, i.e., cheironomicgestures (in the form of the Great Kondakarian Hypostases) required to direct a smallchorus of highly-trained psaltes. These professional musicians learned and mastered theirmaterial by way of a living oral tradition. That the kondakars were special collections is afact that is supported by the small number of surviving copies which would have belongedto princely libraries or to the collections of the higher clergy in large urban centers.Kondakarnoie Pienie as a musical phenomenon does not antedate the appearance ofthe Alexian Ktitor/Studite ordo in Rus’. As surviving copies of the Constantinopolitantypikon and late copies of the Asmatikon attest, the choral melodic style preexisted inByzantium. But the kondakarian musical script used to notate this music was a synthesisof known Paleobyzantine types. A system of Paleobyzantine small signs, cheironomicgestures derived from the family of Chartres hypostases, and newly created figures uniqueto the kondakarian system--whose origins were founded in specific practice--together withthe centonate procedure of chant composition, were brought together in the eleventhcentury and engineered to fit the assonance and rhythm of the new Slavonic translations ofthe Byzantine poetry.The strongest evidence for the typikon-kondakar correspondence is manifested inthe eleventh-century Tipografsky Ustav, which is both the oldest surviving exemplar of theAlexian Studite liturgical ordo and the oldest of the five kondakars. If we consider that thistypikon, which exists only in its Slavonic translation, was a hybrid type (an amalgamfusing Constantinopolitan cathedral practices with the monastic liturgical order), then wemay consider Kondakarnoie Pienie the musical element of the Great Church which wasabsorbed into the monastic practice and later extirpated because of its complexity.It is noteworthy that a similar related liturgical order emerged in the Greek cloisters188of Southern Italy in the twelfth century, most notably the Typikon of San Salvatore ofMessina, in whose scriptorium originated the majority of the Asmatika.All five kondakars preserve a common body of material and could be said to be themusical product of the Alexian Typikon as well as the strongest evidence of the sungoffices of the Great Church in Rus’. The kondakar preserving the most Constantinopolitanelements, i.e., transliterated Greek texts, Byzantine intonation formulae (best seen in theKatavasiai for Christmas), the Polieleos, and the so-called hypopsalmoi of the “Azmatik”,is the twelfth-century Blagoveshchensky Kondakar. These elements, coupled with thesource’s exquisitely ornate script, suggest a tradition and origin somewhat different fromthe remaining four.The fourteenth-century Asmatikon from Kastoria (K8), even as an anomaly, callsinto question the evolutionary development of Byzantine musical notation. With its systemof Great Hypostases akin to those in the kondakar, it is unique, for it was compiled whenboth the Asmatikon and archaic system of hypostases were out of vogue. K8 couldrepresent the local musical and liturgical tradition of the Kastoria Cathedral, a source copiedfrom an extinct Byzantine archetype common to the kondakars but preserving a transitionalstage in the development of diastematic notation. Yet the inclusion of chant settings fromthe Kastoria 8 Asmatikon has proven invaluable; the identification of many of the K8hypostases has aided in our knowledge of many of the kondakarian signs and contributedto our understanding of the stability and the wide dissemination of chant melodiesthroughout Eastern Christendom in the Middle Ages.As for the kondakarian notation, it does seem to fit chronologically into the courseof development of Byzantine notational scripts as a whole, but retains the iconic forms ofthe Paleobyzantine neumes while including a stage of early diastemy developed in the latersystems; many of the signs, such as the Ouranisma, have both Chartres and distinctlykondakarian forms. That we can positively identify many of the melodic formulaeexamined in the selected chant cycles and even attempt to transcribe them into modern staffnotation is evidence that musical notational development in medieval Rus’ did not fall intostagnation as originally supposed.Concerning the fate of the kondakar, its chants and tradition, we may mark the year1891274 and specifically the Council of Vladimir as the official date and cause of itsdisappearance. We recall that the aim of the Council was the removal of Constantinopolitanelements from the liturgical practices of the Russian Church. Because of KondakarnoiePienie’s close association with the Great Church and its Sung Offices, we may assume thatit suffered the same fate.l As recalled by Lisitsyn, only the territories of Novgorod wereunaffected by the decisions of the Council; consequently the practices of the Great Churchexisted there into the next centuries.2 In general, those years following the Tatar invasionsformed a period of transition for the Russian Church brought about by a drastic change incircumstances, in which the faithful witnessed the gradual replacement of the elaborateliturgical practices in those centers devastated by the Mongols with simpler ordines, first bythe Studite type and then by those imported from Jerusalem.This study has endeavoured to expand our knowledge and vocabulary of thisfascinating Paleoslavonic notational system. The Slavic neumes and Byzantinetranscriptions of the Christmas and Epiphany chants examined above, provide a remarkablyclose match and we may therefore assume, taking into account the obvious differences inthe Greek and Slavonic traditions, that both preserve the same melodic settings andmanners of performance. In both traditions, the troparia and refrains were intended for asmall ensemble or the congregation, and the verses were sung by a solo precentor.The accessibility of all five kondakars, with their increased number and variety ofsettings, has enabled us to confirm the stability of the hymns transmitted and permitted afull exploration of the method ofcounterpart transcription, which has been applied anddeveloped on different levels, having taken into consideration the modal, liturgical andcalendaric contexts of the settings to which the method has been extended. The result hasbeen a reaffirmation of the method’s effectiveness yielding an increased repertory of knownkondakarian signs, and an advancement in our general knowledge of the kondakariannotational system. A corpus of fifteen melodic formula-complexes--some of these uniqueto the kondakarian system (e.g., the Strangisma)--has been identified within the cycle ofchants analyzed. The analyses have demonstrated that these formulae occupy key structuralIM. Lisitsyn, HCPT, p. 29.190positions in the chants, with the most consistent occurring regularly in the incipits, medialmelismas, and cadences. Many of these can be considered notational and melodic idioms.In light of this new knowledge and expanded notational vocabulary, we may nowturn to that kondakarian repertory for which there is no known asmatic counterpart andtherefore no Byzantine control, i.e., the kontakia, with the hope of achieving effectivemusical reconstructions of this vast chant body. This study has also served to illustrate themedieval Russian adaptors’ assimilation and mastery of the centonate procedure of chantconstruction and their degree of musical literacy, which was nurtured to satisfy specificmusical and liturgical needs.Furthermore, the kondakar cannot effectively be studied independently ofcontemporary liturgical documents. In the absence of a “Rosetta Stone” (j.., a treatiserevealing the meaning of the large signs), liturgical sources provide the most abundantinformation as to the role of the kondakar in the Divine Services, the liturgical placement ofthe chants, and their manner of performance.Given the lack of Paleobyzantine models, one may speculate that the kondakariannotational system--one of codified cheironomic gestures representing melodic formulae--may have been a product of a rare cultural climate of medieval Rus’, and a stage of musical-notational development that moved beyond any Byzantine originals. The nearly perfectunion of notation and text also attests to the artistic quality of the Slavonic translations.In attempting to reconcile the similarities of musical style with the disparity ofnotational systems in the respective Greek and Slavonic traditions, we encounterconsiderably greater difficulties. In the cultural centers of Byzantium, as in those of theMedieval West, the methods of music writing were continually evolving. The Italo-Greekcloisters of Calabria and Messina, like Kievan Rus’ existed at the periphery of theByzantine Empire and were perhaps slow to react, or even resistant to the changes takingplace at the center of the Empire, Constantinople. But as Levy has astutely observed:The overriding rule..., is that received materials undergo idiomaticremodelling wherever they are, and musical distance from a model is nosure measure of historical distance.3Such could easily have been the case in medieval Rus’, where musical development did not3K. Levy, “The Italian Neophytes Chant,” JAMS XXIII (Summer, 1970), p. 211.191fall into stasis for the two centuries after the introduction of Christianity, but followed itsown path and rate of development.Although it seems that kondakarian musical notation received from Byzantium wastreated much like Holy Writ, faithfully copied, unchanged from the time of its receptionuntil its disappearance in the thirteenth century, some development and evolution of thenotation is evident. And at the same time, in the absence of a Paleobyzantine archetype forthe kondakar, one must also be cautious in discounting a syncretic adaptation anddevelopment of an archaic and unique musical system in Rus’. In her determination tomaintain in unchanged form the rich liturgical and musical legacy she received fromByzantium, she succeeded in preserving a tradition that, in the major centers of the Empire,was gradually disappearing or was either subsumed or supplanted.In drawing this study to a close, it is only fitting to include comments made byStrunk nearly thirty years ago as an appropriate summation:Enormous progress has been made during the past ten to fifteen years,and today we stand much nearer to solving our problems than we have ever stoodbefore. What are our prospects of our arriving, sooner or later, at a complete andwholly satisfactory solution? No one who has even begun to grasp the nature ofthe problem will call these prospects bright. However intimately one may come tounderstand the workings of an archaic notation like ours, one will never be able toread it. Its high degree of ambiguity forbids this. To think in terms of a positivetranscription on the five-line staff is simply to deceive oneself. Under favourableconditions, and with the help of unambiguous, unimpeachable controls, one can asa rule work out a sort of reconstruction; but the operation is attended with realdifficulty and the result is, at best, highly tentative. The validity of the procedurerests upon ones acceptance of a whole series of assumptions. If one uses aByzantine control..., one has first to assume that there has been no flaw in thetradition and that the melody received and recorded in the twelfth century is indeedthe melody that the tenth century sought to transmit; one has then to assume thatthose who first provided the Slavic books with musical signs sought also totransmit this melody; one has then to assume that the tradition on the Slavic side hasbeen flawless in turn; one has finally to make due allowance for all perceptibleconflicts between these assumptions and the explicit indications of the Slavicnotation itself and for the lack of syllable-to-syllable correspondence.4Above all, the kondakars and the tradition they preserve should be regarded asindicators of the zenith of cultural development and independence attained in medieval Rus’before horrific historical events altered her course. They are more than liturgical or musical40. Strunk, “Two Chilandari Choir Books,” Essays on Music in the Byzantine World, (NewYork: W. W. Norton & Co. Inc., 1977), p. 228.192manuscripts; they must be perceived as rare and unique testimonials to a bygone era whosevalue to scholarship has not yet been fully recognised.193SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHYI. Primary sourcesA. MicrofilmsItalo-Greek AsmatikaCodex Cryptensis Gamma-gamma I(Fy 1, thirteenth century), Badia greca di Grottaferrata,Italy.Codex Vaticanus graecus 1606 (VG, thirteenth century), BibliotecaApostolicaVaticana,Rome.Greek AsmatikaKastoria Cathedral Library, Ms. No.8 (K8, fourteenth century).Greek Akolouthia ManuscriptsManuscript Athens National Library No. 2458 (A2458, fourteenth century).Manuscript Athens National Library No. 2444 (A2444, fourteenth century).Manuscript Athens National Library No. A899 (A899, fifteenth century).B. Paleoslavonic Musical ManuscriptsMoscow State Tretiakov Gallery No. K5349, the “Tipografsky Ustav” (TU, eleventhcentury).Moscow State Lenin Library, Coil. Tr.-Serg. No. 23, the “Lavrsky” or “Troitsky”Kondakar (LK, twelfth century, end).Moscow State Historical Museum, Mosk. Tip. Sin. No. 777, the “Sinodalny” Kondakar(SK, thirteenth century).Moscow State Lenin Library, KoJaKap OWecrBa HcTopuii jlpeBHocTK Poccucicoupu MocicoBcKoM YHlrBepcwreTe No. 107 (OIDR 107, twelfth century).Paleoslavonic Liturgical ManuscriptsLibrary and Archives of the Bulgarian Theological Academy, Ms. No. TsIAM 201; theJerusalem Typikon, Slavonic Redaction (fourteenth century).Mt. Athos Monastery Zografou I-D-7: Cayc ee Mime 3a Cerrr.-Hoei. (thirteenthcentury).194Library of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences No. 38: The “BwroJIcKu Tpo” (thirteenthcentury).Library and Archives of the Bulgarian Theological Academy, Ms. No. TsIAM 186:flpa3mreH Mme 3a CeuT.4IaI. (fourteenth century).C. Greek Facsimile EditionsSpeciminaNotationumAntiguiorum, 0. Strunk ed., pars principalis et pars suppletoria.MMB VII, Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1965), (Lavra-gamma 67, “Ly67”, late tenthcentury).Gerbert, M. De Cantu et Musica Sacra. Volume 11(1774). Graz, Austria: AkademischeDruck--V. Verlaganstalt, reprint, 1970 (Ms. St. Blasien).Høeg, Carsten. Contacarium Ashbunthamensis. Codex Bibliotecae LaurentianaeAshburnhamensis 64 Phototypice Depictus, Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1956.D. Paleoslavonic Facsimile EditionsBugge, Arne., ed. Contacarium Paleo-Slavicum Mosquense. MMB Volume VI, MainSeries, Copenhagen, Munksgaard, 1960 (the “Uspensky Kondakar”, UK, dated1207).Dostal, Anton. , Rothe, Hans., and Trapp, Erich., eds. Bausteine zur Geschichte derLiteratur bei den Slawen: Der altrussische Konclakar auf der Grundlage desBlagoveshchenskij Nizhegorodskij Kondakar (facsimile). Giessen: WilhelmSchmitz Verlag, 1976 (the “Blagoveshchensky Kondakar”, BK, twelfth century).Jagic, V., ed. Psalterium Bononense: Interpretationem Veterem Slavicum. Vindobonae:Gerold & Soc.; Bertolini: Apud Werdmannos; Petropoli: C. Ricker, 1907.________Cnyxeimasi MnHeu 3a Cern pi, OKTpL, ii Hosj6pi; BUepKOBHOCnaB5LFICKOM flepeBoe 110 PyCCKHM PyKormc 1095-1097 r.HaimllKn 1peBeHpycc,caro 51aiIKa, TOM H. St. Petersburg: Tiuiorpa4rnHMriepaTopcKo AKaeMnu HayK, 1886.E. Manuscript StudiesDevai, Gabor. “The Musical Study of Cucuzeles in a Manuscript of Debrecen.” ActaAntiquaAcademiaeScientiarumHungaricae. Tom III, Facs. 1-2, Budapest, 1955,pp. 151-179.“The Musical Study of Koukouzeles in a Fourteenth-Century Manuscript.” ActaAntiquaAcademiae ScientiarumHungaricae. Tom VI, Budapest, 1958, pp. 213-235.195II. Secondary Literature“Asmatikon.” New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. S. Sadie ed., London:MacMillan, 1980, Volume 1, p. 657.Beliaev, V. M. jlpenHepyccxasl My3LiEaJna. HllcMeHHocm. Moscow, 1962Belonenko, A. S. ed., flpo6ieii Hc’ropini reopini ]1penHepyccKo Mynui: Ct5.CTaTe. llenm’pacKoe OTeJIemTe: I aremcmo “MyaiiKa”, 1979.________Kravchenko, S. P., Kruchinina, A. N., and Ramazanova, N. V. eds.Hpo6jIeMbI j1eILnIcpOBK1I JlpeBeapyccKnx H0TaWUI. C6opaaK Hay’mhlxTpyoB, JIernmr’pa 1987.Carpenter, Marjorie. trans. Kontakia of Romanos. Vol. I: On the Person of Christ. Vol. II:On Christian Life. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1973.Conomos, Dimitri E. Byzantine Trisagia and Cherubika of the Fourteenth and FifteenthCenturies. Salonika, 1974.“CommunionChants of the Magna Graecia and Byzantium.” JAMS XXXIII(1980), pp. 241- 263.The Late Byzantine and Slavonic Communion Cycles: Liturgy and Music.Dumbarton Oaks Studies XXI. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks ResearchLibrary and Collection, 1985.“Music for th Evening Office on Whitsunday.” Les Actes du XVe CongrèsInternationale d’Etudes Byzantines, Athènes, Septembre 1976; I Art et Archeologie.Athens, 1979, pp. 453-469.ed., The Treatise of Manuel Chrysaphes, The Lampadarios. MMB, CorpusScriptorum de Musica, vol. 2, Vienna, 1985.Di Salvo, Bartolomeo. “Asmatikon.” Bolletino della Badia greca di Grottaferrata, XVI(1962), pp. 135-158.Eustratiades, Sophronius, and Spiridon. Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts in theLibrary of the Lavra on Mt. Athos. Harvard Theological Studies XII. Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1925, rev. 1969.Filonova Gove, Antonina. “The Evidence for Metrical Adaptation in Early SlavicTransliterated Hymns.” Fundamental Problems in Early Slavic Music and Poetry.ed. C. Hannick. MMB Subsidia XI, Copenhagen, 1978, pp. 211-246.Floros, Constantin. “Das Kontakion.” Deutsches Vierteljahrsschrift fürLiteraturwissenschaft und Geistegeschichte. XXXIV (1960), pp. 84-106.____ DieEntzifferung der Kondakarien-Notation.” Musik des Ostens. III & JV(1965 & 1967), pp. 7-70 & 12-44.Universale Neumenkunde. 3 Vols., Kassel, 1970.196Floros, Constantin. Einfurhrung in die Neumenkunde. Kassel, 1980.Gastoué, Amadeé. Introduction a la Palèographie Musicale Byzantine; Catalogue desManuscrits de Musigue Byzantine de Ia Bibliothègue Nationale de Paris et desBibliothègues Publigue de France. Paris, 1907.Grosdidier de Matons, Jose. “Le Kontakion.” Gattungen der Musik in Einzeldarstellungen:Gedenkschrift Leo Schrade. 1973, pp. 245-268.Gertzman, E. BH3am’iicKoe MyIKo3H&rne. Leningrad: “Muzyka”, 1988.Haas, Max. Byzantimschen und Slawische Notationen. Köln: Amo Volk-Verlag, HansGerig KG, 1973.Hannick, Christian. “Étude sur L’Akolouthia Asmatiki.” Jahrbuch der OsterreichistenByzantinistik. XIX (1970), pp. 243-257.Harris, Simon. “The Communion Chants in Thirteenth-Century Byzantine MusicalManuscripts.” Studies in Eastern Chant (SEC). Vol. II, ed. Milos Velimirovic andEgon Wellesz, London: Oxford University Press, 1971, pp. 51-67.________“Two Chants in the Byzantine Rite for Holy Saturday.” Plainsong andMedieval Music. I, 2 (October 1992), pp. 149-66.Høeg, Carsten. “The Oldest Slavonic Tradition of Byzantine Music.” The Proceedings ofthe BritishAcademy. XXXIX. (1953), pp. 37-66.“Hypakoe.” New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. ed. S. Sadie,London: MacMillan, 1980, Vol.8, p. 852.Keldysh, Yu. V. HcTopnsi Pyccgo My3Jll; TOM flepBIr: jpeBHa1 PycL, XI-XVIIBea. Moscow: “My3Euca”, 1983.“Koinonikon,” New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. ed. S. Sadie, London:MacMillan, 1980, vol. 10, p. 156.Konotop, A. “Honoe ToiIKo1uIe llymo-eMecmeImoro 3HaKa” 3”. Early Music inthe Context of the Contemporary Culture: Problems of Interpretation andSource Study. Moscow, 1989.Kujumdzieva, Svetlana. “Uber die Zeichen Aphona während der spat- undpostbyzantinischen Periode.” Musikkulturgeschichte: Festschrift für ConstantinFloros zum 60 Geburtstag. Herausgegeben von Peter Petersen Sonderdruck.Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1990, pp. 449-460.Levy, Kenneth J. “An Early Chant for Romanos’ Contacium Trium Puerorum.” Classica etMedievalia. XXII (1961), pp. 172-175.Areview of MMB Main Series: “Contacarium Paleoslavicum Mosquense.” edA. Bugge. (Copenhagen, 1960), and MMB IV, Subsidia: “Byzantine Elements inEarly Slavic Chant,” by M. Velimirovic. (Copenhagen, 1960). Musical QuarterlyXLVII (1961), pp. 554-8.197Levy, Kenneth J. “The Byzantine Comunion Cycle and its Slavic Counterpart.” Actes duXIIe Congrès Internationale d’Etudes Byzantines, II Ochride, 1961. Belgrade,1963, pp. 571-574.________“A Hymn for Thursday in Holy Week.” JAMS XVI (1963), pp. 127-175.“The Slavic Kontakia and their Byzantine Originals.” Twenty-Fifth AnniversaryFestschrift (1937-62), Department of Music, Queens College. Rushing, NewYork, 1964, pp. 79-87.“TheByzantine Sanctus and its Modal Tradition in East and West.” AnnalesMusicologigue Vol. VI (1958-1963), pp. 7-67.DiSlavische Kondakarien-Notation.” Anfange der slavische Musik. SymposiaI, Bratislava, 1964, pp. 77-92.“The Italian Neophytes’ Chant.” JAMS XXIII (1970), pp. 181-227.“The Earliest Slavic Melismatic Chants.” Fundamental Problems of Early SlavicMusic and Poetry. ed. C. Hannick. MMB Subsidia VI, Copenhagen: Munksgaard,1978, pp. 197-210.Metallov, V. M. I3orociyxe6iioe ileHile Pyccico UepKmi: llepHo joMoHro3IcKHH,Moscow, 1912.Pyccicasi CeMHorpacJtsi. Moscow Archeological Institute, Moscow, 1912.“CeMllorpa4rnsi l5onrapcicaro TpHonori1ii XIIIB 3orpØcicaroMoIiacTllpsI.” 3orpa4,cKnJ Tpmboiiorrni. OJI)1fl CXXXI (1913).Moran, Neil K. The Ordinary Chants of the Byzantine Mass. 2 Vols. Hamburg: VerlagMusikalienhandlung Karl Dieter Wagner, 1975.Myers, Gregory. “The Blagoveshchensky Kondakar: A Russian Musical Manuscript of theTwelfth Century.” Cyrillomethodianum XI (1987), Thessalonika, pp. 103-127.“The Chants and Notation of the Medieval Russian Kondakar.” Monuments ofRussian Sacred Music; One Thousand Years of Russian Church Music. Series I,Volume I, Editor-in-Chief Vladimir Morosan. Musica Russica. Washington, D.C.,1991, pp. 2-9; 673-674.“Tlliiwre Tporiapii, HuaKoli H KaTaBasini 01’ AcMamKoHa B TexmireCTapocnaBsmclca PeueHcKH (Pe)aK1iiH).” 13iirapcico MyHKo3Hame XVII(1993, Book 2), pp. 3-37.Nikishov, Georgii. “CpanIIHTeJIHasL flaneorpa4iui Koi1aKapHoro flHcJaXI-XIVBeicoB.” MusicaAntiguaEuropaeOrientalis. Bydgoszcz, Poland, 1975, pp. 557-572.Palikarova-Verdeil, Raina. La Musigue chez Les Bulgares et Les Russes (du IXe au XIVeSiecle). MMB Subsidia Vol. III, Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1953.198Petrov, Stoian and Kodov, Khristo. CTapo6IrapcKH Myarncaimll flai4iemI1gll. Sofia,Bulgaria: HayKa H HaKycmo, 1973.Politis, Linos. “iXvo Xtpoypcua wto triv Kaotopta.” Ellenika. tome 20(1967),Thessaloniki, pp. 29-41.Preobrazhensky, A. “0 Cxocme Pycciuiro My3EIKamaro llHcIMa c rpe’ecKRM Bneiecix PyKouHcx XI-XII B.” yccic My iutiiaii Fa3eTa No. 8(22CT’eBpa3Isl, 1909r.) & No. 10(8 MapTa, 1909r.), pp. 194-197: 257-26 1.Raasted, Jørgen. Intonation Formulas and Modal Signatures in Byzantine MusicalManuscripts. MMB Subsidia Vol. VII, Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1966.________and Schartau, Bjarne. “Indices to the Greek Examples in Constantin Floros’“Universale Neumenkunde”.” Cahiers de L’Institute du Moyen-Age grec et latin.1984.Razumovsky, D. UepKomloe HeHile B Pocciui. 3 Volumes. Moscow, 1967-1869.Riemann, Hugo. Die Byzantinische Notenschrift des 10 bis 15 Jahrhunderts. Leipzig,1909.Riesemann, Oskar von. Die Notation de altrussischen Kirchegesanges. Pubi. d. Intern.Musikgesellschaft, Beihefte, 2. folge. 8. Heft, Leipzig, 1909.Stefanovic, D. “Troparion.” New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. ed. S. Sadie,London: MacMillan, vol. 19, p. 172.Strunk, Oliver. “Some Observations on the Music of the Kontakion.” Essays on Music inthe Byzantine World. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1977, pp. 157-164.“S. Salvatore di Messina and the Musical Tradition of Magna Graecia.” Essayson Music in the Byzantine World. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1977, pp.45-54.“Byzantine Music in the Light ofRecent Research and Publication.” Proceedingsof the Thirteenth International Congress of Byzantine Studies. London and NewYork, 1967, pp. 245-254.“Two Chilandari Choir books.” Essays on Music in the Byzantine World. NewYork: W. W. Norton and Co., 1977, pp. 220-230.“H. J. W. Tillyard and the Recovery of a Lost Fragment.” Studies in EasternChant. 1(1966), ed. M. Velimirovic and E. Wellesz. Oxford University Press, pp.95-103.“TheByzantine Office at Hagia Sofia.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 9-10(1956),Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 175-202.________“The Notation of the Chartres Fragment.” Annales Musicologicjue III(1955), pp. 7-37.Tardo, Lorenzo. L’AnticaMelurgiaBizantina. Grottaferrata, 1938.199Thibaut, Jan-Baptiste. Monuments de Ia Notation Ecphonetigue et Hagiopolitigue deL’Eglise Grecque. Appendix, 1913. Introduction by Oliver Strunk. Hildesheim,New York: George Olms Verlag, reprinted 1976.Thodberg, Christian. “The Tonal System of the Kontakarion.” Køngelige danskevidenskabernes seiskab historik-filosoliske meddelelser. XXXXVIII7 (1960), pp.2-49.DerByzantinischenAlleluiarionzyklus. MIvIB Subsidia Vol. VII, Copenhagen:Munksgaard, 1966._______“Kontakion.” New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. ed. S. Sadie,London: MacMillan, Volume 10, pp. 181-182.Tillyard, H. J. W. “Fragment of a Byzantine Musical Handbook in the Monastery of theGreat Laura on Mt. Athos.” Annual of the British School atAthens XIX (1912-13),pp. 95-117.Handbook of the Middle Byzantine Musical Notation MMB Subsidia Vol. I,Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1935.Toncheva, Elena. “Der altrussische Kondakar.” (Review). Sonderdruck aus: Anzeiger fürSlavische Philologie. Band XIV. Akademische Druck-u.Verlaganstalt, Graz,Austria, 1983.“HoBoorzcpKT llaMeTmIK Ha Cpe1oEeKoBuaTa My3IIKa OT XIII BEMaHacTHp.” Es.iIrapcKo My3KKO3HaHKe Kit. 3, 1984, Institute ofMusicology, Sofia, Bulgaria.flpo6JIeMK iia CTapaTa &LnrapcKa My3rnca. Co4nia HçareJIcmo HayicaK H3KyC’IEO, 1975.____ .“DieMuzikalische Bedeutung des Interpunktionszeichens “Punkt” in demSticherarischen Repertoire der Handschrift NB Athens Nr. 928 (XV Jh).”Musikkulturgeschichte: Festschrift für Constantin Floros zum 60 Geburtstag.Herausgegeben von Peter Petersen, Sonderdruck. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf undHärtel, 1990.“Tonema—TheTheory and the Rhythmic Interpretation of ByzantineTune.” Rhythm in Byzantine Chant; Acta of the Congress Held at Hemen Castle inNovember 1986. A. A. Bredius Foundation, 1991.ThBulgarian Liturgical Chant (Ninth-Nineteenth Centuries).” Rhythm inByzantine Chant; Acta of the Congress Held at Hernen Castle in November 1986.A. A. Bredius Foundation, 1991.Touliatos-Banker, Diane. “The “Chanted” Vespers Service.” Kieronomia Vol. 8 (1976),pp. 107-126.The Byzantine Amomos Chant of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries.Thessaloniki: The Patriarchal Institute of Patristic Studies, 1984 (Doctoral Dissertation).200Treitler, Leo. “The Early History of Music Writing in the West.” Jams XXXV (1982), pp.237-279.________“CentonateChant”: Ubles Flickwerk or E Pluribus Unus?” JAMS XXVIII(1975), pp. 1-23.Uspensky, Nicholas. flpeBllepyccKoe fleB’IecKoe Hcicyccmo. Moscow, 1971.___“Bil3&rrnicKoe fleHile B KIIeBcKo Pydil.” Akten des XI InternationalenByzantinischen Kongresses, Munchen, 1958. (Munich, 1960), pp. 643-654.Velimirovic, Milos. “Russian and Slavonic Church Music: § 1 Russian MonophonicChant.” New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. ed. S. Sadie, London:MacMillan, 1980, Vol. 16, pp. 337-346._“The Byzantine Heirmos and Heirmologion.” Gattungen der Musik inEinzeldarstellungen: Gedenkschrift Leo Schrade. I. Folge Bern and Munich, 1973,pp. 192-244.“TheInfluence of the Byzantine Chant on the Music of the Slavic Countries.”Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Oxford,1966. London, 1967, pp. 119-47.“Liturgical Drama in Byzantium and Russia.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers. No. 16(1962), pp. 351-385.Byzantine Elements in Early Slavic Chant. MMB Subsidia Vol. IV, parsprincipalis et pars suppletoria. Copenhagen, 1960.Vladyshevskaia, Tatiana. “Tnnorpa4cKnll YcTaB KaK HcToqHnK H3yeHHKa)1PeBKHX ()OpM PyccKoro fleBecKoro HcKyccma.” Musica Antigua EuropaeOrientalis;ActaScientifica. Bydgoszcz, Poland, 1975, pp. 607-620.Wellesz, Egon. A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography. Second Edition, Oxfordat the Clarendon Press, 1980.__“Die Hymnen cler Ostkirche.” Basiliensis de musica Orationes. I, Kassel,1962.The Music of the Byzantine Church. Arno Volk-Verlag, Köln, Vol. 13, 1959.Williams, Edward V. “Akolouthiai.” New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. ed.S. Sadie, London: MacMillan, 1980, Vol. 1, pp. 187-188.John Koukouzeles reform of Byzantine chanting for Great Vespers in theFourteenth Century. Ph.D. Thesis, Yale University, 1968.201III. Russian HistoryA. Primary SourcesCross, Samuel H. and Sherbowitz-Wetzor, 0. P. The Russian Primary Chronicle: TheLaurentianText. Cambridge, Mass.: The Medieval Academy of America, 1953.Forbes, Neville and Mitchell, Robert., trans. The Chronicle of Novgorod, 1016-1471.Camden Third Series, Vol. XXV. Reprinted from the edition of 1914, London,New York: AMS Press Inc., 1970.Kiprian Mitropolit i Makarii Mitropolit i Dr. Krnira CTeue1ma JjapcKaro PoocnoBiI,Coepxarua HcTopun Poccuitcrcyio. Coumeima TpyarvmllpeocBsnnemuIx MwrpoJioJIwroB, 1775. 1lacm 1 & 2, Mocia npH11nepaTopcEcoM YHIepcaTeTe, 1775.The “Paterik” of the Kievan Caves Monastery. Vol. 1, trans Muriel Heppell. HarvardLibraiy of Early Ukrainian Literature, 1989.flcximoe Copainie Pyccrux .lIerorniceft. Akademiia Nauk SSSR Institut Istorii. St.Petersburg, Leningrad, Moscow, 1841-1977.Zenkovsky, Serge. A. ed. The Nikonian Chronicle. 3 Vol. Princeton, New Jersey: TheKingston Press, Inc., 1984.________ed. Medieval Russia’s Epics, Chronicles, and Tales. New York: E. P. Dutton,1963, 1974.B. Secondary LiteratureAndreyev, Nikolay. “Pagan and Christian Elements in Old Russia.” Studies in Moscovy;Western Influence and Byzantine Inheritance. London: Variorum Reprints, 1970.Conant, K. J., Cross, S. H., and Margilevski, H. V. “The Earliest Medieval Churches ofKiev.” Speculum Vol. 11(1936), pp. 477-499.Dvornik, F. Byzantine Mission Among the Slays. New Brunswick, 1970.Ericsson, K. “The Earliest Conversion of Rus’ to Christianity.” Slavonic and EastEuropean Review. Vol. 44, No. 102 (1966), pp. 98-12 1.Fedotov, George P. The Russian Religious Mind: I, Kievan Christianity. The Eleventh tothe Thirteenth Centuries; II, The Middle Ages, The Thirteenth to the FifteenthCenturies. Volumes 3 and 4 of Collected Works. Belmont, Mass.: NordlandPublishing Company, 1975.Florovsky, George V. “The Problem of Old Russian Culture.” Slavic Review. Vol. XXI(March 1962), pp. 1-15.Langer, William L. ed. An Encyclopedia of World History. Boston: Houghton Mittlin Co.,1968.202Lenhoff, Gail. “Christian and Pagan Strata in the East Slavic Cult of St. Nicholas:Polemical Notes on Boris Uspensky’s “ ioitorirtiecicne pa3McKaEn,i yo6iiacm CJiCKKX peBHocTH.” Slavonic and East European Journal. Vol.28, No. 2 (Summer 1984), pp. 147-163._______“Canonization and Princely Power in Northeast Rus’: The Cult of LeontijRostovskij.” Die Welt der Slawen; Halbjahresschrift für Slavistik. JahrgangXXXVII, 1 & 2, N. F. XVI, 1 & 2(1992), pp. 359-380.Meyendorff, John. Byzantium and the Rise of Russia. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1981.Obolensky, Dimitri. The Byzantine Commonwealth. London, 1971.“Byzantium, Kiev, Moscow: A Study in Ecclesiastical Relations.” DumbartonOaks Papers. No. 11(1957), pp. 21-78.Ostrogorsky, George. A History of the Byzantine State. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968.Poppe, Andrei. “floiillm’ecKnB ‘t’oii Kpemeine PycR (PyCCKO-BII3aHmIICKReOTaomeriue B 986-989 rax).” in K Bij.jia KpeeHa Pyci,? Moscow,1985.Pritsak, Omeljan. The Origin of Rus’; vol. 1, Old Scandinavian Sources other than theSagas. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Institute of Ukrainian Studies, 1985.Shchapov, Iaroslav. Focapcmo II UepKoB B flpeBHe Pydil, X-XIII BR. Moscow:“Hayica”, 1989.Treadgold, Donald W. The West in Russia and China: Volume 1, Russia 1472- 1917.Cambridge at the University Press, 1973.Vernadsky, George. Kievan Russia. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1948.___“The Status of the Russian Church During the First Half-Century FollowingVladimir’s Conversion.” Slavonic and East European Review. 20 (1941), pp. 294-314.Wallace, Robert. Rise of Russia. Great Ages of Man; A History of the World’s Cultures.Alexandria, Virginia: Time-Life Books, 1967.203IV. LiturgyA. Primary SourcesArranz, Miguel. Le Typikon du Saint-Sauveur a Messine. OCA 201. Rome, 1969.Dmitrievsky, Aleksei. Ormcamie JIR yprirqeciux PyKonHce. 3 Volumes. Kiev, 1901,Reissue Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagbuchandlung, 1965.The Festal Menaion. trans. Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware. London: Faberand Faber, 1969.Goar, J. Euchologion, sive rituale Graecorum. Paris, 1647.Golubtsov, A. ed.1TmoBIuK HoBrOpocKaro ConllcKaro Co6opa. Moscow, 1899.Hapgood, Isobel Florence. Service Book of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church.New York: Associated Press, 1922.Høeg, C. and Zuntz, G. Prophetologion; pars prima er pars altera. MMB. Lectionaria Vol.I, Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1970-1980/81.Lisitsyn, M. flepBoHazar11mI Ciia no-PyccKI1 THnrncoH. St. Petersburg, 1911.Makarii, Mitropolit. HcTopKsi Pyccico epic. Vol. II. St. Petersburg: Tip. Imp.,1857.Mansvetov, 1. “0 HeclielmoM Hoc.ueoBaHllE (aoiatqicii aKoovOqa): OCHOBa. IT o6iga cpo.” llpH6aBaeH1L K H3aarnyIoTBopeH CB. OmeB. XXVI (1880), pp. 752-797: 972-1028.flepKoBHMi YCTaB: O6pa3oBarnle iT Cyra B rpecKo II PycCKOUepH. Moscow, 1885.Mateos, Juan. Le Typicon de Ia Grande Eglise. Ms. St. Croix No. 40, 2 Vols. OrientaliaChristianaAnalecta (OCA), 165 & 166(1962-3), Rome.Mvvatov toy AEKE.&IpLov. Athens, 1971.Mvvatov toy IavovctpLov. Athens, 1971.Migne, J. P. Symeon Arkhiepiskopou Thessalonikis: De Sacra Precatione. PatriologiaGraeca Tomus 155, pp. 669-697.Nassar, Rev. Seraphim. Divine Prayers and Services of the Orthodox Church of Christ.New York: Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese, 1961.Odintsov, N. M. flOpiioK O6mecmeimoro II IacTHoro BorocIyeHn. B JIpeBIIePoccrni XVI BeKa. St. Petersburg, 1881.204floJmbI MecsirociIoB Bcex Upa Iyersmlx lipaociaoio TpeKoBocrocrnoloCBmIx Co(5paImbI 113 MocKoBcKnx H KHeEcKHX Cisigon 113 Hponora H‘lem_Mmeit_St. Petersburg: ThmeparopcKo AKaeMnR HayK, 1831.Skaballanovich, M. ToJIKono THIUIK0H. O6sicirwreJmHoe Haioxemie THunKona cHcTopH’IecKnM BBeemieM. BEmycK 1 & 2. Kiev: N. T. Korchak-Novitskii,1910& 1913.Symeon of Thessaloniki. Treatise on Divine Prayer An Explanation of the ServicesConducted in the Orthodox Church. trans. H. L. N. Simmons. Brookline, Mass.:Hellenic College Press, 1984.B. Secondary LiteratureArranz, Miguel. KaK ?{oJra3IllcI. Bory JipeBmie BH3awm11nI. Cyro’nui KpyrBorocapEeirasi no )lpernnin CiuIcKoM Bu3awrrnicKoro EBxOJIOrHK5I.(JIKccepT&puI), Leningrad: JIemlHrpacKasi [[yxoBHa. AKaeMRg, 1979.________“LesArchives de Dmitrievsky dans la Bibliotheque d’Etat de Leningrad.” OCPXL (1979), pp. 61-83._____“ ’Officede L’Asmatikos Hesperinos (“vêpres chanteès”) de L’AncienEuchologie Byzantin.” OCP XLIV (1978), pp. 107-130.’de vieille nocturne dans L’Eglise Grecque et dans L’Eglise Russe.”OCP XLII (1976), pp. 117-155.Baumstark, Anton. “Das Typikon der Patmos-Handschrift 266 und diealtkonstantinopolitanische Gottesdienstordung.” Jahrbuch für LiturgiewissenschaftBd. 6 (1926), pp. 98-111.Borgia, Nib leromonaco. “Orologion “Diurno” delle Chiese di Rito Byzantino.”OCA XVI-2 (1929), pp. 152-254.Bury, J. B. “The Ceremonial Book of Constantine Porphyrogenitos.” The EnglishHistorical Review No. LXXXVI (April 1907), pp. 209-227, and No. LXXXVII(July 1907), pp. 417-439.Dostal, Anton. “The Beginnings of the Slavonic Liturgy.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers No. 19(1965), pp. 69-87.Golubinsky, E. E. HcTopn5l PyccKo IIepKBn. T. I. St. Petersburg, 1868.Taft, Robert. “Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of the Byzantine Rite.”Dumbarton Oaks Papers 42(1988), pp. 184-192.The Liturgy of the Hours in the Christian East: Origins, Meaning, Place in theLife of the Church. Rome, 1984.“The Pontifical Liturgy of the Great Church According to a Twelfth-CenturyDiataxis in codex British Museum Add. 34060.” OCP 45(1979), pp.297-307, andOCP 46(1980), pp. 87-124.205Taft, Robert. The Great Entrance: A History of the Transfer of Gifts and Other PreAnaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Second Edition, OCA200, Rome, 1978.Uspensky, Nicholas. Evening Worship in the Orthodox Church. trans. and ed. by PaulLazor. Crestwood, N. Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.V. Manuscript IndicesBelokurov, S. A. YKasaTeim KO BceM flepnoUPecKnM H3annHMllMnepaTopcKaro O6mecma llcropn Ipemocm PoccRcKllx upRHMnepaTopcKoM MocKoEcKoM YmlBepcwreTe no 1915r. Moscow, 1915.Fonkich, B. L. Fpe’IecKo-Pyccxne Kymvjpmie CIsI3n B XV-XVII (T’peecieB Poccnn). Moscow: H3aTeimcmo “Hayica”, 1977.Grant, Steven A. and Brown, John H. The Russian Empire and Soviet Union: A Guide toManuscripts and Archival Materials in the United States. Kennan Institute forAdvanced Russian Studies; The Wilson Center. Boston, Mass.: G. K. Hall & Co.,1981.Shchepkina, M. V., Protas’eva, T. N., Kostiukbina, L.. M., Golyshenko, V. C.“OnIcaHne flepraMewrmIx PyKonnce Focyapcmeimoro HcTopH’lecKoroMy3eirsi, II.” Apxeorpa4mjqecKlrn FeroEmK 3a 1964, II. O6aopii.OrmcaH B1t5JIHorpaIrsI. Moscow, 1965, pp. 135-234.Shelamanova, N. B. “Hpeapwreimimafi CrmcoK CJIaBsmo-PyccKnx Pyicormcei XIXIV Xpa niixc B CCCP o Koma XIV BKfflO1flTCJTEO .,,ApxeorpawecKIr EKerowniK a 1965 ron. Moscow, 1966, pp. 177-272.Schmidt, S. 0. ed. CR0 WJI KaTanor Cnaao-Pycccnx PyKonncmlx Kimr,Xpaiuiuxcsi B CCCP: XI-XIII RB. Moscow: AIcaeinHM Hayk CCCPOTeJIemIe Hciopiii, Apxeorpaniiec1caM Koiniccir, 1984.Tikhomirov, N. B. “Kamjjor PyccKnx n CIaBsmcx fleprazeimiix PyKormce XIXII BeK0B Xpaiisiwiixcii B Oeae PyKonnceBn6JrnoTeKll CCCP Hi&. B. H. fleniia ‘lasm II (XII BeK).” 3anncKROTeJIa Pyonnce. Toc. Bn6ji. CCCP, 27, Moscow, 1965, pp. 93-148.Velimirovic, Milos M. “The Present State of Research in Slavic Chant.” Acta MusicologicaXLIV (1972), pp. 235-265.206Selected Terminology’Akathistos: This is a long hymn to the Blessed Virgin and one of the few kontakia thatsurvives in its original unabridged form. The Akathistos is performed in its entiretyon the Feast of the Annunciation (25 March) and on the fifth Friday of the GreatLenten Fast. Consisting of twenty-four stanzas, it bears the unusual feature ofbeing unified by a single refrain.Akolouthia: The Akolouthia was the Byzantine Order of Services that supplanted the olderAsmatika and Psaltika in the fourteenth century. It absorbed much of the olderrepertory while including newly-composed musical material. Its creation isattributed to the reformer of Byzantine music, loannis Koukouzeles.Alleluiarion: The Alleluiarion is a cycle of select psalm-verses with an alleluia refrain sungafter the epistle reading at the Liturgy.Amomos: “Blessed are the undefiled”--This is Psalm 118 or the seventeenth Kathisma,used in its entirety on Good Friday and in part at the Office of Burial.Anabathmoi: These are the Gradual psalms of the Morning Office.Antiphon: Traditionally, an antiphon is any non-scriptural poetic hymn form insertedbetween psalm verses.Apolitikion: The Apolitikion is the term for a dismissal or benediction.Asmatiki-Akolouthia: The term Akolouthia-Asmatiki refers to the Constantinopolitan All-Sung Offices, which included vespers, matins, the Hours, and the Pannikhida (seebelow).Asmatikon: The Asmatikon was the Byzantine Choir-book mostly preserved in copiesfrom Southern Italy.Automelon: An Automelon is an original hymn melody that provided a model for others(see Prosomoion below.)Canon or Kanon: The Canon was the major Byzantine hymn for of the eighth century andattributed to John the Damascene, Cosma of Mauma and others. It consists of ninestanzas or “heirmoi”, eight of which are modelled on the Old Testament canticles.The ninth is taken from the Gospel of Luke.Cheironomiae: Literally, this means the “Law of the Hand”: the hand-gestures of thedomestikos or choir leader.Cherubikon: At the Liturgy, the Cherubikon is roughly equivalent to the westernOffertorium and climaxing with the Great Entrance of the Gifts to be consecrated.It exists in four different versions, one ferial and three festal.Domestikos: The title “Domestikos” refers to the Choir leader.iThis is a list of terms encountered throughout the dissertation. In those cases where thedefinition is given in quotations, it has been drawn from a particular source which is given in the notes.207Doxology: This is a short hymn or words of praise ascribing glory to God. There are twoforms, greater and lesser. The former concludes the Morning Office (“Glory toGod in the Highest and on Earth peace, good will to towards men.”). The otherserves as a Christian “coda”, ascribed to the Trinity, to all prayers and psalmreadings.Echos: This is the Greek indication for Mode.Euchologion: This is an altar book, i.e., a book used by the priest and deacon for thesacraments and other services as well as for numerous special prayers andblessings.2Exapostilarion: An Exapostilarion is one of the several lesser hymn forms [classified astroparia] employed at the morning office. “The hymn of dismissal, whosecomposition is ascribed to the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitos (A. D. 912-959).3Heirmologion: The Heirmologion is the service book used by the readers and singers intheir chanting of the canons. Each ode of a canon begins with a stanza call a“heirmos” [see next entry] (in Greek, “link”). The “Heirmologion” contains thetexts of the “heirmoi” for many canons required in matins and other services.4Heirmos: (p1. Heirmoi) A heinnos is a model stanza for an Ode in a Kanon or a model foraccompanying troparia. There are usually nine odes although the second is oftenomitted.Hypakoe: (or “Jerusalem Tropation”) This is a troparion inserted between the third andfourth odes of the Kanon, and is often subjected to melismatic treatment.Hypopsalmos: These are fragments of psalm verses used as refrains and renderedantiphonally in the Constantinopolitan All-Chanted Office.Idiomelon: An original hymn not modelled on another.Katavasia: In the Morning Office, the katavasiai are the Hymns of Descent where the twosides of the choir process to the middle of the church. They are sung after the eighthode of the Canon.Kathisma: For liturgical use in the Orthodox Church the Psalter is divided into twenty“kathismata” or sections consisting of several psalms. Each kathisma is in turnsubdivided into three segments called “Glories” because each is concluded with alesser doxology, “antiphons”, directing attention to the manner in which the psalmsare to be chanted, or “staseis”, indicating that standing is required while the psalmsare being chanted.52Nicholas Uspensky, Evening Worship in the Orthodox Church, (trans. Paul Lazor, Crestwood,New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), p. 242.3Reverend Seraphim Nassar, Divine Prayers and Services of the Catholic Orthodox Church ofChrist (New York: Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of New York and All North America, 1938,rev. 1961), p. 1091.4N. Uspensky, Evening Worship, p. 243.5Loc. cit., p. 243.208Kontakion: The Kontakion was the major Byzantine poetic form that antedated the Canon.Its creation is attributed to the sixth-century poet and liturgist Romanos theMelodist, whose most famous composition is the Akathistos Hymn to the BlessedVirgin (see above). Collections of kontakia are compiled in Kontakaria(Kondakars).Koinonikon: The Koinonikon is the Communion hymn, i.e., a psalm verse oroccasionally other Biblical text, which is presently sung during the Communion ofthe clergy at the Liturgy. The Koinonikon is concluded by an extended andsometimes repeated singing of “alleluia.”6Lychnikon (Lucernarium): In the earliest Christian Church, this was the evening office oflight.Megalynarion: The Megalynarion is the Eastern Church equivalent of the Magnificat, thehymn in honour of the Blessed Virgin. Another such hymn in honour of theBlessed Virgin is the Theotokion, which comes at the end of a larger series oftroparia. On Wednesdays and Fridays, such hymns also honour both the Crossand the Theotokos and are called Stavrotheotokia.7Menaion: Derived from the Greek word for “month”, the Menaion is a twelve-volume setof service books (one for each month) containing the variable parts (Propers) forthe fixed feast days of the liturgical year, 1 September through 31 August. There isalso the volume known as the Festal Menaion with the Propers for the twelve GreatFeasts.Oikos: (literally “house”) This is the verse following the prooemion or introductory stanzaof the kontakion or the heirmos of the Canon. Unlike the Prooemion, it is usuallylonger and of a different metrical construction.Oktoechos: The Oktoechos is the book containing textual settings of hymns in the eightecclesiastical modes, often with musical notation. These texts encompass thevariable hymns for the daily office for each tone or mode--for each day of aliturgical week (Saturday evening vespers to Saturday evening vespers). Beginningwith Tone 1 on the Second Saturday of Pascha [j.e., after Easter] (St. Thomas), the“Oktoechos” goes through approximately six eight-tone cycles during each Paschalyear.8Pannichys or Pannikhida: These headings refer to three types of services: (1) the oldestform of the Christian Vigil service, the so-called All-Night Vigil; (2) a generalservice performed in Christian antiquity separate from the vespers or midnightoffice; (3) the Office for the Dead as it is most familiarly known in modern EasternChurch practice.9Pasapnoaria: “Let all that hath breath praise the Lord!”. This is the concluding line of Ps.150, employed at the end of the Canon and usually provided with oktoechalsettings.6Jy, cit., p. 2437N. Uspensky, Evening Worship. p. 247.8pj, p. 244.91. Mansvetov, “0 flecRelmoM flocJIeoBanII,” pp. 1020-102 1.209Pentecostarion: The Pentecostarion is the book containing the propers for the fifty-dayperiod from Easter Sunday to the Sunday of All Saints.Photagogikon: A lesser hymn form, the Photagogikon is the hymn of light chanted afterthe Canon at the Matins service,.Polieleos: (literally “many mercies”) Polieleos refers to Psalms 134, 135, and 136,employed in the Matins service, and are characterised by the refrain “For He isgood and His mercy endureth forever!.”Proemion: The Proemion refers to the introductory stanza of the kontakion.Prophetologion: The Prophetologion is the service book containing the Old Testamentlectionary readings.Prokeimenon or Doche: Originally, a “prokeimenon” was a refrain to all or a large numberof verses of a psalm appointed to introduce a lection from the Holy Scripture whichimmediately followed. This refrain was composed of either one verse or agrouping of selected phrases from the psalm being used. It was repeated after eachof the other verses. Present liturgical practice restricts the “prokeimenon” (meaningsomething “set before”) to a refrain and one to four verses of a particular psalm.Prokeimena are chanted at the Divine Liturgy, at vespers, at matins, andoccasionally at other services. In most instances they continue to precede andintroduce Scripture readings.’°Prosomoion: A Prosomoion is contrafactum-hynm modelled on the Automelon.Psaltikon: The Psaltikon is the soloist’s book and counterpart to the Asmatikon.Sticheron: (p1. stichera) Poetical verses of varying content and length composed originallyto be sung to prescribed melodies (“tones”). They occur in a number of forms innearly all Orthodox services.11 Collections of stichera are gathered in theSticherarion.Synapte: The Synapte is another term for litany.Triodion: This liturgical book contains the variable parts for the daily services of GreatLent and Holy Week. Use of this book commences on the Sunday of the Publicanand Pharisee (twenty-two days before the start of Great Lent) and concludes withthe midnight office on the night of Great and Holy Saturday. The title “Triodion”stems from the fact that many of the Lenten canons have only three rather than thecustomary nine odes.12Trisagion: The Trisagion is an ordinary chant in use at the Divine Liturgy. Literally “HolyGod, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, Have mercy on us!” It exists in ferial andfestal forms.Troparion: “Troparion” refers to freely-composed non-scriptural poetry inserted betweenpsalm verses.iON. Uspensky, Evening Worship. p. 246.1 L. ciL p. 246.p. 247.210Typikon or Ustav: The central liturgical book containing texts and rubrics for all servicesconducted in the church.211Hymn TranslationsI. The Hypakoe/Katavasia for the Height Feast of the ArchangelMichael:The people who have gathered together in honour in thy house believe, oh firstangel; Thou who obeyed the veiled Trinity, oh highest-ranked Michael. The angels standin glory before the oldest instructed. With them, have mercy on us!hA. The Hypakoe for the Forefeast of Christmas (BK only):Shining with the glow of fire, the Divine Sun illuminates the throne of the regent.All the earth and the air are filled, 0 Archangel, who comes, fulfilling the Divine will. Andthe enlightened having given thanks to him, sing to the commander of our lives.hA. The Hypakoe for the Forefeast of Christmas: The HolyFathers:The fire was transformed into dew to the children; the weeping was changed to joyfor the women. For the angel in the struggle performed a miracle; because they in peaceturned in the furnace; to whose resurrection in three days it will lead. 0 Commander of ourlives, Lord, Glory to Thee!IIB: The Hypakoe for the Forefeast of Christmas: The ThreeChildren in the Fiery Furnace:The Angel, saying to the Children cast into the furnace, then to the women whoweep for us who have not been brought out: “For whom do you seek in the tomb that youbring myrrh?” For the Christ and God is risen, the life and saviour of the generation ofman!III. The First Troparion for Christmas:Thou wast born secretly in a cave, but heaven spoke through a star and proclaimedThee to all, 0 Saviour. And it brought to Thee Magi who worshipped Thee with faith: withthem, have mercy on us!13IV. The First Katavasia for Christmas:Heaven brings the leaders of the people by a star to the infant who lies in a manger;And the magi having been called, who fear not sceptre and throne, but the lowliest of thepoor; in which that cave and humble shroud hath shown thy divine richness. 0 Lord,glory to thee!l3Trnjs1atjon from The Festal Menaion, (trans., Mother Mary and Kallistos Ware, London: Faber& Faber, 1969), p. 256.212V. The Second Katavasia for Christmas:As shepherds were piping songs a host of angels stopped them and called out,saying: “Cease now, ye who abide in the fields at the head of your flock; cry out and singthat Christ the Lord is born, whose pleasure it is to save mankind.14VI. The Katavasia for Epiphany:When by thy appearance thou didst enlighten the universe; then the salty sea ofunbelief fled, and the Jordan flowed down returning to Heaven and raised us up; but theDivine heights keep thy commandments, 0 Christ God, by the prayers of the Theotokos,and have mercy on us!VII. The Second Troparion for Christmas:Thou hast shone forth from the Virgin, 0 Christ, Thou spiritual Son ofRighteousness. And a star showed Thee, whom nothing can contain, contained within acave. Thou has lead the Magi to worship Thee, and joining them we magnify Thee: 0Giver of life, Glory to Thee!Stichos I:The Lord has reigned, he is clothed with beauty. The Lord is clothed with strengthand hath girded himself. (Ps. 92, 1-2).Stichos II:For he hath established the world, which shall not be moved. Thy throne isprepared from of old. The floods have lifted up, 0 Lord; the floods have lifted up theirvoice. The floods have lifted up their waves, with the noise of many waters. (Ps. 93, 3-4).Stichos III:Wonderful are the surges of the sea. Wonderful is the Lord on high. Thytestimonies are become exceedingly credible. Holiness becometh thine house, 0 Lord,unto length of days. (Ps. 92, 5).15VIII. The First Troparion for Epiphany:Thou didst appear in the world, 0 Creator of the world, to lighten them that sit indarkness. Wherefore, 0 Lover of Mankind, glory to Thee!Stichos I:May God have mercy on us and bless us; may he cause the light of his countenanceto shine upon us. That we may know Thy way upon the earth; Thy salvation in all nations.(Ps. 66, 2-3).I4lbid., p. 210. In this modem edition of the Feslal Menaion, this chant is given for the Forefeastof Christmas15Loc. cit., pp. 259-260.213Stichos II:Let the people, 0 God, confess to thee; let all people give praise to Thee, the earthhath yielded her fruit. (Ps. 66, 4-5).Stichos III:May God, our God, bless us; may God bless us; and all the ends of the earth fearHim. (Ps. 66, 6-8).16IX. The Second Troparion for Epiphany:Thou didst appear, 0 our Saviour, to sinners and tax gatherers our of the multitudeof thy mercy; for where else would thy light shine but to those who sit in darkness?Wherefore, glory to Thee.1716Translation from S. Nassar, Divine Prayers and Services of the Catholic Orthodox Church ofChrist, (Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of New York and All North America, 1961), pp. 457-458.17bjj., p. 459.214Figure VSupplement to Chapter OneThe following is a list of Kievan metropolitans from the years 988-1305, as givenby Shchapov.’8(1) Feofilakt, 988-before 1018(2) Ioann I, before 1018-c. 1030(3) Feopempt, c. 1035-c. 1040(4) Ilarion, 1051- 1054(5) Efrem, 1054/55-c. 1065(6) Georgi, c. 1065-c. 1076(7) Ioann II, not later than 1076/77-after August 1089(8) Ioann III, Summer 1090-before August, 1091(9) Nikolai, c. 1093-before 1104(10) Nikiforl, 18 December, 1104-April, 1121(11) Nikita, 15 October, 1124-9 March 1126(12) Mikhail I, Summer 1130-1145(13) Klim (Kliment) Smoliatich, 27 June, 1147-beg. 1155(14) Konstantin I, 1156-1558/59(15) Feodor, August 1 160-June 1163(16) Ioann IV, Spring 1164-1166(17) Konstantin II, 1167-1169/70(18) Mikhail II, Spring 1171?(19) Nikifor II, before 1 183-after 1201(20) Matfei, before 12 10-19 August, 1220(21) Kyril I, 1224/25-Summer 1233(22) losif, 1236-?18p ci!. p. 191.(23) Kiril II, 1242147-27 November 1281(24) Maksim, 1283-6 December, 1305215216Appendix IThe Lavra-gamma 67 (Ly67) Neume-Catalogue(Triodion, Tenth Century, f. 159r)8c‘-- -N8cpjp-z&$P,L4r..rr4rr,\o,,_: oep. pop,tp..‘ wc-’ •qr1•L4 ci C a e;• L4.PZXTeNf LW ‘•4 ,___4u.L’:-4.%u, • &V W,Lk— r1CA‘Ic%LuwWw. 14kw- fJL’W4’.-(. IkD4’4-fq.‘xp ‘‘(VT’’-fhLC)%.p)-P -wtc4q 4C*1 •/*A iicp 4irp.wi-w. 5l8Repi-oduced from Specimina Notationum Antiguiorum, pars prinicpalis, (0. Strunk, ed., MMB,Main Series, Vol. VII, Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1965). plate 12.217Appendices II, III, and IVTables of Cheirononiic . Gestures Extracted from Codex A899(f. 2v)’9 . . .P-’ ,.,.——-4-—.••C- ‘—b; -s fFR t-L?,—--- —7:. ,• S I -.‘r - -,r-rp.\-‘-1c’v- fWIbIrF1,L- Dfr-T....4J4t],.‘.--—- dl -r I •- i. fbi U r z’.—-.-E—-•’---. —v’ —tJW Ø4 -4• XiW(- . .. -•i.•LFl-J1L ‘Y .• . . ••• L1.jiC*4 • - ..- .cI:r ( T’ILlT1’‘9Reproduced from E. Toncheva, Problemi na Starata Bulgarska Muzika, (Sofia: Izdatelstvo NaukaI Jzkustvo, 1975), pp. 53-58.3Hau oT3Ha,c I77e4oHemHa oTuwgCPABF-!MTE.m-IA TM.fll4tjAI7peC4a6CKarna ?.epaAKzz’IHa’ua Q! TX r.3naK II 3:ai ]II2187e.ieiapycka xoIt1aIapNa koTatulsicaypoc (KpIoN)3Haui or 3oip;dicirnt 1npe.o.w?zzzi XIII n.’.cMa (4ta)3zaMOBI!aHmçcga HOTIjI1H3na,c TI91eM1 xHp)HoMT{HK 3fIaU(- 3a II• pycica ceMatllqRa HoraLlI4nGGc, cHTa blpaqHaH o AiivicoipbhonHc.’2 899, .IHCT 19.. •V pvcxsKoH.iaKapcf3HaI -.c..xwIocpIf3Hc77,IJia.leOBl!3aIITHHCKat4oTaLtH)(nce4oicToH (I1JapTp.7IIKaTa3aCMa (a31t)cHpMaThKeCIIpMI 6a;eiaVVcniiar:a3iiawi ot Or,n;;àjrzr;’oav,no ea?ilCJr1C PT XI .+.±xIrnoxp13HC:1 •. • VV IaaacMa .(3.uifha)O-:: 4RTa CDeTIa219TAI.]H1 A IA XHPOHOMHL]HHTE 31 IAI fl4*fpynii I it Ii I ec!mpaII.ecM:1 Ly(_Tec anorec. Eiapi.cic ITeMaTn3MOC (e30) Teia xan.1y11ZpauHcMa EnerepMaTOcCtnarMa ‘X. 1PY” 111THnarMa flce4aCTOU ITecapa i3apeaXcepoH-wlaci.4a 4..... . AHTHKeIIOMaflllacMaflapaIazecMa (3, JhwHcMa 1..flenacToli ‘1 XeTepon napaHatec.taApr0CNHTeTOH-flapaKleTHKeXopeyMa +Kcepo1.)c.1ac!qaTpoMiiKotCipenion FtXoMatioH• B Ha 3HauTe a pwre rpyn e cna3e flOp.bKbr H)1 B necBoneHHeTO.C‘D(•C,-’,4 l-f Cd,0 -I C) -I N C,)0 0I—.(-)00M0V)JL II;!‘rj (.0 ‘4PI-•C1111‘p p ‘p 1.ItI—I I.;p.littin‘7 7 5;eq H0 n v-I I C. 0 C. 4 ‘p ‘p rI2H It H CDIt l CD0 noCDL.WIt 0 at S‘1%CI fl.1pIs,,‘rC.o‘4I VIICa C 0adVSIt,‘0SC0ISai’IjI•7W1•liiiI,‘liii-‘?s1‘ 2?“IH I’ I C C’ pI ‘0 4) 9 .4 Ii -3 9’ 3 0 0 c0 0)‘V 0 C II CII p. I:’ C <0‘F IS 4 I.rIp. ‘IDt’J0 pa 3 ci I 4,-f)a):.(,19Ik£kgeQ ‘I.’p.0,“C ‘p C. CC C,C,. St “F 01.I’4i40III A’IHp $7I*Oh, C1tOnIdIC.InIIIiIIprci0III\.Ilbitia$c.SthA41224CHANT TRANSCRIPTIONS225List of Chants in Counterpart TranscriptionPageChants 1 and 3: The KatavasialHypakoe for the High Feastof the Archangel Michael; The First Troparion for Christmas 226Chant 2: The Hypakoai for the Forefeast of Christmas:A. The Feast of the Holy Fathers 236B. The Three Children in the Fiery Furnace 248Chant 4: The First Katavasia for Christmas 256Chant 5: The Second Katavasia for Christmas 270Chant 6: The Katavasia for Epiphany 280Chant 7: The Second Troparion for Christmas 295Chant 8: The First Troparion for Epiphany 303Chant 9: The Second Troparion for Epiphany 308THETA/•,.aJY’\.4?‘THHcfAf’,ILi.r•ttoaoCXt’,VOooo,f_&I•____IICHANTSNOS.1&3:KATAVASIEFORTHEFEASTOFARCHANGELMICHAEL;THEFIRSTTROPARIONFORCHRISTMASMODEVILIN1ECHADIN/GRONTH.T.V(‘4\717T?oOH‘HH’HHH’HN/441sicTh1TRflMT(ThTI %9.,VtBK(o4H0’0’Cw ;:LK0AE’‘efrI’/sJ‘?.v1i‘4‘Z5HHCgK8&Gi,///--‘C.’t,l)1’•Ib;4,,—‘/;‘ti,/...i-rE?S£-.—-—rSTREPTONLK SKrrrBK.kd/LKrc/,(_.J 1’N’\.p)cXA’‘V\UM)C1XPAlINE2KATABATROMIKONANTTTFMflMR‘bA,‘DbrçI,rrr$JII—Vs—/‘1.,APcI—7,,—,,Jr.‘)cifctrrEoX07/_a__.__SK , i-ri /.4rb-€ E’ 0 C 8,10 0 3 8I 7, 4 S / *9, —33* saQ. Tr+‘f L 4.Zp Ct.1rb. FT3 fl8 C 0 00•1 T7‘-i •bc,1rnac 0’’0_w’ 4.-’.c o C 3 327 ‘ /. /.7.. /‘ = FpvVbI ‘bIA’ A.rrtl’e..- ‘.-.‘.• j’ •b’/rc uieA;;‘—;.‘ !c_’.‘I.‘ v s r r.228THEMA HAPLOUNLINE3FLK v ‘ / .(4€ e Bo C 0’ c CLINE 1 LINE 2BK I’- ± ‘,Mtt¶HLK ? C. C. —•t.Jr MbCC,//ZK8 ?-‘ 77’.’oGi—3—0‘/ xc. ‘(“IZ.-L.229cJ-&0K’— c)110+3-1H’H•1\(‘ISo.•)( S:d‘9,Il 0—=0•10‘JxJ9:3‘ix.iS?z0.11• 2.> 3—zIibL..>ci0GD23003o., 0,c.>>()(.-.,) —1’(C-w-w-Io‘ rI 4-x‘SLflzHC-,t‘D’‘—‘—NL..d——‘--LofrdL.GiLIr1E6—1+/)V//77I.•LK7/k’”“/1r7‘0C4/,kSKIII.113KLK77—,7,.+4’Cj4•/7CbflcyE€7p/LJ“)‘iIHtij,‘—‘-.‘‘•cj——,,1,,..,-7;,•2If‘£rvoc7L.)‘CorrLJrP&1TPo..L—..•—4—-—±•-1:(“xoI.tre232LINE 7ECHADINLJ...J ,_“ : \‘ •‘—• .__, / V/. .‘ 7 CJ.‘ ...-_‘, 5.,LKS K 7 • —‘ / / V /.. .. •4hABK I.VV_-CflPLK V v ‘Ct1 cr o ).C iP 4K 8VL 61’VV., ..,—-; /1 i. 77V 7 7 fi //a: flç v€. £ V E n tVG1 -____________________--.F :#:;::, —VV7?V&L233ILINE 87,__,4•SKc— / + 7 7 +i’/LK p0 o)ç ,ç . r-c, ,, / t /17ç2j.Z / 7vTW4 t H Cm’ 4-A X4 A/9. 4- . / I LJ /., r .fl c/1 Hc TH XH’ IA A-L/ 7 I’ ‘. — 41 ii 7Xk-’‘Lu‘b’-7’--4’—,_‘—7,vG1jh, /, X4’’LX ‘‘ fl t, ‘— ‘- 1__., . :) ‘--‘_ 7 ‘-•_ a- g.. , // 4,.77KLdv ‘.7 V-VO )‘JI-, ,47 1. QUA. V V Y)—i-i .::) ;“ .,__(__, 2’•t. )L8. - ro’; c X4 ?CLp••. ! • 0, - V ----‘p‘— \VcJXQ. ‘- ofc X.1LINE 9REFRAIN7 7 •. I.LK2347 ;c•2 //;eJ%\i 7 I’ /.— 7 ,.i_,e. e,e-€ Er[_ TROMIKON14—. I_I__I43 / ‘‘ L.b I / W / ‘.€c6 ,€ £T.€. 6—-‘J1.SK, I I / , V / I I I 3 I LBK C”g. ‘F •7 ‘ LI .L \,‘ ‘lLK C H Mil 4 “ eex T5’K8, > / 2II I , I’ ‘,.U€,— 4 E ‘- (‘i&- e€.”4., —c:..-—•-—-—-f—f $ /.p ,.‘)c; x”4. —-- ,,-2 ‘fi J C,.4JC..235—;; ! !I;(*7; LLtJL-‘z v 0;:E- :—-i)———3c-o—)X •Z£‘o • I-c-‘“0 —)c.—3 i=x‘.wx“:1:-ii‘0z236LINE laCHANT NO. 2A: THE FOREFEASTOF CHRISTMAS: THE KATAVASIEFOR THE HOLY FATHERSMODE VISTRANG. TIN. EPEG. OURANISMArfIt, II,BKBK dl1 S+ ‘ i \ kI it “ I it —oc.. ‘)‘LK “f1.j‘7 _j ‘I0000k c’TciILrLfLfL(--?‘I <t.1/2 IK8 ‘- 7- .*-_I—.II / /i 7 ,,ciG7 (9’I •m 241, I I’ %“—oac’,, ‘, , __, bt4COcCC rNT.’’7øot aCOrr4Th b’rp°ok3 *5’, , , : L> ; -.,--.. 77 ,i ‘I If •- 7_ ,- , — ‘ ,:;;.Q. cc ‘ X c 0 rtv. c c’ . ‘ a o ,rj X-- -, —--——- -- I I - -.-— .1 j. — ‘!IL - _e ‘ ‘ ‘ —-— —tcS po e a a V. kO.a a )j.aV CL Oe$ 7 êL (C C ( Z ‘i-. e a a 71u v “5ILINElb-ROMIKO,——;,•fl,iL%)t—C.TbbDT’’c‘•_•)..)_.7xor’TIN+PARA.+SYN.1/1iJ‘L.J’BI<BF LK‘‘‘ThpnPK8;;7i.•1_,—MftE:GiSiS.i’-I’,/1/C—-‘$‘-I.-to.__,.L..__.__...a,—_a••KLXE.-oZt7Ltt-6(y&STRANGISMA2,BK—.,L1<I——.—I’8.5/‘“..—-.,I,;‘.-/‘—j’r°-LINE2aTINAGMA/EPEGERMAOURANISMA,fl(+AA41O’O.T’•tVtJIL..3‘‘I’L3•IIpItFIIl/c•‘3’bpo31C,rL,...s%/%JWJ,I—+//‘-.-‘\I1’‘‘e...Jt‘‘///1yc’Gi%6WJAjL,.2i.7r,Va0X’)ormz-:£L6L...tOOpkiizE’._1__.•zzm.4,(ayooCrôI6(c,GoLINE2bBK‘‘iTbb’K8c__C—ClTINAGL4A/ PARAKALESMA/ SYN.-Q-9S, •‘reARW&Ec,.STRANGISMAJTROMIKON-?7_:4i-’1’9:çj,l1r’o’ooXb’bBK,,,22,,—;.• TA>çwmLLKIL.%J/.(2LC)i.—iL-r—L-c—)r”i‘;‘c—DI?-•%l/ •L-—.3IIvL(&v:‘‘-)o-r.-.aftA 711717,‘—O’Q0’-rref.L-ro1.‘J.c-_____—-cvycc.7.p..pI.—.ppp••ppp1p•—-p‘.—‘•.‘a—-.._.—p—\._,__——.pps_.Cc)CC..‘tct’c-rue€.£-rç7IIw2: ti wV‘pc-i0 0I-‘z’:9- L.I< +- IIfVcjr’I-0‘J0 (I) +ii00’‘p 19.0.c(0 o C 046’;00 (I) HI 2: 0 H (I].1/ -J_ 2 r- —LINE 3bI THES KAI APOTHESIV ?BKBK 4_\ • .cI’t•.’ ?PK’P’WtLK I‘241r% I r STRANGISMAlexe47. ; / 41t; c ;‘ / .‘ , 4 1ee)<€‘ 7 —1—’x--S TRANG I SMA,i 4%”:I”4 ,.I.” =0t{CL(K8 7 /1 II 7t °‘ Ko7.Gi dixcxo,—r ,;— __ —. — — /10 vç.r & - Q4 O L.Jo )Co )o 01100 o0VLt.59A’1f(’( t Jt (242LINE 4aI.LK 7K87;— 77 1. ii-r - 3—- -,-%%---‘ ‘‘ -// S f• //1v oc:‘I 0T. )(( )CI,O’BK CH•‘RECHON1 FLYGISMAI[AD +TRANG.- D----ç •BK ‘‘I - JL-;. ‘ I’ ——XL’/ c,7 / • i • %‘ b. V{X )<$C— 7EL L LWGi (k. £ f*, /4I1 9er3-C’ ‘•,‘_j H \ •‘ ‘i _..iflK€ opHH’HH •/T;7..- ; ;. ) ‘I’, 7V E. t. oc. n. r£ rr e—Xc ,LL( L £ tic t’ L r “- O )C4 Cc bSLINE4bGi—ktI(IV.0•_rrZ.iZfrATABATROMIK0N11*BKBKBK“‘‘/+“l9’’b’b’fl&’.‘I+LK;rf;‘?€.4i1)’,-m€._‘-pa;;’’,,,,—.:f—‘APOO.—9-,1(8?wH z tiC. ‘-iOiL’ T::::p-Pq?‘4u_I.,_‘S:%t-t,)I-srift1fE:f) :I(-\i/-S..1)-(,-.-—(• : ‘ r:s:çf)Z,<(—,-a‘,-‘((4:(ic...-I-‘•—‘r,”:(I)3Z10t’-c?Ft1‘-•t%, ol-v.Cflc%c-‘*+dt4\J,()(.(n—1riZI‘‘1C)*,_:Iti2j9:;134,’P\-1&.-t. 7 R.245LINE 5b. ,•1L.. f±0’ t XPfDI -‘I, ?-•‘•4.4.oI/__+ , .TT€ X? > bJQØ, OXoXOOI’O’SI, •,ø_ 7 II t.iuu,Aa1II1.4q,IIb’c r’— -4.BK 41ii 4’, no.BK ‘-j’ f rT’STRANGISMA Ih1iLKTV0 — /‘ --1xoG7=‘7r r. Vr Xr<’t,,/ —A44. t;. =S aIoto Oc ‘-.- j.-d 9 - > —.a •-C. .. a_t’iI i)LI%x%€0 iO> p7 ‘1 C 7 -,a 0 0 r °0 ‘(0 0• • - =I •; 4__---o -- 0 o (tQ_ - e a fro$—-4.,.—Na—HS’I--H1?•4z-I-—(4(T4(Ij--(hI(1) (pCIII0‘aZ.(\(go.)c4-37 :11*- Li:--.1 i:IOr-;)(“4.0 orr)rb...-c) 4*C-)0(1-cfcII 01+—lii,Is. (9 IIODC)“4t-lH z tn0 ‘3 ‘3 0 Dc‘30)4 o 0 orç’0(jCHANTNO.2B:HYPAKOEFORTHETHREECHILDRENINTHEFIERYFURNACE:MODEVITRO4IKONr00100.)S0X(.3Y.,Drroc’.X6-1’t%._.•S/i“COwCox..yL/RIALINEIi..I,,BKpir’‘‘‘KSrr)ocK8:iTHESKAIAPOTHESS4.D.(%V9.J:-/‘L.J%‘tQt’L..IrriL.Jx.)tL..)JI—z.izzrr-Ao,t\-(::):r)cz0,wF F 4-I:-’ H z Ii I”jCl) z 0 (I) z 0 zi 0 z I-l(I)250LINE 3.t c TT I 4 7 - 7 7 I, • J.) ‘‘ , ii a1 ‘‘ / L .BK’’ \4 ‘rnb’ flfl’ k29- I )I 4t’ rn / . t • / , V / 4 = / —/ uRAPISMA SYNAGMAI —9 -BK 4 I —. /‘ /atc I I V V i---K8 _---C 62,_.% .6 L C.! •, ,, I St esg tr e. LL • L - E _251Cl)Li)1..&‘4‘4>04>&><‘j)4 4, )jJ)0H z Uicowr1’cn Q 0 I-IIL r0 z H(lb 0 0 0 0 G 0 I, •1 1 (1 cs(.JLI. P? 0CCI. :. tiIo(IC1MI-yc ccc’, ,Xaxa7 Id P / r 7 c.-’ )7 ;Xtt : r. r r L...I S253LINE 5SYNAGMA- T INAGMALINE6 II SYNAGMA-TINAGMAI 2BE f4 / “ ivLK1. :3—_I.K 8 I cr PL • . r r.K8c.1 •Q‘?., , I_4_ * = ••3 , I - I is +$GRONTH.I4. /, \• __J I ; J. SC9 flft ftftY ‘•ft ‘% 44 + •_Xt Vl%.,(l\ r .Jr*,i_i1.•i I •‘ I I —• • I’•______7j_ /ri v %‘C ‘LINE7ASTRANG.I,I’+wUleIf4.1/‘fi114.)II‘piiu4—\.4.i0.-c”coc’c.øOQt0’0‘‘4”’‘yeiOo’y+If/+\+/‘fl/f/‘Q’.“—CLI,r4,4r°#,O0t000rQCc’)çWvov°——tavr€-:€‘ei,77j7/’’7T—V/..ODAle01)(‘O00°.—I—.III•.1-II•‘‘I—‘‘rE.E.)Lo.YDo)0)((0IILINE7BTHEMAJ-IAPLQUN1THEMAHAPLOUNL2Sa4A.“—Liii’‘c77‘.‘.00’00O’00Q0O‘0’‘‘‘s’‘c_,.—7’--_-‘-?Tzz_--000aooOO0ccc(‘..213KMCK8 K8‘19-I.oacoco‘-“,X/is.,.•00.d40’0000.•‘(o0_t:-_-_________-____—-—.,,•---00aaac’‘aCQL‘-vii—256+ ‘. ---.-PC.&ERMA(APOTHEMA)2-4 a..,‘Ivprb.rTESSARAii ‘ ‘)rFb )(WV‘i11)b’kX’h’z‘LINE 1 1SMA 1BKirrcLK HDUKK8-‘.‘,s7 ‘v - : r ‘ rvG14..,..r SAD.-.$.—, \. / ± =BK r-4AUK-‘ ,1,r;:K8Cl_., # ,.ìç ;“;7)73-e”: “- r’ . ,:— ‘I—. 1.’, I. •1HhIb•UJEapit i_i. i i’ rw: z’-_V-- -1 -VCHANT NO. 4: THE FIRSTHYPAKOE’KATAvAsIE FORCHRISTMAS. MODE VijviiIBKLKUKK 8GiLINE 2257STRANG.iøI *liaTINAGMAI TROMIKONII.riw..1*F (‘ IOOQ..,..146€ 67 I.14 x II *f 6’p.’7 460•VflHo v° T, C\ —.—— ,, I’ .o rre rroa.%___ ,A 4A 4AA P r iiA-‘7 r ‘—‘ /4, •Nec’-4H N +•l-J-c2 £- r- —z-2- £/ 1’ _ f .-,. d.cxa I, -ZZe’ ‘ ri...•0 SIi? f I, ‘-‘O c’.-QZ L flLv a’ Z Z d ii. yLW.I•LINE3OURAN.OURAN.+T.E.{TRIABKR€4t4•.p4,c’v/LKneol(L(4‘‘;UKPb?oTIT1<8—.7)—•fl-..J..—7-p/7’III.4d•,.L’.—zC’__YéLt’p.-L.LLC-GiI_________V.LCp4.S--‘/cK 8 ‘ 27 / --./-1 ‘- / 4— — II‘-., Xc.. L...? po.ilU rc X -.G1I I-S• I !r ‘ x’-, “. ,.- €v• oc a. ‘z.,iAA IAAr-,.,12. . - cc ri c259LINE 4CHADISAD EPEGER!iA -. - -7 1• I I ‘•I T.r.X1TrII, , /LK7 71 — VUK/.4. \I. 91?4 °‘°t-qtojm7,7CA b bL 1i sbCt’h b)(’ba.. .I—OURAN.BK LK;zc‘UKoøG.0LItIE5OURAN.÷T.E.TRIA2__.rH..-‘r,9L.K8Gi.,,.—,I,1/1/4EteeC1,Ia-p1’)o-r—II.00(9iK8 --- Mii ‘ ,,,,.4,, / - I..-rh A —. ) ‘ rr ro261z3b7ZLINE 6I SAD 1 EP /1XH‘. %I•_II IiBK bflLH1cl npILI’ ... . - —__‘ Bfl1HHH HHttXPUK—bfX’bl HHHHHflWTHEMA HAPLOUN.x’GJiq_bif,..I.H H4,l_’ 7I) •I,- E £w—‘-4d>.,,LC<OLLO.LSAD+KATABASMA‘rPAA?SAAC’Tp1RP.7.7=Gi•I-,;.aLINE7BK LK UK UTINAGMA-‘IC.IrA:•)icE£“rT)iOLOk.•iAww•1’;?,,-—if&7A,.,-f(v,.ri?I,fl-L’LINE81,,,.,,,.uPBK.t“W•,‘.I4APr’HA“‘I$•4Th4,7C,-,\bLKNe.fltpbU.rlLXc€C.tooc0rb12--0,1.UKH6£-44r1TIHIpGiccCTC0c’oGi:;—#-.—!•.Quc1.irt)LX°UGQø00*(-VO(-OC’K8ou‘orr,.7r’LY,,,-—__)-—-7s-i;’XE.):YOL‘--.Z.‘-rc’IIIi-orr)cTVr3T.6O44)CO(oW(42.qA-/1:-SADEPEGERMA7‘+€T0oLINE9BK LK rtVLI1\KSGiI 41,‘.I,—)Irc1bNeet’N9J-roo’,..-......noCfl’b6oHH4’To0—‘ )—‘-.•;,77)cL....Ao.’’1?ci•rt1/-.;‘/-1--F,j•.a__atê(‘L_,——I.‘!ETEoEE1I__z—ccLINE 1 0265+ , ; - 7,•_—•—1 •Ui< Yb h ro,€‘E.’ $brbz..bcjtt* r;:;;:: z) dl “ / , , 7 - .E ;s: £ £ F ?i c o vI1•’=r-c bTO©c’CLK“ I— I.f,’ c.j •*OE’O DoI,90 000Q X3’..LrO{I—X4, I,KS -r7 )/,‘—, I,Gi (kr. )*o*_L *..tII 77,‘cty )$‘,-—-L) ;tLINE11-‘“41’\L.)i’—.L,&i,...—C‘(p;-j-id4(I7BK•‘(b”T°b<E.1,%LK-,T0©,’CVM’!1.2I’—’)‘4’r’€.r.€.4.....++,•+.-...I..UKM‘.GITROMIKONITHEMAHAPLOUNI.—-.E14-s/fl6€I.•ç,I•••‘——I)*/.,c..,.,-‘!.•..4.44___c—.—//.LriiTI‘4.TVGi--—.-!---.—-—.cc; f;,71—,77•,,,L00O-re-r&Iq’>1:77—7‘1S.‘)(ce&--.—,ss//iiOVotct1..L.tfl.LL..‘IcLINE12IPARECHON+OURAN’.•.:,IIIIv.l—‘‘,.wIiiIIi3KAP.iAhApr4i.1,4W))4<€nP.UAAPtA‘I[I.,,,,,,r4)4 ,,.,D..u/c’b)fce.jLY_L_2,J,7V°cet(oc.c’ri___•...friUK K8Gia.LK“-—...— •—‘‘ ,‘ / _I•3Vb’ c* bbbbNUK9, b 9, C4 -i rD4O oD-i7•,. — /‘ £ —p-’ ,.X .,Y8 e. ‘- QM. ‘-j’ç £ - r-c ECLz—71I * bJ,eVDO .268LINE 13I SEISMA/SYNAGMA,I -—,I.‘• J LVt II V.2BKSEISMA/ SYNAGMAO. 1111 —G’or-p LoçooI,I iVIIt-I H PI %1 r /9o rAT. CT O Xe )rGi1: ‘0 07 7 ;._‘o•rq T b;7 / 77 -,, -p-.?, I /i 7C c r’.. tôc, rL..X VL aM-’€V 0/ I, z17T--uiZb CC. I.) 2.... ri. ..oç0ANTIKENOMAF______‘— ‘.., ,LK7 — .. — ——€—re4’:1. It sc:.269LINE 1 4BK r!CCU 22 jCO OX 3QOTI:AG4AI•— I’PCrtcAOit\• )— —CAA p p1(8 iSADTcC•XC.) C.) ‘- C. L2G1JK’ C) X r7) 79w— 77 27’ •777/XL £ .c rre: a a aa CS YNAGMA£A.,J1L . :•..•• !. • • • ii - •,.1 1AC I .c 0 0‘lr OC.....g‘ rca’270LINE 1CHANT NO. S: HYPAKOEKATAVASIEFOR CHRISTMAS MODE VIIIBK C-4LK . ‘qrJbb r’D•-b b C’—, ..;!:—-—rLS TAVROS=nTROZ4IKON KRATEMOKAT./.K8_1I—UK c. 9’T(p 3 Z:1I I •‘ I’L..1TIKENOMAI ‘ ;IYvs_LINE2ECI-IADIN_________PARA.THEMAHAPLOUN+H-icri.BK(bLiN1trH1..,i’•ibT14./%\rr.i/4‘C4b’III11.I—...i.K-.—11‘7‘/—IAArrtClbI——Li.‘1<8G1-I‘rø______________________________________________________________‘-iE±jZZLL‘A..oL.I-__LINE3PAR.LJ775—BK/K8,;_,0.EEEOURANIJii74k:j.,+—•i-6&€HAiAFHATHEM.7CT000STAVROSp.’r1:ITROMIKONCjr&)SiLK, NNPCOO’KRATEMOKAT.a—I— L’ciçoaaUK71)c.’rO0I7‘‘+//,?Nre.7.7;aNI’•SIISj•’,.J,_j/f!6V I,,00,‘- cG.tI7.aLy£?%e.[E.X°W1eCLLINE4I..IiI’r’AVT?..—/•1xDIxc—Cft’XAX’L••/r4tBKPARA.4I.I’•4HJ49---E1rLK•,i—UKTHEMAHAPLOUN__9-,TK84-,(__-‘7•._’•-;-:9cpR——7—.roo00GirC4.COL?Cftj--(4:c/e1‘ZLrt4. ./( ‘b274ifH rLINE 5TPARE.-I.BKLK b’)c: 9l3-ROLA.:- -SAD1LJ--r\flJTINAGMA I.—-;lItJ / 7, I, \ / 7 ii .4 VO)CTj4V\JJUKXAZ—N; —K8 ,,VQVOL k1Gir4—fl4 + ‘V‘—-- j- - .2..rjflØ HXH) .rr€.E €GWO oo Oo•?I%1, -z-oC.—-- — , i’-..—z’ ,; _.i,.- - C- L. L•b••• •.•• &.M0V o’-L(Z LOL275PARAK. ¶h )-2--.iI’ ‘\‘ ‘‘‘•I,•v ;•‘ ,07 4Mf1H H H HCA, 5-. 1;.DGRONTH ÷ LYG.1±&‘A4. ‘4 ‘1 / •‘•‘ñFoi.t \IJ•LI1J6 LE fT. E.÷f. 7*.I H H H’LINE 6PARE.BKLK_)__ r:’;UKK8G1CADENTIALOMPOS ITEJ1 zli .,\‘ / 4-II?iIW .L5J &ee e.-’-i ‘1 , , —i+€e t&V • 4 ÷a X ?cA Xe,1AiAA:; t EI. 701/i E. o’I 6- 7Ji 4L Q’Jj LpLb)øL c ‘t4)276BK’ 2jr HUK ;zi.LC‘— :7• 72 . / / ‘ —K8’ -tg: L Ce) ,, \‘ V -co c4ttA+ \R’ •CflO 00 0.007_j_ -i”-’‘—‘•‘— c2 C e CLINE 7LK I,7ci 4j 9 ,‘*4 ‘?4kAAp_l1 HXPH --:‘CTO Q0• V ‘V14-(FN hr CTocfpH HGTOC*b.rO °“6o7;çG1:£tLE L: •“-——---------—---— •• • • •._ —•S— -. ——--——a— S4V V— ‘_;— .75 ‘‘,1- ‘‘—v-i-rooc 0 -‘- c3L-277-.c’‘‘ tCfl’! 40b—_) 2’ ‘, QV -76CLKLINE 8SAD KOLA. CADENTIAL COMP.BK i H r H AV ‘ 4 1UK frci_b3o oK8 ) A7 4 11+11 4,r cv V JG1QjE.‘ %LI1t 4/I‘.1 ‘.1 \J.—“o ‘.•-yb. r)ti .: . ..-PARE. F THEMABKr i j), 17÷J,I. nCTIHLK 4:TI 4’1 + / 1 / / “T 4UK •-::;‘41‘—:---2.H’30OlVbIH WI CACP4’,‘,,.- _;:- ‘ -, 7 - - 7-; / ,-.K8c.’o5 LG1oé’,‘-‘ 4:‘or.PI s— ± — 1- I278LINE 9LYGISMA-I±97 -çt , CNS TAVROSi1‘7__ ?• ,-‘.,“ c eEz; . .+—. ._• •.: • •I-A0._,________t279b11 t (,__ II I•r r-(.; ,,e3-‘yCC. K?bIcIc1Z HLINE 10GRONTHI SMA(iLXjI 4:UK .. .—PC ô4jK8ClTIAL COMPOSITEJ_s ,‘‘.. I 1I Vji‘••‘ 4- LJ/ ii ti,v ./) 3€eA ri‘4 IeJ—c. — - -ii-— •:‘-. -dJYI b b 1’0/- 7ex0 ° t.Q rr T7t) L3LINE 17•.\ —280CHANT NO. 6: THE HYPAKOE!KATAVASIE FOR EPIPHANYMODEVTHES KAI APOTHEStpe eI SYNAGMA /B .K±1’U(tJK pPITCH REP.2j;—rflSEISMAr.;L• ii ± ‘-.-‘ IHI NHM1“M——7 2 ‘‘ •“ 2 +, ... -‘- .‘.— —_‘a %.:,S —K8 0 o a T€ EGiH—-Hcpa- Jj10 ooU% 4.C-,— • — —.-, z - _ ->c E d . I.) Li•__-.tPtp I’ W.-.LINE2BK.7tpO(3r.SEISMALiU...__c7S•—‘•‘THHHr\’1’I&8 .%.&cp.p-C-LK UK+00r1pc-{497,7c’rt(i-iA4uccp------____—I1’II(r,.1‘1H-4i-i00.‘cccaI IIII II14283Iu-7’NE.,IHe .C/ 4;— ,17gZL\ -;- t SS/.r4d 4’—BKLINE 49 II II .4— H =. [>?JH oLK.7 // 4 //44NOUK_Z__7•1)... / ± -1 1)iH L HHI,T;0 I-€K8 p;.; ,, —--‘CA 1j, No— L 4. J /.C—iII% f:r’11-‘//G1..-- p—- pe ‘r\ -iV. S• • •, ; ‘‘I a-..—-r7- 1, •°‘‘1Tt c.1SOOQ S\‘LIL)i.V1I0•LINE5SEISMA/SYNAGMAIBKM00Q•0OQ•UK4•100MOooô’-o)çc;0.‘—a—‘I.GiI-UN!! ISJtN UMA•LA) 7T •-c7’-— r-JtOURANISMA285-s‘S.• b—. —S /l5 .€LINE 6BKUKKSG1f)+1= 7LiC A II3— •. 6y€e÷ ‘‘ 7(bPlAL)rfr C—1-_I .1. •. • • • I •g (1 y .r L 6 1 ‘Pft r1 r ‘ -‘1 )LdG’—L, 000pvI:Y.,/.-Sez‘‘4/,..—D7_GiAXkIc_u0LINE7BK LK UK.,KBç4’t4.pA3w—_,—‘_-Voc:.—.-—.;..--—-n-.—,—L287LINE 8I>‘BK•IIIVLI -7Vr€‘- J1.*, \‘ L,l1KEPEGERMAIci;A ‘.1’€E€’UK’:*:XAQ çoç 0 )\T•7 p%çd7V 4 lv1Sh—..AFVc’e e-7 L4 ‘34-- --LV...€x*( XC txf288±9r,3UK + I ;7;J. i A——— 2c-:3,_‘.;‘,-.•,LINE 9BKI,‘. IE+ Ii (c’OJrill 1 4 V +‘/ 4$•l •LJC 3PrHP4’HH CM ii q/ ±i%U)3 0 00.jilt‘TH H’ H i-i H Cm.’:K8A P E°’0 0± ‘-.,-J. —cOo:-I’ C-— —- ..- .v_ y h% r—‘Tre a C o I f L/GiLINE10_____________ANTIKENOMA1;‘.\•‘.‘.A.)I.BK/‘Ysb3NC’.N’.LJecc.—1_IUK“\..‘‘fVK8I)Gi_________________________________I±.-v..r..c-•1G1(’j -N1 b—crrb H9’C290TOURANISMA + THEMATISMOS ESO1rj 1’ ooovrcr oxoXoo.,.‘•7 \.\Co 0 T0 0 1 - o o ço ‘kii ‘ — / —- ‘ , —— e4du 1 oLINE 11BKUKK87w—I —..-I S-—.Irrr:;: .I/\ .;-;.;•r-oThLINE 1 2291HYPORRHOE/SYNAGMA PARECHONS YNAGMAJ.7 SUK HA-oKB‘;:-—‘ 7. -C:, E€v1° 0-U!.. SbS‘4,.. _.,_7 - —>SYNAGMA€/ ‘?O)— • 5 -. 9‘L(./ CJ y c, u , a•- L.., YL V•’..IIn I_________________p 0 0 p——-i-——gi.ov292‘I’t4) J }Ni toIk1 0o110 Qo:,(o9‘.4)42• .4 r)(:• i dri11-u \w II‘3ALI!VIIiI_:1.. cL.II Xz --3:)I.’0II1tI0IV.IJJrf’If”-J;.9-Hts.4(NF\I1J0zH4C--K8//E294ECHADIN/ GRONTH.— ,. ‘,_) ;-; a_ \ \ . f.flO N’h. H ro T.LINE 14UKi—IANTIKENOMA1;1/Li——__.,.__,.‘;,<G: € -sri TT91’*H 4\-C’bIc, t1-2295CHANT NO. 7: THE SECONDLINE 1 TROPARION FOR CHRISTMASMODEVIiIu XecrF x THEMA HAPLOuN ECU. TIN. 1 4\ ‘ •‘ •‘ “ ) uT \‘ “ f %_ ‘ / V • -- ‘—-‘LKQ”_I 4_-\ d it 4 ? P ‘ .. \ /. ‘ i — / , .s .. ,.SKi’ ‘‘ 4 / ‘ ‘‘ “ “ ‘ fl ‘‘ // “‘L L £ tit ?-C ( .-r i<: 7Tf &e vJK8VG’‘S4’—.p.c_ .,1/ -7;iio ii • -r :, ;4. ,.,- .LL 0 ‘K8// jT1%.A) t‘I-’ /•—. /• // • /1e r’ré £ ‘-‘296LINE2TROMIKON OURAN. SAD.______÷ r ,. 1 / 4 - ,_LK C ‘b X€’exe/ , c . ‘1’‘—. / . s, /— eSK d 3 / NE. t.L 6 )(€€€‘rpX i b45 ‘ F1£VG2974.—‘, J.1U /—7 LJ7 ,4LINE 3xIs •LKKATABATROMIKON•JIV ‘.t’sI, •1 ‘7SK* ‘., , L.4 + ,, ,,fa oçOçCC ,b7 ‘Q)cP’F’ T’K8,.I /7 \, I’.—, ;7 , 7 ‘-+ :‘cT •roo Xa)cco) .—‘‘— I,KATAB.,‘V‘: ,bb?XUKgJL, — / ?•-IV I, II 5# TTT 1. , 7 7 /q--— p. =LINE4aI,7,7‘j7777II,I.LKN’’f?X£i.X‘-pMc•1i77%.77_0—-•—.5—UKp9,NTTh/p4JAjjC.NMP’SK-7‘—5Vil,MçfrG?,tbMtTHkMP’•—-k’‘2IK8L.7-.)J-L—.,>——.,-‘—;z,;;.N’‘-51?-s-.°’-L-.5Lç,-rc•.‘-i-’‘-;%ç..,-c•4r-cC‘EZEftCC)XwL4j/oLINE4bTHEMAHAPLOUNIILK/IAUK..—c__._>SKpK8———/-rr.:...•S•S——I—‘_.—VGy;:300REFRAINLINE 5OURAN + T.E.-‘1 VI c2_.I I ;; ,, 4 \ 7_ — 4 7LKUK ;:1 -: ----±‘. ‘—VI--.E6CSY J+41L,jI_f.X€K€ECh-z-pV JK 8 . - . —(‘_ r ‘ ‘- ‘ ‘ ,‘ ‘I v- ‘-S.• E EjEEL_______c’as(c Vo • ‘gt.V8 ‘f H .+7 V •,, I 7%,, •, / \‘e NM H ?C€.6 )(€ )- - H-IV 7 •j 7.•:Z ‘ 4H A Ps A cmp . )c.ti AJ fl IhO‘ a 4& HkH€4,, ,,c.4,r17 . ‘IV, ‘-s “‘ ‘ ‘# f ‘ u ‘— i + .-X fr4.3iio Wo N€E1€ N)E.6?<’ ‘GiC—‘7cC 1TE’o i-f:‘ 4’r.>ç GJ., ‘c— ;0U 0 L).CLINE6a,UKrb14)-4M)I(66EECtLADINGRONTII.LI,J.L.J•.._..1•e—,y)Le,.u_’—.3,7—.—...—,,eii’TtEM/•IWrr’AHM43L—-/kj7;,;,—.r’,\—’.’c,-ce--rb)P)X—-;/TINAGMA‘,‘%)/\I;../GROWTH-SK•.“,\‘—4.M€.•e•IIrrr1‘VX’b-)(‘ )(rb,1+=....—74.Xbfl’—o’4-,K8NA.GJLjTfi..Q’.14/,.)X6—‘t‘loLINE6bTHEMAT-1ATT.flrjN III,II’C.JFl-rocC.4’GROiirrrrLX.I ,HC4)x.b€eiUK:;;;4::;SICI I’‘I19)(i’Ho4A,X9..lAc.,1iii/,,..CAI3P•‘—C———c_’—K8o---VG-303CHANT NO. 8: THE FIRSTTROPARION FOR EPIPHANYMODE Ill/VILINE1TROMIKON‘, c ..—‘ ‘XHJ4 ps’ ,çi$‘ i.-’ 7 l’.‘Iw,,. ,,.—___%•—. ..__( - .- .-__1Jcr4 jp 4 1 4’ %F) ‘ I,cj p’ 9Pl H H XHLJ r — , I. SV14 C4%A •S% (j .). ) ).4;; _:ç\.UKI‘I •‘SK H. I”t’KBdl I ‘0.‘HIIVGI-2 ‘.‘‘ vrL.J (?i. r3Or vtc C’LINE2TROMI MONKENTEMATALK/bfr1HJp....,—tiMPfrC’MHHrKBI, MHKRATEMQKAT17’/‘I.—,Tpb’,%c;;-‘—‘‘kPT°FL’C?SKb.4107p’4—11%..—,2>-,-Vc-XOt,-irOrrVGREFPAILINE3 STREPTONb4.‘-rr.—7npøixoYCcV“kw,-SK‘-/i‘—,,.,—,1.I7\l(‘M’’‘fl9)(øHHWk1<2KATABATROM.LYGI SMAnpaLYGISMA+PARA.14’—.27-.Z--•-.,—--—-—.—---z.)çcc.‘-::q,..,,—r•—1?r)r—.p.pVGLINE4PARECHONTROMIKONLKgF,PKRATEMOKAT.I,JACrr,,•“II-re‘rn-ç3.4P’rb’tMSKij’‘f•(*131’JA7”70crK8 VG/4Uk’ev—1Q.-Vo’-o-E!J--p-i-LVOL307.1/‘-‘- ‘-fte K° Y IC t +1- irfl,:;-; s—’c$J I_ >\ c c4, e’c-LINE 5LK .7LYGISMA TINAGMA-ECH. /GRONTHUKSK 4THEMA HAPLOUN—,_4y; ) 7)9’brbV Z3•s* y4 I__iKB•.—. 4£ cAP%A’pAAi7tIi:!1L)CMd9T 6,VG1h.’.1E e:‘-a’“r—4 —— —p.—.4a308CHANT NO. 9: THE SECONDTROPARION FOR EPIPHANYMODE VI4.UK r?rqBK rK8KATABA TROM. ENARXIS,, ‘‘ / I , . I J ,) X M•—çH1’A p6 JWW6 bLINE 1UK rprwTROMIKONø)4 H ico M’b 1hVbl b;-‘•?(b ‘b-I1H‘:j / , Ib? H)HcG1 •A—?.o- cC“7-4-- ,. —% a— --rE?c€Th‘%‘v,..4.’ e oci (Gc ‘ ri$309‘IK8. ?(IG1411C’TooL9-— \ ± ,H H H H To4:LINE 2TINAGMAIECH./tiNOV1 NOLK ,11UK I1’ I-’ / ,*i? ‘b / // , , 1MHHOCøtI1h HH’QP’6 Et. S —•./b 6C’itoOr’-’ HAOSc 0 0 CTH• #1Cw747rre€5 11 ° ><I_______p___p • £ . ±p3109’ %,$ ,_øICQO ‘LINE 3J_JK PUK‘- I1H c1çirr V 41//VAfc* I + /e ‘o‘YgK j4 i4Ci’K8 >-ir”c.-___. ‘—_ ‘__\•-ooMQO—oao H‘, $1 /47__- 7—’ .-.- —Ut- 7rt ‘-• r. r’4---r-(14 /1—--.-- .-—K8 ‘- -- -- -1 ->77a J F-L ‘ V 7 r-<hIi—-•‘: —‘‘-:311LINE 4REFRAIN14l00CUK1ç93KOLAPHISMOSrrr‘IH 1•s•o H41.,# ejY.. %4 7CT’/ 44 ‘—I\• fr1 iCl-I C--‘4; _x CVtG1iNA1• ‘I t • —• r •1I—If /c,flrbVc c& c’t -- a312G4.*V ‘ ••9,rl,.l, 7,CHOREUMAL9/1 %‘ 4 /4’Tb b bLINE 5TROMI KON is TREPTON‘I‘NUK HzSK /1‘r ‘,Fyi o•7;f4PiK8 —c— LI ).tl 7’f/‘p‘“4.,,hkL L t (,. •- .- ‘ • •LrLINE6KOLAPI-IISMOSi.a&I\/“‘I‘‘11>t61xc)çrrGiUKM‘1’-SK.4VISII?,WS”K8r’4/,?7y\,JcIXG()(E:%EZ-.6C‘314TROMIKON1U(T— AUKq4J4 ‘472 77‘. 7;’C C’LINE 7StTROMI NONI th]c__THEMA HAPLOUNc.lp’7 \. c —.- .,z‘-JJHw -,e. r GcAI IX/ f1’i.r\ r/t—SK——4 —--K8 i<c r-F-G1 ILICJ44*rt1T6.’E.:14.7 —,2’ I’ °J• p. S—i,Lc •- ‘ ‘‘(0 O - O c:’V L ‘yà


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items