Dear Dejan,
I believe I have the article somewhere, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to fish it out for you any time soon. If I recall (it's been quite a long time since I've read it) there are four or five weak 'proofs' put forward, trying to argue for the use of chromatic and enharmonic intervals as being later (I believe he uses the term) 'oriental' borrowings or influences on post-Byzantine modes.
This is something Tillyard expresses in many of his articles; take this quote as an example:
Chromatic Passages
Anyone who has listened to Modern Greek Church music must have been struck by the frequency of its chromatic passages; but in Middle Byzantine music we never find a whole hymn in the chromatic species, but only a short passage here and there. Further, the introduction of the chromatic sign seems usually, if not always, to be due to a later hand than the thirteenth century and may be regarded, in the main (1), as a fifteenth century development. Until the reform of Chrysanthus in 1821, Greek Church Music had only one properly chromatic sign, called Nenano (nenano [in Greek]) [sign], which might be used (so far as can be seen) in any mode and on any part of the scale, where the augmented tone was desired. This sign has survived in the modern system
The effect of the sign only lasted to the end of the versicle.
In the Late Byzantine system we often find, not only Mode I Plagal, but also II Plagal using the Chromatic species
Furthermore it is possible that the Late Byzantine notation where it used the Chromatic modulation-sign, may have recorded an older, though unwritten, practice of some singers, who had come under Oriental influence.(H. J. W. Tillyard, HANDBOOK OF THE MIDDLE BYZANTINE MUSICAL NOTATION (Copenhague: Levin & Munksgaard, 1935), pp. 35-6.)
Dejan, this is something you can find in Wellesz articles and many others. There was a clear 'line' held by all MMB people that Byzantine Music was a purely diatonic music. If I recall correctly, Tillyard begins his article that you mention above with the premise that both the enharmonic and chromatic genera witnessed to in ancient Greek music theory had long ceased to exist before Byzantine music makes its appearance. Chrysanthos is usually blamed (along with the other two Teachers of the New Method, Gregorios Protopsaltes and Chourmuzios Chartophylax) for introducing such intervals into Greek Church music, always, through 'oriental' influence; the line usually goes: they were forced to by their Ottoman lords.
The big weakness (other than the fact that the premise is not founded on any pure data, but simply speculation) is that if the introduction of chromatic (and enharmonic) intervals was such a late development, how is it that (1) there are no records of any protest and (2) when we have Konstantinos Byzantios chanting from the right analogion with the old notation and his lambadarios Stephanos chanting from the new notation on the left analogion, how is it that there is no difference in performance expressed, in fact, specific witnesses exist explicitly stating that "no difference in performance was detected"!?
As far as the most Greek Byzantine musicologists are concerned, there's no issue. Chromaticism and enharmonic intervals were always on the scene and did not 'disappear'. The only person I know of in the 'western camp' (if such a thing exists) who dared stand up for chromaticism in Byzantine music from the beginning was J. Raasted:
"Chromaticism in Medieval Byzantine Chant" CIMAGL 15 (1986) 15-36
Prof. Stathis has often told us of his joy when he heard Raasted speak on this topic in Wien at the Egon Wellesz Symposium (1985). The consequences of accepting such a premise (that chromaticism existed in Medieval Byzantine chant), however, are quite far-reaching for those 'scholars' who do transcriptions from Byzantine music manuscripts using the guidelines established by the MMB founders.
That's about all I have time for just now. If I can be of any other assistance, don't hesitate to contact me privately, too.
20 August 2002
Tuesday, August 20, 2002
Tillyard's article
Dear Dejan,
I believe I have the article somewhere, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to fish it out for you any time soon. If I recall (it's been quite a long time since I've read it) there are four or five weak 'proofs' put forward, trying to argue for the use of chromatic and enharmonic intervals as being later (I believe he uses the term) 'oriental' borrowings or influences on post-Byzantine modes.
This is something Tillyard expresses in many of his articles; take this quote as an example:
Chromatic Passages
Anyone who has listened to Modern Greek Church music must have been struck by the frequency of its chromatic passages; but in Middle Byzantine music we never find a whole hymn in the chromatic species, but only a short passage here and there. Further, the introduction of the chromatic sign seems usually, if not always, to be due to a later hand than the thirteenth century and may be regarded, in the main (1), as a fifteenth century development. Until the reform of Chrysanthus in 1821, Greek Church Music had only one properly chromatic sign, called Nenano (nenano [in Greek]) [sign], which might be used (so far as can be seen) in any mode and on any part of the scale, where the augmented tone was desired. This sign has survived in the modern system
The effect of the sign only lasted to the end of the versicle.
In the Late Byzantine system we often find, not only Mode I Plagal, but also II Plagal using the Chromatic species
Furthermore it is possible that the Late Byzantine notation where it used the Chromatic modulation-sign, may have recorded an older, though unwritten, practice of some singers, who had come under Oriental influence.(H. J. W. Tillyard, HANDBOOK OF THE MIDDLE BYZANTINE MUSICAL NOTATION (Copenhague: Levin & Munksgaard, 1935), pp. 35-6.)
Dejan, this is something you can find in Wellesz articles and many others. There was a clear 'line' held by all MMB people that Byzantine Music was a purely diatonic music. If I recall correctly, Tillyard begins his article that you mention above with the premise that both the enharmonic and chromatic genera witnessed to in ancient Greek music theory had long ceased to exist before Byzantine music makes its appearance. Chrysanthos is usually blamed (along with the other two Teachers of the New Method, Gregorios Protopsaltes and Chourmuzios Chartophylax) for introducing such intervals into Greek Church music, always, through 'oriental' influence; the line usually goes: they were forced to by their Ottoman lords.
The big weakness (other than the fact that the premise is not founded on any pure data, but simply speculation) is that if the introduction of chromatic (and enharmonic) intervals was such a late development, how is it that (1) there are no records of any protest and (2) when we have Konstantinos Byzantios chanting from the right analogion with the old notation and his lambadarios Stephanos chanting from the new notation on the left analogion, how is it that there is no difference in performance expressed, in fact, specific witnesses exist explicitly stating that "no difference in performance was detected"!?
As far as the most Greek Byzantine musicologists are concerned, there's no issue. Chromaticism and enharmonic intervals were always on the scene and did not 'disappear'. The only person I know of in the 'western camp' (if such a thing exists) who dared stand up for chromaticism in Byzantine music from the beginning was J. Raasted:
"Chromaticism in Medieval Byzantine Chant" CIMAGL 15 (1986) 15-36
Prof. Stathis has often told us of his joy when he heard Raasted speak on this topic in Wien at the Egon Wellesz Symposium (1985). The consequences of accepting such a premise (that chromaticism existed in Medieval Byzantine chant), however, are quite far-reaching for those 'scholars' who do transcriptions from Byzantine music manuscripts using the guidelines established by the MMB founders.
That's about all I have time for just now. If I can be of any other assistance, don't hesitate to contact me privately, too.
I believe I have the article somewhere, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to fish it out for you any time soon. If I recall (it's been quite a long time since I've read it) there are four or five weak 'proofs' put forward, trying to argue for the use of chromatic and enharmonic intervals as being later (I believe he uses the term) 'oriental' borrowings or influences on post-Byzantine modes.
This is something Tillyard expresses in many of his articles; take this quote as an example:
Chromatic Passages
Anyone who has listened to Modern Greek Church music must have been struck by the frequency of its chromatic passages; but in Middle Byzantine music we never find a whole hymn in the chromatic species, but only a short passage here and there. Further, the introduction of the chromatic sign seems usually, if not always, to be due to a later hand than the thirteenth century and may be regarded, in the main (1), as a fifteenth century development. Until the reform of Chrysanthus in 1821, Greek Church Music had only one properly chromatic sign, called Nenano (nenano [in Greek]) [sign], which might be used (so far as can be seen) in any mode and on any part of the scale, where the augmented tone was desired. This sign has survived in the modern system
The effect of the sign only lasted to the end of the versicle.
In the Late Byzantine system we often find, not only Mode I Plagal, but also II Plagal using the Chromatic species
Furthermore it is possible that the Late Byzantine notation where it used the Chromatic modulation-sign, may have recorded an older, though unwritten, practice of some singers, who had come under Oriental influence.(H. J. W. Tillyard, HANDBOOK OF THE MIDDLE BYZANTINE MUSICAL NOTATION (Copenhague: Levin & Munksgaard, 1935), pp. 35-6.)
Dejan, this is something you can find in Wellesz articles and many others. There was a clear 'line' held by all MMB people that Byzantine Music was a purely diatonic music. If I recall correctly, Tillyard begins his article that you mention above with the premise that both the enharmonic and chromatic genera witnessed to in ancient Greek music theory had long ceased to exist before Byzantine music makes its appearance. Chrysanthos is usually blamed (along with the other two Teachers of the New Method, Gregorios Protopsaltes and Chourmuzios Chartophylax) for introducing such intervals into Greek Church music, always, through 'oriental' influence; the line usually goes: they were forced to by their Ottoman lords.
The big weakness (other than the fact that the premise is not founded on any pure data, but simply speculation) is that if the introduction of chromatic (and enharmonic) intervals was such a late development, how is it that (1) there are no records of any protest and (2) when we have Konstantinos Byzantios chanting from the right analogion with the old notation and his lambadarios Stephanos chanting from the new notation on the left analogion, how is it that there is no difference in performance expressed, in fact, specific witnesses exist explicitly stating that "no difference in performance was detected"!?
As far as the most Greek Byzantine musicologists are concerned, there's no issue. Chromaticism and enharmonic intervals were always on the scene and did not 'disappear'. The only person I know of in the 'western camp' (if such a thing exists) who dared stand up for chromaticism in Byzantine music from the beginning was J. Raasted:
"Chromaticism in Medieval Byzantine Chant" CIMAGL 15 (1986) 15-36
Prof. Stathis has often told us of his joy when he heard Raasted speak on this topic in Wien at the Egon Wellesz Symposium (1985). The consequences of accepting such a premise (that chromaticism existed in Medieval Byzantine chant), however, are quite far-reaching for those 'scholars' who do transcriptions from Byzantine music manuscripts using the guidelines established by the MMB founders.
That's about all I have time for just now. If I can be of any other assistance, don't hesitate to contact me privately, too.
Saturday, August 17, 2002
Deacon's vespers
A summary of Georgios Regas' Typikon (1908) and his Chapter X.1. 'On when the deacon should vest'.
(1) the deacon vests for feasts with an entrance in the vespers and a great doxology in the orthros, as well as the feast of the annunciation, presanctified liturgies and the holy Passion. he may also vest for any divine liturgy throughout the year.
(2) at the vespers of a vigil he vests during the stichologia of the 'Blessed is the man', if it is not said, then during the Introductory psalm or the stichologia of the psalter; he remains vested till the dismissal.
(3) if there is no vigil he vests before the initial blessing of the vespers, during the reading of the introductory psalm or during the reading of the kathisma; he remains vested till the dismissal.
(4) at the orthros, whether there is a vigil or not, if there is a gospel he vests during the anabathmoi chanted before it and remains vested till the beginning of the first hour; if there is no gospel then he vests during the 8th ode and remains vested till the 1st hour. the same is done for the holy Passion.
(5) for each liturgy or presanctified he vests before the beginning in order to perform the proskomide with the priest and remains vested until the dismissal.
(6) at the vespers without an entrance and orthros without a great doxology (except for the holy Passion, Annunciation and celebrated saints in the Great Fast) as well as the complines and hours only the priest vests.
(7) by exception the deacon vests at the orthros of Great Saturday during the chanting of the Theos Kyrios.
(8) in orthros and vespers of the week of new creation the deacon vests before the enarxis of necessity.
In Chapter I.15: without a priest [translation]
When the daily services are performed in parecclesion, or hermitages, or monastic cells, or personally in a home and there is no priest, then none of the priest's parts are said, neither litany, nor gospel, nor exclamation, nor blessing or dismissal. But in the beginning of the service, instead of the Blessed is our God, the Through the prayers of our holy fathers is said; the same as for the May God be gracious unto us, and at the end of the service instead of the dismissal we say, Glory, Both now, Lord have mercy (thrice) and the Through the prayers of our holy fathers. And nothing more, for all excess is from the evil one.
(1) the deacon vests for feasts with an entrance in the vespers and a great doxology in the orthros, as well as the feast of the annunciation, presanctified liturgies and the holy Passion. he may also vest for any divine liturgy throughout the year.
(2) at the vespers of a vigil he vests during the stichologia of the 'Blessed is the man', if it is not said, then during the Introductory psalm or the stichologia of the psalter; he remains vested till the dismissal.
(3) if there is no vigil he vests before the initial blessing of the vespers, during the reading of the introductory psalm or during the reading of the kathisma; he remains vested till the dismissal.
(4) at the orthros, whether there is a vigil or not, if there is a gospel he vests during the anabathmoi chanted before it and remains vested till the beginning of the first hour; if there is no gospel then he vests during the 8th ode and remains vested till the 1st hour. the same is done for the holy Passion.
(5) for each liturgy or presanctified he vests before the beginning in order to perform the proskomide with the priest and remains vested until the dismissal.
(6) at the vespers without an entrance and orthros without a great doxology (except for the holy Passion, Annunciation and celebrated saints in the Great Fast) as well as the complines and hours only the priest vests.
(7) by exception the deacon vests at the orthros of Great Saturday during the chanting of the Theos Kyrios.
(8) in orthros and vespers of the week of new creation the deacon vests before the enarxis of necessity.
In Chapter I.15: without a priest [translation]
When the daily services are performed in parecclesion, or hermitages, or monastic cells, or personally in a home and there is no priest, then none of the priest's parts are said, neither litany, nor gospel, nor exclamation, nor blessing or dismissal. But in the beginning of the service, instead of the Blessed is our God, the Through the prayers of our holy fathers is said; the same as for the May God be gracious unto us, and at the end of the service instead of the dismissal we say, Glory, Both now, Lord have mercy (thrice) and the Through the prayers of our holy fathers. And nothing more, for all excess is from the evil one.
Thursday, June 27, 2002
Very, very short history of typikon
For a good little introduction to the history of the development of the Byzantine Typikon with clear sources, there is a small title that can probably be easily accessed in the US (I believe the publisher is online):
Taft, Robert F.
The Byzantine Rite: A Short History
American Essays In Liturgy
Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992
I can't speak for the Slavic development, but the Typikon that has come down to the Greek Church is a Palestinian-Studite synthesis. The key period, of course, is immediately after the Iconoclastic controversy (9th c). This is a key period as far as the establishment and appearance of the Oktoechos and the popularity of the canon genre as far as hymnography is concerned. All around a developmental period of recuperation and growth for the worship life of the Church. After the Studite adaptation of monastic (St Sabas monastery—Palestinian) and cathedral (Great Church—Constantinopolitan) practice, the Palestinian monks again make changes that appear by the 11th century (very important source is the typikon of Nikon of the Black Mountain). It would be this final, what Taft calls, "Neo-Sabaitic" synthesis that would find its way back North to Constantinople and, eventually, Mount Athos and the other Greek speaking monasteries.
To summarize, for Greek practice we have a back and forth influence between Palestinian and Constantinopolitan, and monastic and cathedral practices, not to mention the musical influences rising out of these new hymnological forms and their performance (cf. Edward V Williams, John Koukouzeles' Reforms of the Byzantine Chanting for Great Vespers in the Fourteenth Century, PhD diss., Yale, 1968).
Another interesting site to consider is.
*
Many local 'official' and 'unofficial' developments have contributed to minor differences of practice between the Slav and Greek usages witnessed today, but the major difference comes in 1838 with the publication of the first edition of the Typikon Ekklesiastikon of Konstantinos Byzantios, the Protopsaltes at the Great Church at that time. For the first time since Byzantium the Greek Church institutes a separate Typikon for the city churches just as it comes out from under the Turkish yoke. A second (1851) and third (never published) edition will be prepared by Konstantinos, but in 1888 another patriarchal committee headed by Georgios Violakes, also a Protopsaltes of the Great Church, will revise Konstantinos' Typikon and is basically the order used to by the Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians and Serbs, as far as parish order is concerned. While the Konstantinos typikon did have influences on monastic practice, theoretically, each monastery retains its own typikon.
This, to answer your question, is the basic difference between contemporary practice for the Slav (Russian) and Greek Typika as observed in parishes today.
Taft, Robert F.
The Byzantine Rite: A Short History
American Essays In Liturgy
Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992
I can't speak for the Slavic development, but the Typikon that has come down to the Greek Church is a Palestinian-Studite synthesis. The key period, of course, is immediately after the Iconoclastic controversy (9th c). This is a key period as far as the establishment and appearance of the Oktoechos and the popularity of the canon genre as far as hymnography is concerned. All around a developmental period of recuperation and growth for the worship life of the Church. After the Studite adaptation of monastic (St Sabas monastery—Palestinian) and cathedral (Great Church—Constantinopolitan) practice, the Palestinian monks again make changes that appear by the 11th century (very important source is the typikon of Nikon of the Black Mountain). It would be this final, what Taft calls, "Neo-Sabaitic" synthesis that would find its way back North to Constantinople and, eventually, Mount Athos and the other Greek speaking monasteries.
To summarize, for Greek practice we have a back and forth influence between Palestinian and Constantinopolitan, and monastic and cathedral practices, not to mention the musical influences rising out of these new hymnological forms and their performance (cf. Edward V Williams, John Koukouzeles' Reforms of the Byzantine Chanting for Great Vespers in the Fourteenth Century, PhD diss., Yale, 1968).
Another interesting site to consider is
*
Many local 'official' and 'unofficial' developments have contributed to minor differences of practice between the Slav and Greek usages witnessed today, but the major difference comes in 1838 with the publication of the first edition of the Typikon Ekklesiastikon of Konstantinos Byzantios, the Protopsaltes at the Great Church at that time. For the first time since Byzantium the Greek Church institutes a separate Typikon for the city churches just as it comes out from under the Turkish yoke. A second (1851) and third (never published) edition will be prepared by Konstantinos, but in 1888 another patriarchal committee headed by Georgios Violakes, also a Protopsaltes of the Great Church, will revise Konstantinos' Typikon and is basically the order used to by the Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians and Serbs, as far as parish order is concerned. While the Konstantinos typikon did have influences on monastic practice, theoretically, each monastery retains its own typikon.
This, to answer your question, is the basic difference between contemporary practice for the Slav (Russian) and Greek Typika as observed in parishes today.
Tuesday, June 11, 2002
Pascha Apodosis
XPICTOC ANECTH!
I've already been asked three times today regarding the apodosis tomorrow, specifically, regarding the taking up of the icon, cross, epitaphion and gospel, so I thought I'd go ahead and post it here before the frantic inquiries tomorrow! This, of course is the practice for the Greek tradition.
If you look at the Diataxeis from Kalamos Publications and the Diptycha from Apostolike Diakonia this year (the later copies the former now) there is a note in the order for Thursday of Ascension at the point of the Ninth Hour. Before I tell you that, though, the older monastic Typika speak of the 'aspasmos' (veneration) of the icon of the Resurrection (in the middle of the Church during the entire Pentekostarion period) during the final chanting of the Christos Aneste, normally mode II, argon (some places I've seen use Chrysaphes the New's 'Anastaseos hemera' in the old sticheraric melos). Once everyone venerates, the priest takes the icon into the hieron and the typikarios places the icon of the Ascension.
Then the priest comes out, preceded by the censer. Censing the Cross that has been outside the holy bema since the Great Friday 'apokathilosis', he venerates it and procedes into the holy bema and places the icon of the King of Glory upon it, once again venerating. Then, moving to the holy table, he censes and venerates the epitaphion, which has been on the holy table since the Orthros of Great and Holy Saturday, folds it and places it where it is normally stored. Finally, venerating it, the priest then takes the Gospel, turning it so that the icon of the Crucifixion faces upward and begins the vespers of the Ascension.
Except for the order of the aspasmos of the Gospel, the rest I don't believe is found in any older typika, but represents contemporary practice.
I've already been asked three times today regarding the apodosis tomorrow, specifically, regarding the taking up of the icon, cross, epitaphion and gospel, so I thought I'd go ahead and post it here before the frantic inquiries tomorrow! This, of course is the practice for the Greek tradition.
If you look at the Diataxeis from Kalamos Publications and the Diptycha from Apostolike Diakonia this year (the later copies the former now) there is a note in the order for Thursday of Ascension at the point of the Ninth Hour. Before I tell you that, though, the older monastic Typika speak of the 'aspasmos' (veneration) of the icon of the Resurrection (in the middle of the Church during the entire Pentekostarion period) during the final chanting of the Christos Aneste, normally mode II, argon (some places I've seen use Chrysaphes the New's 'Anastaseos hemera' in the old sticheraric melos). Once everyone venerates, the priest takes the icon into the hieron and the typikarios places the icon of the Ascension.
Then the priest comes out, preceded by the censer. Censing the Cross that has been outside the holy bema since the Great Friday 'apokathilosis', he venerates it and procedes into the holy bema and places the icon of the King of Glory upon it, once again venerating. Then, moving to the holy table, he censes and venerates the epitaphion, which has been on the holy table since the Orthros of Great and Holy Saturday, folds it and places it where it is normally stored. Finally, venerating it, the priest then takes the Gospel, turning it so that the icon of the Crucifixion faces upward and begins the vespers of the Ascension.
Except for the order of the aspasmos of the Gospel, the rest I don't believe is found in any older typika, but represents contemporary practice.
Tuesday, June 04, 2002
Canon 90 of Penthekti
It's even more specific stating that we should not kneel from the point of the entrance of the clergy during the lychnikon on Saturday evening until the entrance of the clergy during the lychnikon on Sunday evening.
This has to do with the penitential character of evening worship and its appropriateness on the day of the Resurrection or, as is now the case, during the period of the Joyful Triodion or Pentekostarion. The canon is not primarily concerned with the D. Liturgy.
The first point of patristic phronema to research is the connection of the beginning of the liturgical day as a time when the Lord sends forgiveness to those who repent for the days works (i.e. Apostolic Constitutions VIII, 34-5; Basil the Great, Great Rule 37—PG 31, 1016; Theodore the Studite, Interpretation of Presanctified—PG 99, 1688c). Also, read closely the evening prayers of the Church, whether they be from the Vespers or even the simple pocket daily prayer books.
Now, it is important not to get too scholastic about the issue. Typikon, first and foremost, is imitation. The earliest 'rules' for liturgical life even before the appearance of Typika—foundational or liturgical—are the imitation of the prayer of the holy fathers and saints (i.e. Basil, Pachomius) and the monastic practices joined with the Antiochian, Jerusalemite and, later, Constantinopolitan practices.
The fact that repentance in the American Church—especially the Greek—is a relatively new phenomenon (a greatly few of the faithful are familiar with the mystery of confession and repentance) most do not comprehend the penitential character of the vespers, hence, it is impossible to understand the Resurrectional character of the Pentekostarion period or even a 'simple' Sunday! In this way, all kinds of 'reasons' for it's ok to kneel on Sunday can be devised. The simple fact is that a specific liturgical practice has come down to us.
Another story. When I was in the Atlanta Diocese (GOA) I would normally chant in the Diocesan Church of the Archangel Michael when there were clergy meetings. It happened to be a Saturday morning and like most, the orthros called for Ainoi, Small Doxology, Aposticha, etc. Once we began reading the small doxology a priest stuck his head out the North Door to angrily shout: "We're going to have liturgy; that means we chant the Great Doxology. This is America!" He was a visiting priest and not even the celebrant. Needless to say, no one payed any attention, neither the bishop nor the other priests, but it does illustrate how the dynamics and variety of celebration from the daily to the Resurrectional services are in danger of being forgotten in the US, anyway. Most clergy, lower or higher, only go to Church and pray/serve on feast days. Hence, they've never seen a 'normal' weekday service. The dynamic of a celebrated saint or feast is fuzzy (enough of this).
Back to your topic. As for the group of questions at the end of your snip, the question of continuity is not threatened with the kneeling in conjunction with ordination on a Sunday or during Pentekostarion. If one goes to confess during Pentekostarion he or she will kneel for the prayer of forgiveness. The opportunity with your research is to rediscover the penitential character of the 'Evening Sacrifice' and you have all the troparia of the Great Parakletike, the writings of the fathers and the mystical prayers of the priest for the vespers. Add the instances of penitence in the Scriptures and you've got alot at your fingertips I think. A final and most beautiful source would also be the actual 'kneeling prayers' for the Vespers of the Holy Spirit!
This has to do with the penitential character of evening worship and its appropriateness on the day of the Resurrection or, as is now the case, during the period of the Joyful Triodion or Pentekostarion. The canon is not primarily concerned with the D. Liturgy.
The first point of patristic phronema to research is the connection of the beginning of the liturgical day as a time when the Lord sends forgiveness to those who repent for the days works (i.e. Apostolic Constitutions VIII, 34-5; Basil the Great, Great Rule 37—PG 31, 1016; Theodore the Studite, Interpretation of Presanctified—PG 99, 1688c). Also, read closely the evening prayers of the Church, whether they be from the Vespers or even the simple pocket daily prayer books.
Now, it is important not to get too scholastic about the issue. Typikon, first and foremost, is imitation. The earliest 'rules' for liturgical life even before the appearance of Typika—foundational or liturgical—are the imitation of the prayer of the holy fathers and saints (i.e. Basil, Pachomius) and the monastic practices joined with the Antiochian, Jerusalemite and, later, Constantinopolitan practices.
The fact that repentance in the American Church—especially the Greek—is a relatively new phenomenon (a greatly few of the faithful are familiar with the mystery of confession and repentance) most do not comprehend the penitential character of the vespers, hence, it is impossible to understand the Resurrectional character of the Pentekostarion period or even a 'simple' Sunday! In this way, all kinds of 'reasons' for it's ok to kneel on Sunday can be devised. The simple fact is that a specific liturgical practice has come down to us.
Another story. When I was in the Atlanta Diocese (GOA) I would normally chant in the Diocesan Church of the Archangel Michael when there were clergy meetings. It happened to be a Saturday morning and like most, the orthros called for Ainoi, Small Doxology, Aposticha, etc. Once we began reading the small doxology a priest stuck his head out the North Door to angrily shout: "We're going to have liturgy; that means we chant the Great Doxology. This is America!" He was a visiting priest and not even the celebrant. Needless to say, no one payed any attention, neither the bishop nor the other priests, but it does illustrate how the dynamics and variety of celebration from the daily to the Resurrectional services are in danger of being forgotten in the US, anyway. Most clergy, lower or higher, only go to Church and pray/serve on feast days. Hence, they've never seen a 'normal' weekday service. The dynamic of a celebrated saint or feast is fuzzy (enough of this).
Back to your topic. As for the group of questions at the end of your snip, the question of continuity is not threatened with the kneeling in conjunction with ordination on a Sunday or during Pentekostarion. If one goes to confess during Pentekostarion he or she will kneel for the prayer of forgiveness. The opportunity with your research is to rediscover the penitential character of the 'Evening Sacrifice' and you have all the troparia of the Great Parakletike, the writings of the fathers and the mystical prayers of the priest for the vespers. Add the instances of penitence in the Scriptures and you've got alot at your fingertips I think. A final and most beautiful source would also be the actual 'kneeling prayers' for the Vespers of the Holy Spirit!
Monday, May 20, 2002
Rhythm in Byzantine Chant
Chanting could be written without time markings—as in most Byzantine notation—but that does not mean it has no rhythm or, furthermore, that within a singular chant tradition some things may be done in a freer rhythm than others (i.e. verses—stichoi—can begin in a free, logathes, rhythm only to end up with the rhythm of the sticheron they precede, also take the Doxa and Kai nyn of the first stasis of the anabathmoi for mode IV as used in festal Orthros services).
There is a great confusion as to rhythm in Byzantine chant and the interpretation of the great hypostaseis signs as interpreted by some western musicologists. Even with the New Method, there are good number of very good chanters who would not necessarily be able to correctly divide the pieces they chant into correct measures. As a by the way, there is an 1815 ms in the New Method of Petros Peloponesse's Anastasematarion in the Nat. Lib. of Greece (Metochion Panagiou Taphou 716) that has red 'measure' lines incorrectly dividing the music into four-beat measures. Anyway, rhythm is closely connected with each thesis as it relates to the particular genre it is being used with.
There are a large number of transcriptions of Byzantine Music into the western staff notation that use no time signatures or measures. These are usually done by people who do not know that there is rhythm in Byzantine chant or do not choose to believe so.
There is a great confusion as to rhythm in Byzantine chant and the interpretation of the great hypostaseis signs as interpreted by some western musicologists. Even with the New Method, there are good number of very good chanters who would not necessarily be able to correctly divide the pieces they chant into correct measures. As a by the way, there is an 1815 ms in the New Method of Petros Peloponesse's Anastasematarion in the Nat. Lib. of Greece (Metochion Panagiou Taphou 716) that has red 'measure' lines incorrectly dividing the music into four-beat measures. Anyway, rhythm is closely connected with each thesis as it relates to the particular genre it is being used with.
There are a large number of transcriptions of Byzantine Music into the western staff notation that use no time signatures or measures. These are usually done by people who do not know that there is rhythm in Byzantine chant or do not choose to believe so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
