Loading...
Title: Cathedral Rituals and Chanting Practices among the Medieval Orthodox Slavs – Kondakarnoie Pienie

Cathedral Rituals and Chanting Practices among the Medieval Orthodox Slavs – Kondakarnoie Pienie

The Forefeast, Christmas and Epiphany Cycles

by Gregory Myers (Author)
©2024 Monographs 260 Pages
The Arts
Series: Varia Musicologica, Volume 1111

Summary

This study explores Kondakarnoie Pienie, a musical phenomenon that flourished in Kievan Rus’ from the 11th-13th centuries and is preserved in only five manuscripts. Stimulated by the global digitization initiatives undertaken by the major holdings East and West, previously inaccessible primary source material has come available. As a result the current investigation is a reassessment of earlier work accomplished. It addresses aspects of musical palaeography, liturgical context and function, and performance practice. The music examined is the chant cycles for the Forefeast, Christmas and Epiphany celebrations, a substantial body of comparable musical material that furnishes explicit evidence of the appropriation of Byzantine cathedral chanting practices by the medieval Slavs.

Table Of Contents

  • Cover
  • Title
  • Copyright
  • Dedication
  • About the author
  • About the book
  • This eBook can be cited
  • Contents
  • Sigla
  • Introduction
  • The Repertory
  • Chapter 1 Brief Historical Overview: Slavia Orthodoxa – Kievan Rus’
  • Chapter 2 Music The State of Byzantine Music at the End of the 10th Century; Its Slavic Reception
  • The Development of a Musical Culture in Rus’
  • Balkan Precursors
  • Possible Balkan Origins of the Kondakarian Antigraph: Two Theories
  • A Second Alternate Theory
  • The Zografski Trifolog or Draganov Menaion
  • Chapter 3 The Mechanics of Kondakarnoie Pienie: The Fostering of a Local Tradition
  • Kondakarnoie Pienie’s Great Hyperstases: Possible Origins in Cheironomic Practices
  • Chapter 4 Liturgical Excurses and Context: The Byzantine Cathedral Ritual among the Slavs Liturgical Sources: Menaion and Typikon – A Brief Survey
  • Menaion
  • Typikon
  • The Typikon of Constantinople’s Great Church
  • Chant Development under Studite Liturgical Authority: The Studite Family of Ordinals and Slavic Liturgical Praxis
  • The Sources
  • a. The Southern Italian Family of Typika
  • b. The Typikon of Evergetis Theotokos
  • c. The Typikon of Alexis Studite – Old Church Slavonic (TAS-OCS)
  • Traces of the Byzantine Cathedral Office on Slavic Soil
  • Chapter 5 Hymnography Troparion, Hypakoe and Katavasie
  • Asmatikon, Psaltikon and Kondakar: Mutual Chanting Traditions and Common Origins of a Musical Style
  • Asmatikon and Kondakar Compared
  • The Manuscripts
  • The Greek Chant Books
  • Brief Descriptions
  • Grottaferrata Γγ1
  • Athos Lγ3
  • Vaticanus graecus 1606 (VG), Messina 129 (M129), Grottaferrata Γγ5
  • Kastoria 8 (K8)
  • The Slavic Kondakarian Manuscripts
  • 1. The Tipografskii Ustav (TU)
  • 2. The Blagoveshchensky Kondakar (BK)
  • 3. The Lavrsky (LK), Uspensky (UK), and Sinodal’ny Kondakaria (SK)
  • OIDR 107
  • Chapter 6 On the Continuing Role of Oral Tradition in Chant Transmission: An Enduring Impediment to the Practical Reconstruction of the Repertory
  • Performance Practice
  • Antiphonal or Responsorial; The Refrain, Congregational Participation and Cheironomy; Stational or Session; Performance Style: Perissé; Paraliturgical Usage Rubrical Evidence – Kolyadki
  • Chapter 7 Liturgical Discourse on the Sung Numbers
  • Performance, Liturgical Placement and Historical Context of the Sung Numbers
  • The Forefeast of Christmas
  • The Great Troparia for Christmas and Epiphany
  • The Hypakoë for the Archangel Michael: A Contrafactum of the First Troparion for the Christmas Vigil
  • The ‘Second’ Mystery Chant
  • The Verse Repertory: Christmas
  • Epiphany
  • Making the Case for a Dramatic Performance: Assembling the Oblique References
  • Commentary
  • Chapter 8 Palaeography, Reconstruction and Transcription: An Introduction Methodology; Notational Correlative or Melodic Equivalent? Modality
  • Kondakarian and Chartres Notation
  • Byzantine Echemata: BK, Γγ1 and K8
  • The Ananejki and Chabuviy: Later Manifestation of the Ongoing Principles of Melodic Expansion through Insertion
  • The Kondakarian Martyriae – Mysterious “Signposts”
  • Modality
  • On the Transformation of Signs by the Medieval Slavic Scribes
  • Kastoria 8 as “Rosetta Stone”
  • The Theta Neume (and Relate Theta Complexes): A Cornerstone of Paleobyzantine Scripts
  • The Koukouzelean Didactic Poem as Aid
  • Transcription vs Reconstruction
  • The Identification of Long Melismatic Formulae
  • The Palaeographical Tables
  • Table 1
  • Table 2
  • Table 3
  • Table 4
  • Chapter 9 Musical Excurses and Analyses
  • The BK’s “Cycle within a Cycle,” Folios 86r to 90v
  • The Second Mystery Hymn to the Archangel Michael
  • Table III: Expansion through Insertion of Non-Textual Syllables
  • Model - Contrafactum
  • Notes to the Transcription
  • Notes to the Transcription
  • The Great Troparia: Christmas
  • Notes to the Transcription
  • Notes to the Transcription
  • Epiphany
  • Notes to the Transcription
  • Notes to the Transcription
  • The Verse Repertory: Christmas
  • Epiphany
  • Summary of the Analysis
  • Chapter 10 The Effectiveness of the Counterpart Transcription Method
  • Irreconcilable Problems
  • Postscript: Concerning Constantin Floros’ “Die Entzifferung”
  • Chapter 11 Conclusions
  • Disappearance or Continuation?
  • Appendix I: Texts and Translations
  • Archangel Michael and Forefeast Hypakoai/Katavasiai
  • Forefeast – Holy Forefathers
  • Verse
  • Forefeast – The Three Children in the Fiery Furnace
  • Verse
  • The Christmas Troparia
  • The Stichoi for Christmas, Troparion I
  • The Stichoi for Christmas, Troparion II
  • The Epiphany Troparia
  • The Stichoi for Epiphany, Troparion I
  • Appendix II: Concordance of Chants and Their Incipits
  • Christmas
  • Epiphany
  • Bibliography
  • Index of Proper Names
  • Subject Index
  • Series index

Introduction

Abstract: The present study investgates the cathedral chanting practices of the medieval Slavs, specifically Rus’. Access to previously unavailable primary sources has stimulated a critical reassessment of earlier investigations into this topic, resulting in a better understanding of the repertory and musical style, as well as its placement within the broader context of liturgical documents, confirming or rejecting earlier results, and facilitating our ability to see how a large body of chants was used in consort with the repertories of other manuscript types.

Keywords: Kondakaria, troparia, notation, Christmas, Epiphany, Byzantine Empire

INTRODUCTION

The study of Slavic musical culture from any period is beset with difficulties and many obstacles: bureaucracies, cultural and linguistic barriers, and until recently, accessing precious primary sources, to name a few; while the formidable task of presenting the material to Western audiences remains. With the changed international social and political dynamic, an abundance of primary source material, previously inaccessible, has at last come available, thanks to global digitization initiatives undertaken by the major holdings, East and West. The new access has stimulated this reinvestigation of the phenomenon known as Kondakarnoie pienie: the cathedral chant of the Medieval Slavs that flourished from the 11th to 13th centuries – a topic originally explored in a doctoral dissertation defended back in 1994.1 This has resulted in a critical reassessment of the original findings, and a major revision of previous conclusions, having reworked, corrected, and updated the findngs of the original dissertation. We are now better able to better evaluate the repertory and the musical style, as well as understand its placement within the broader context of liturgical documents.

Kondakarnoie pienie is preserved in only five manuscripts – kondakaria – each of which preserves a large body of florid chants for the Byzantine urban cathedral ritual. Its greatest challenge is the musical notation in which the chants are written. The dissertation involved a rigorous test of potential transcription theories devised by musicologists Kenneth Levy and Constantin Floros in a bid to discover a key to its decipherment.2 The present study continues to apply these theories but positions the repertory to which they are applied in its broader historical and liturgical context.

The following, however, does not propose definitive answers to the enduring problems surrounding this music. Nor does it attempt to unravel the complexities of the ritual observances of the time. Rather, it endeavors to cast light on a musical and historical enigma by building on the most current available research and addressing essential issues for future study. The kondakarian repertory and its notation are examined by presenting a select body of chants notable for its liturgical prominence, stable representation within a common Byzantine choral milieu and having substantial available manuscript representation.

The Repertory

The focus is on the cycle of Great Troparia and Verses sung at the vigils of the Forefeast, Christmas and Epiphany celebrations. A large corpus of comparable chants, it furnishes the most explicit evidence of the transplantation of Byzantine cathedral chanting practices on Slavic soil. Besides searching for a key to the musical notation, the projected outcome re-evaluates the chanting traditions of the medieval Orthodox Slavs who emerged at this time as a semi-autonomous cultural body under the umbrella of the Byzantine Empire during a formative period in their early history.

1 The Asmatic Troparia, Katavasiai, and Hypakoai “Cycles” in their Paleoslavonic recensions: A Study in Comparative Paleography (The University of British Columbia School of Music, 1994, unpublished).

2 Constantin Floros, “Die Entzifferung der Kondakarien-Notation.” Musik des Ostens III & IV, Kassel (1965 & 1967): 7–70 & 12–44; The Origins of Russian Music; Introduction to the Kondakarian Notation, revised, translated, and with a Chapter on Relationships between Latin, Byzantine, and Slavonic Church Music by Neil K. Moran (Bern: Peter Lang, 2009); Kenneth Levy, “The Earliest Slavic Melismatic Chants,” in Fundamental Problems of Early Slavic Music and Poetry, ed. C. Hannick. MMB Subsidia VI, (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1978), 197–210; “The Slavic Kontakia and Their Byzantine Originals.” Actes du XIIe Congrès Internationale d’Études Byzantines, II, Ochride, 1961, Belgrade (1963), 79–87.

Chapter 1 Brief Historical Overview: Slavia Orthodoxa – Kievan Rus’3

Abstract: The period known as Kievan or Pre-Mongol Rus’, 11th–13th centuries, was one of unprecedented cultural development. With the Christian baptism, Byzantine influence, via the Balkan Slavs, gave both form and content to early Rus’ society. Its fertile cultural climate fostered the development of a complex and rich body of music used to set the growing corpus of Slavic translations of the Greek liturgical texts for the Divine services.

Keywords: Kievan Rus’, Constantinople, Novgorod, Iaroslav, Vladimir Monomach

Kievan or Pre-Mongol Rus’ flourished from the 11th to 13th centuries, having formed in the 9th century in the Dnieper River basin on the Eastern European Plain. The period witnessed unprecedented cultural development. The Kievan State, which was situated on a major trade route along the Dnieper to the Black Sea, had established contacts with the center of the civilized world – Byzantium – officially receiving from her the Christian religion at the end of the 10th century.

With the introduction of Christianity, Byzantine influence, via the Balkan Slavs, gave both form and content to early Rus’ culture.4 Indeed, proponents of its history claim that this was a golden age.5 According to Omeljan Pritsak, “Kiev emerged in the second half of the 10th century as a promising satellite of the new economic capital of the world – Constantinople.”6 Diplomatic, commercial and cultural ties were closest in the 11th century when Kiev became the Slavic cultural center of Eastern Europe. Under a series of enlightened princes – the so-called Rjurikid Dynasty – starting with Grand Prince Vladimir Sviatoslavich (“The Great”), Kievan Rus’ received from Byzantium not only diplomats and tradesmen but also architects, artists, translators, and skilled musicians. The surviving chronicles, for example, recount that Vladimir invited from “the Greeks” builders who constructed his “Church of the Tithe” and the “Stone Palace.”7

In 1037 his son Iaroslav “the Wise” of Novgorod became Grand Prince of Kiev. Under him, Kiev saw the arrival of artists who adorned the interior of the Great Cathedral of St. Sophia with frescoes; like its namesake in Constantinople, this church was the centerpiece of the city. More importantly, Iaroslav imposed on the Kievan State the legal system he had established earlier in Novgorod – the “Pravda Rus’skaia” –transforming Rus’ into a territorial community that united the city-states of Kiev, Chernigov, and Pereiaslavl under one legal jurisdiction.8 A bold political act that resulted in a veritable cultural revolution. Iaroslav also ensured that Rus’ was able to inherit the Slavonic literary tradition established earlier by the Danube Bulgarians.9

Iaroslav revived the cult of Boris and Gleb, princes who had been martyred in 1015 by their older brother Sviatopolk. Within a generation of their deaths they were canonized and inducted into the church calendar by the Bulgarian-born Metropolitan Ioann.10 Their commemoration became the new feast of the Rus’ land and was celebrated with great solemnity.11 Between 1072 and 1115, on the dates of the transfer of their relics, “all-national manifestations occurred,” which resulted in the first publication of “specially compiled redactions of original collections of annals made at … the Kiev Monastery of the Caves.”12

During his tenure, Iaroslav divided Rus’ into appanages, which he distributed among his five sons. With his death in 1054, however, the principalities of Rus’ gradually lost their political unity, (tenuous to start with). By the 12th century, three separate political centers emerged, only two of which paid nominal homage to Kiev as center. These were: (1) the Grand Principality of Kiev itself; (2) the Northeastern Principality of Suzdal; and (3) the Southwestern Principality of Galicia.13 Northeastern Rus’ was Byzantium’s strongest ally, and the Suzdalian princes were the forebears of the grand princes of Muscovy, which gradually became the political and cultural center of Russia from the 14th century onward.

After Vladimir Monomach (1113–1128), Iaroslav’s grandson, new centers appeared, which gradually overshadowed Kiev. Further difficulties beset Kiev when in 1169 Prince Andrei Bogoliubsky of Rostov-Suzdal sacked the city and transferred the seat of the Grand Prince to the northern city of Vladimir, the consequences of which resulted in the emancipation of the Southwestern principalities of Galicia and Volynia.14

Concurrent with these events, the 12th century also witnessed the rise of the proto-democratic Republic of Novgorod “the Great,” with its strong Western political and economic ties. As a close neighbor of the Scandinavian lands, the Baltic States and the Hanseatic League, Novgorod enjoyed a protracted period of prosperity and independence until its annexation to the Muscovite State in the 15th century.

From the 12th century on, crucial economic ties with Byzantium gradually loosened, and were severely reduced in the 13th century when foreigners occupied both lands: the Latin Crusaders in Constantinople (1204), and the Tatars in Rus’ (1237–1240). Because of their geographic locations, Novgorod, Pskov and Galich were spared the devastation wrought by the Mongol invasions that began in 1237 when the first of the medieval Rus’ cities, Ryazan, succumbed to their war machine. After the armies of Batu Khan destroyed Kiev in 1240, all of Rus’ fell under the Tatar yoke, a rule not successfully challenged for the next 140 years until the time of the Muscovite Grand Prince Dimitri Donskoi in the late 14th century.15 Nevertheless, in spite of the drastically changed condition of the medieval Russian land, cultural and spiritual unity was steadfastly maintained by the Orthodox Church, whose representative was still the Metropolitan of Kiev appointed by the Patriarch in Byzantium.16

Details

Pages
260
Year
2024
ISBN (PDF)
9783034346832
ISBN (ePUB)
9783034346849
ISBN (Softcover)
9783034346825
DOI
10.3726/b21327
Language
English
Publication date
2024 (April)
Keywords
Music Palaeography Liturgy Byzantine History Rus‘ Chant
Published
Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien, 2024. 260 pp., 6 tables.

Biographical notes

Gregory Myers (Author)

Gregory Myers holds a MLIS degree and a PhD. in historical musicology from the University of British Columbia. An independent scholar, publisher, translator and bibliographer, Myers specializes in the music of Eastern Europe, specifically Russia and the Balkans, and researches, publishes and lectures on issues of medieval music (Byzantium and the Slavs) and the post-World War II musical developments of these countries. Myers has held research fellowships at the Moscow State Conservatory, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library in Washington DC, Ohio State University, the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana and recently, the Center for Advanced Study in Sofia, Bulgaria.

Previous

Title: Cathedral Rituals and Chanting Practices among the Medieval Orthodox Slavs – Kondakarnoie Pienie