CC BY
46
искусствоведение и культурология
about feodor krestjanin's creative activity
IN the 1598—1607 YEARS*
N. P. Parfentjev, South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation, [email protected]
N. V. Parfentjeva, South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation, [email protected]
We can get an idea of Feodor Krestjanin's creative activity at the Tsar's chorus of singing "diaki" (chanters) due to the unique complex of sources. There are surviving records of chants and their fragments, made by one of those chanters. The Anonymous Diak's records were often accompanied by extensive remarks that relate to 1598—1607 years, covering the last decade of the great master's life. Their study in the context of old Russian manuscript tradition of chanting helps to reveal the essence of Feodor Krestjanin's creative solutions while composing his own works, lets show his techniques used in training the singing diaki, makes it possible to recreate a kind of chronicle of his professional activity in the specified period.
Keywords: old Russian art of chanting, works of authorship, Feodor Krestjanin, creative activity, tsar s diaki (choristers).
It is worth mentioning that there are practically no documental sources available at the moment concerning Feodor Krestjanin's life and career. That is why the main information is obtained from written narratives, musical treatises and remarks accompanying his works in the manuscripts of chant books [for example, see: 52].
Recall that according to the narrative source "The Foreword" after staying in Sloboda Krestjanin "became famous in the reigning city of Moscow, sang znamenny (old Russian church neumatic) chant here and taught others" [41, fol. 201—201v]. When the court moved to Moscow Krestjanin starts his service in the Blagove-shensky Cathedral (Cathedral of the Annunciation of Moscow Kremlin). Being a priest of this court Cathedral and a chant master who had a good command of chant art he also starts teaching the tsar's diaki (choristers).
The stormy time at the beginning of the 17th century had a great impact on Feodor Krestjanin's life as well. He himself had to participate in some of those events. By May 1606 he becomes the archpriest of the Bla-goveshensky Cathedral, and consequently according to the old tradition — the tsar's confessor. At this time False Dmitry I was the tsar of Russia. His wedding with Marina Mniszech took place on May, 7, and the tsar's confessor was of great importance here. The archpriest Feodor was among those who invited the false tsar to the Uspensky Cathedral and brought there the wedding crown. At the end of the mass he also performed the nuptials [17, fol. 6—15]. On June, 1, the new tsar Vasily Shuisky was to be crowned but his wedding ceremony (January, 14, 1607) was affiliated by a different confessor and archpriest [18, fol. 6]. Feodor Krestjanin did not serve as a confessor of a new tsar, he continued teaching the singing diaki. Thus, on August, 4, 1607, he was still singing and giving instructions to his pupils [20, fol. 66]. After the year 1607 Feodor Krestjanin's name is lost track of. Apparently it was his last year.
* Work is executed at financial supported The Russian Humanitarian Scientific Fund, project No 13-04-00077.
Thus Feodor Krestjanin's entire creative life was connected with the Russian best masters of chant art — the tsar's singing diaki. During a long period he created chants for this choir and taught young singers. His authority of a singer and a didascalos was enormous among the diaki, he was called the teacher, the master. At the court his folksy nickname "Krestjanin" (peasant) was replaced by a more common — "Khristianin" ("the Christian").
The character of Feodor Krestjanin's activities can be traced by the extant chants and their fragments performed by one of the singers (Anonymous Diak), they contain rather extensive comments. The records date back to 1598—1607 and cover the final period of the master's life1. It is beyond doubt that they are worth studying in detail in the context of Old Russian chant-book handwritten tradition. This work can reveal the very essence of Feodor Krestjanin's mastery of creating his own chants and deciphering obscure signs of notation as well as it can allow to present some of the didascalos' teaching techniques and restore the chronology of his professional activities during this period.
The most part of their life the singing diaki were likely to spend at the court. There was a special "singing chamber" existed where the diaki stayed during their free time. In this chamber the singers had a rest and continued their work enlarging their repertoire, copying chant books and studying the znamenny chant with their master's help. Here they were given food and drinks; here they were preparing "state chanting books". As far as teaching chant art is concerned it was done in a different place with the participation of the most experienced singing diaki [10, p. 43—45, 103 and others].
Most probably Feodor Krestjanin's duties included not only teaching young singers but also assistance and guidance in various activities of the choir. For this reason the master supervised the diaki's writing
1 Review of manuscripts, for example, see : 6, p. 102— 106; 8, p. 97—98; 12, p. 53.
in their special copybooks and separate handwritten sheets (stolbtzi) [19, fol. 86, 161v, 220, 366v, 365]. Here Feodor Krestjanin worked together with the most experienced singing diak who himself could be called a master. The above mentioned records of the Anonymous Diak convey a lively atmosphere that reigned in the singing chambers. Let us have a look at some days from Feodor Krestjanin's life as a teacher or didascalos.
November, 27,1598. On this day Feodor Krestjanin together with the diaki was working at znamenny chants as well as special master signs (б, в, г, д, к, м, н, о, п., р, с, т, т etc.), that were common in the community of the singing diaki at that time and specified the pitch of the signs (low, high, higher etc.) and some nuances in the melodic development of the chant (rapidly, loudly, steadily, lightly, quietly etc.). As an example the end of the doxastikon of the eighth mode "Dushepoleznuyu sovershivshe chetverodesyatnitsu" ("Душеполезную совершивше четверодесятницу") was performed — the line "Prihodyai vo imya Gospodne tsar Izrailevo" ("Приходяи во имя Господне царь Израилево") — with an extensive inner syllabic singing of the last word consisting of 59 neumatic signs. The Anonymous Diak quotes the master who told his pupils then: "This fita is loud-voice" ("фита громогласная") [21, fol. 1].
"The m[aster] told: This fita is loud-voice" (indicating left in the margin). November, 27, 1598. [21, fol. 1]
The doxastikon was usually performed on Lazarus' Saturday, on the eve of Palm Sunday, on the sixth week of the Great Lent, — i. e. in spring. Its performance in November was done apparently for the sake of training.
Close study of old chant books brings us to the conclusion that "razvodnye" (interpretations with expla-
nation of ciphered neumatic formulae by simple signs) copies of the doxastikon appeared only in the beginning of the 17th century1. Singing and teaching practice forced the didascaloi to impart not only oral skills of singing difficult melodic formulae but also writing skills of copying their "razvody" — explanation by simple neuma-signs in chant books. The author's peculiarities of these interpretations were greatly appreciated not only by pupils but a wider range of contemporaries and therefore they became one of the leading artistic principles of the raspevshiks (singers) [see details 16].
The "razvodnye" chanting versions of the doxastikon "Dushepoleznuyu sovershivshe chetverodesyatnitsu" which have various variants of interpretation appeared in Feodor Krestjanin's time. In 1604 the handwritten notes were made by the well-known theoretician of chanting art, the author of the treatise "Key to znamenny chant" ("Ключ знаменной") Khristofor, who was a choir brother of the Kyrillo-Belozersky Monastery. The monk presented two variants of the doxastikon (in ordinary and "great znamena") as well as the end which was performed optionally [52, p. 145, 275]2. It should be noted that the melodic content of all the three variants of the final line in Khristofor's book differs from the variant performed by Feodor Krestjanin with the diaki. This fact leads to the conclusion that the master demonstrated his own singing of formulae fita. The singing variants that appeared later also differ from the variant of 1598, however, one can find there the melodic pieces similar or even identical to the master's variant3.
The diaki were likely to sing two evangelical sticherons as well right after the singing of the doxastikon on that very day, November, 27, 1598 — the 5th and the 10th ones (the 5th and the 6th modes respectively). Both chants are recorded in great detailed exposition of the disclosure of the melodic content not only "litso" and "fita" formulas, but also complicated neumas, sometimes on top of their inscriptions. [21, fol. 1—7]. It is a well-known fact that Feodor Krestjanin is the author of one of the musical versions of "The sticherons evangelical" ("Стихиры евангельские") stylized as the Great Znamenny Chant [16, p. 125—132; 50]. That is why there arises the question whether the singing diaki were performing Feodor Krestjanin's variants of the chants.
The comparative analysis of the record published by M. V. Brazhnikov (indicated in the handwritten list of the mid 17th century as Krestjanin's "perevod" (interpretation) with the records of the Anonymous Diak (the 5th and the 10th sticherons of 1598) shows that both variants present one and the same formulae of the chant. Version marked as Krestjanin's "perevod" (interpretation) here
1 In the lists of the earlier time formulas are given in the encrypted inscription, for example: 26; 28; 34; 36; 39; 40.
2 In the study of the Khristofor "Key to znamenny chant" the authors mention the duration of chanting the words "Tsar Izrailev" (King of Israel), noted that there is "no doubt shown rozvody (explanations by simple neuma-signs) not one fita inscription, but what — can not be determined" (p. 275). However, it is given one formulae fita rozvod-explanation which inscription we were able to establish from the manuscript: 35, fol. 767v.
3 For example, in the manuscripts, dating from the first half of the XVII century: 1—3; 31; 32; 38.
is characterized by unique peculiarities that serve as a variety within some formula. Some differences can be explained by the following.
First Krestjanin's version was written several decades after the master's death, that is why the changes might have taken place here because of the time difference and because of the scribes' work. Second, more likely, in this handwritten list of the mid 17th century there is reproduced personal creative style of melodic formulas interpretation by Feodor Krestjanin. The nature of those differences with the earlier variant of the Anonymous Diak still points at the fact that both variants belong to the same chant school. They are likely to present different stages of the single authors' version of chanting cycle "The sticherons evangelical". Created at the court during Feodor Krestjanin's service and recorded by the Anonymous Diak in 1598 this chant could later attract Krestyanin's attention one more time. He could have performed the new version (edition) which later was included in the manuscript of the mid 17th century and became known as "Krestjanin's perevod".
Thus, in 1598 the singing diaki practiced various formulae and specific signs of the 5th and 6th modes on the basis of "The Sticherons evangelical", which were made with the help of Feodor Krestjanin (otherwise — by him solely).
March, 21, 1600. On this day in connection with the forthcoming celebration of Easter Feodor Krestjanin performed zadostoynik (the Hymn to the Theotokos) 1 "Shine, shine, New Jerusalem" ("Светися, светися, Новый Иерусалиме") by means of Demesvenny Chant. The Anonylous Diak recorded this chant with the help of "stolpovaya neumatic" (znamennaya, not demastvennaya) notation with the comment: "My znamya (neumas), master Khristianin sung, on March 21, 1600. It was during the great Easter week, there is Zadostoynik, Demestvo" [23, fol. 1]. Unfortunately, it is not clear whether Feodor Krestjanin performed his own version. Though it is obvious that this chant was known to the diaki (anyway, the Anonymous Diak knew it), the master had to clarify the singing of some parts of it for the choir not to differ during the Easter service.
Further on the Anonymous Diak placed the chant of the same Hymn to the Theotokos with minor differences and his own comments explaining that points in the hymnographical text stand for the borders of the lines that form the structure of the chant. When the comma appears the singers are to take breath ("znamenny breath"). Here the Anonymous Diak serves as a teacher (probably for young singers) intending to become the mediator between the pupils and the great master and comparing his own knowledge with Feodor Krestjanin's mastery.
After comparing his copied version with Feodor Krestyanin's one and discussing the differences between them the Anonymous Diak recorded the chant once again with the mark: "It is mine. Write it according to the advice" [23, fol. 2]. Apparently, this "advice" was given by the master himself and concerned the original version of the chant. It laid in the fact that the version previously submitted famous chanter was fixed as the
base for final recording of the chant, and, consequently, for its singing2.
"My znamja (neumes). Master Khristianin sang".
Easter Hymn. March 21, 1600 [23, fol. 1].
Thus, we get the following. While preparing for the Easter celebrations Feodor Krestjanin and the Anonymous Diak specified the chant of the zadostoynik (Hymn to the Theotokos). For its performance they chose a complicated melismatic singing in the style of Demesvenny Chant in stolpovoy notation. The Anonymous Diak compared it with the variant written him earlier as version of Krestjanin's chanting and made one more revised variant which was to be followed by the pupils.
It should be noted that the text of the zadostoynik "Shine, shine, New Jerusalem" had numerous musical versions in different styles and notations. Such abundance of versions points at the specific attitude of the chanters to the performance of this chant on Easter and the creative freedom, as well. Variants presented in the Anonymous Diak's autograph are found in manuscript sources extremely rare.
Musical differences recorded in all the three variants of the zadostoynik "Shine, shine, New Jerusalem" are defined on the level of melody variability inside the formula [see.: 13, p. 109—112]. We can see that on the whole it is one and the same chant that took place to be among the singing diaki and belonged to the tradition
1 At the liturgies of the great holidays instead of hymns in honour of the Virgin "It is truly meet" ("Достойно есть") they chanted a suitable this holiday Hymn (zadostoynik).
2 It is known that in the monasteries there are strict rules regarding intervention in the text of the books: without the blessing of the head of choir (ustavshchik) nobody could write in the book a single letter [7, p. 219]. Head of Tsar's Choir (ustavshchik) is not officially mentioned to the last third of the XVII century. Maybe Feodor Krestjanin carried out certain of his functions.
of the tsar's choir (this fact does not exclude Feodor Krestjanin's authorship either who worked here for several decades at five sovereigns).
Giving his interpretation the Anonymous Diak paid some attention to some parts of the zadostoynik. He remarked that Feodor Krestjanin himself sang them in a different manner: "Look: the master sang here differently". The Anonymous Diak recorded some variants of this fragment. Later he resorts several times to his explanation, adding some correction in the text of "kryuki" (neumatic notation). Generally, this correction concerned only the more detailed explanations of complicated neumatic signs [more details see: 13, p. 112—113].
It is worth mentioning that on the back of the column the Diak made a remark: "From the demesvenny «Shine, [shine, New Jerusalem]» got 2 grivnas". It is difficult to say for what the Diak was given this sum of money — 0,2 roubles — as a reward. Apparently, he could be paid for singing and teaching the demesvenny chant or for writing its corrected text.
October, 14, 1600. The "Jordanian troparions" ("Тропари иорданские") were performed at Epiphany (the Theophany) during the Tsar's Clock ceremony as well as during the walk to the river ("the Jordan") and water blessing ("Water hymns") at the confluence of a huge number of people1. No doubt, the choirmasters supervised the performance of these chants. Feodor Krestjanin started his work with the tsar's singing diaki in October. The Anonymous Diak put down a chant variant with the following remark: "Year 7109 [1600] October 14, was sung at Khristianin's. Jordanian troparions" [22, fol. 1]. Later, as it always happened to numerous chant variants, the manuscript editing took place alongside the searching and introducing of other, simpler written explanations of neumas. Sometimes the Diak remarked: "The master has it", "Look here. The master gives it this way" [22, fol. 1, 1v]. This can testify the fact that the Anonymous Diak had Feodor Krestjanin's write cycles and wished to show their peculiarities and differences.
The handwritten by Anonymous Diak chants were performed in eight modes and in manuscripts were called in a different way: "the Theophany troparions", "the Jordanian troparions", "water hymns", "water blessing hymns", etc. In the 12th century manuscripts there can be found the hymnographer's name: "Created by Sophrony, bishop of Jerusalem" [42, fol. 119; 25, fol. 73v].
In the 12th—15th centuries manuscripts the cycle included three troparions (whereas the Diak had four): "Dnes' vodnye osvyashautsa", ("Днесь водные освящаются") "Yako chelovek na reku" ("Яко человек на реку"), and "Pryamo glasu vopiushago v pustyni" ("Прямо гласу вопиющаго в пустыни"). The earliest records of the later troparion "Glas Gospoden na vodah" ("Глас Господень на водах") included in the cycle as
the first one, are traced by the 15th century manuscripts [27, 243v—244; 28, fol. 102—102v; 30, fol. 55; 43, fol. 66v].
In the ancient manuscripts there were several chant variants of "The Jordanian troparions", which differed in their length and complexity of the notation. In the course of time the records became more and more diversified. In the 15th century the development of chant art was based on the earlier copies, it resulted in the formation of the variant which existed up to the 17th century. It was the so-called "typovoy" chant extended by means of chant formulae "fitas" and "litsos"[13, p. 115—116; 15, p. 84—92].
The next stage in the development of troparions is connected with the appearance of their chant in "Pute-voy" chant (Putny). As it was mentioned above, "The Jordanian troparions" were performed by the diaki while walking ("v puty" — en route). There is evidence that the Putevoy chant was often used during the ceremony processions. In the 1580-s there were appeared the first records of the cycle in the Putevoy chant, for example, in one manuscript of Ivan the Terrible's time (died in 1584) [33, fol. 93v—94]. At this time there appeared the unique records made with the help of the Stolpovoy neumatic notation that also had some cinnabar "3" which testifies their similarity to the Putevoy chant. The following comment also proves it: "On the epiphany, during blessing ceremony, sticheras, mode 8. Put' na vode" (way to the water) [29, fol. 125—126, 133; 37, fol. 464—465v]. The contrastive analysis of all the variants found — Typovoy, Putevoy (given by the corresponding Putevoy notation) and Putevoy Stolpovoy — reveals their similarities and differences [13, p. 116].
The further musical development of the troparions is characterized by the appearance of variants with the author's comments. The chant "Put' monastyrsky" is of special importance here. The earliest record which served its base appeared in the 1580-s initially in the form of some encrypted formulae inscriptions. Later there appeared "razvody" (variants) which had a differ-
1 Tsarist way out per day of the Epiphany was one of the most solemn. They went all over the state to Moscow, to fetch the water consecrated by Patriarch. Thus, in the early 17th century there were gathered up to 400 thousand people. The rite was performed extremely solemnly. The special role was assigned to choristers who accompanied the action by chants. See : 5, p. 19—25.
October, 14, 1600. "Was sung at Khristianin's. Jordanian troparions" [22, fol. 1]
ent kind of writing appearance. The earlier encrypted short formulae inscription has now been presented in the form of long "razvod" —explanations of their music content recorded using simple signs (neumes). The Anonymous Diak's copy with the remark "was sung at Khristianin's" (1600) can be called the earliest variant of this new type of troparions writing. Thus, we managed to prove that Feodor Krestjanin dealt with "The Jordanian troparions" which are close to "Put' monastyrsky". The style of these chants was also defined as — Put' stolpovoy [15, p. 92—95].
The comparison of cycle the "Put' monastyrsky" with the one remarked "was sung at Khristianin's" reveals the similarity of the formulae in both variants. But the same formulas are not represented as the encrypted formulae inscriptions, bui in their "razvods" (explanations of musical content by more simple "znamena" (neumatic signs).The amount of differences in "razvods" between the two manuscripts makes up the half of the neumatic signs. Even after the exclusion of interchangeable signs the differences cover more than one third of the text. Such proportion is characteristic of the chants belonging to different musical schools (traditions) [16, p. 26—28]. The texts under analysis come from different chanting centres, each of them possesses its own "razvody" of the formulae in the frame of "monastery" or Krestjanin's tradition. The renowned master, while teaching the tsar's singing diaki to chant troparions, imparted them his own variant of these formulae.
It is impossible at present to answer the question who was the author of the structural solution of these troparions, who was the first to create the new formulae "putevoy" style chant construction in the 1580-s which consists of encrypted inscriptions. It is more likely that Feodor Krestjanin preserving the old traditional formulae structure of the chants gave it his own intonation solution. Apparently, he worked within the framework of the established form. In fact, the Anonymous Diak's remark reflects the creative work on basis of the archetype with the strongly pronounced intonation melody variability inside the formula [13, p. 117—118]. This "razvod" variant of the four troparions can be defined as the main text created and edited under the direction of Feodor Krestjanin.
The close study of the troparions with the remark "was sung at Khristianin's" shows that both in the main text and in the margins there are numerous marks and possible variants: "The master so marked", "Look before". As a rule, they explain the singsong of this or that "znamya" (neuma). The old "master's pomety" (marks) are also given in the text. The main text exhibits an "razvod" variant fixation of the "putevoy" style formulas as presented by "stolpovoy" neumatic notation. The similarity to the Putevoy style , besides their likeness to "Put' monastyrsky", can be traced by means of the cinnabar version of "3" in the second troparion, as well as some characteristic combinations of some neumes. The available texts allow defining the formula structure of the troparions [see: 13, p. 118]. Studying these texts allows not only the reconstruction of their formula structure but also the author's specific musical "putevoy" style ABC.
At the end of the troparion record it is written: "Checked and edited. No fita—two altyns, with fita—
grivna". Apparently, one could put down the corrected version of the chant without formula "fita". If fitas were included, the work cost much more.
At the back side of the main text one can find the additional text which starts with the following: "Look here: the master has it like..." After this remark some musical fragments are given as well as some lines from all the four troparions either in "razvody" or in inscriptions (only formulas fitas). This additional text can be defined as the manual according to which the Anonymous Diak gave his instructions to the tsar's singing diaki. He served as their teacher relying on Feodor Krestjanin's text ("Look here: the master has it like..."). The conducted theoretical investigation allows restoring the teaching methods of the Anonymous Diak practical training after how "The Jordanian troparions" were "sung at Khristianin's" on October, 14, 1600.
Apparently Feodor Krestjanin pointed at the details that must be taken into consideration during the work with the singing diaki using his personal notes ("the master has it this way"). The singing work at the troparions was coming to its close. They were frequently performed according to the "corrected" copy and sung by heart. Complicated fita formulae were singled out and studied both in writing and oral practice. However, the pupils had numerous questions, and the Diak was answering them at the end of their classes. Thus, finishing the explanation of the cycle "The Jordanian troparions", the Anonymous Diak went into detail on the similarity in the words of fragments of chant 3 and 4, for example: "Vospriyati" — "Vospriimo". He copied them out with neumes and marked the word "vospriyati" as "proizvol" (liberty or artistic licence). Here Feodor Krestjyanin allowed some deviation from the canon ("priyati"). Being a well-educated connoisseur of the chant-book tradition the Anonymous Diak knew about this "liberty" and told his pupils about it. However, he had to take into account the master's authority and follow his instructions. The variant "vospriimo" from chant 4 was given in comparison with the previous one to underline both their phonetic similarity and musical formula differences. This variant is accompanied by the remark "himself" which points at the fact that Feodor Krestjanin himself made it. Thus, the pupils were taught to understand that similar words should be sung in different singsongs1.
Thus, the records made by the Anonymous Diak, helped him in his teaching activities. His teaching method included written explanation of difficult formulae. Starting from the formula-line structure of troparions the Diak first explained those formulae, which were frequently come across and served the key to the understanding of the first troparion. Great attention was paid to the most complicated formulae — fitas. The records explain 8 out of 10 fitas that can be found in "The Jordanian Troparions". While teaching the Anonymos Diak referred to Feodor Krestjanin's authority and to the fact that the hymns were sung and edited under his direction. In fact, the Anonymous Diak served as the master's assistant conducting practical classes for the singing diaki [see also: 13, p. 127—129].
1 Other examples and detailed analysis of them see: [13, p. 118—127; 14, p. 8—17].
The research has proved that the Anonymous Diak's manuscript has the author's variant of the cycle "The Jordanian Troparions" made by the outstanding master Feodor Krestjanin The uniqueness of this text lies in the fact that it contains the peculiarities of the chant performance in the master's presence. The text was edited under his direction. The record presents the author's "razvod" variant of the Putevoy formula construction which was formed in the 1580-s. It belongs to the earliest versions of "razvod" fixation of formula inscriptions which have previously been are encrypted . There was found one more author's variant of the troparions called in the mid 17th century as "Put' monastyrsky". Its comparison with Krestyanin's "Putevoy variant" showed that they differ on the level of variability inside the formula and present the written musical variants of one and the same formulae. The analysis of differences allows us to refer these author's variants of one fita to different singing traditions. Being a connoisseur of the monastery tradition, Krestjanin used the monastery variant several times in his version. That is why the Diak marked them in Krestjanin's variant as "monastery". Thus, it becomes evident that this tradition existed in 1600 and was highly
respected by the renowned master.
"Blessed are" the whole was written in razvod neumes and corrected according to the Khristianin handwritten leaf ". November, 20, 1600 [20, fol. 116].
November, 20, 1600. On this day the Anonymous
Diak made for himself recording of the cycle titled "Blessed are of 8 ecclesiastical modes" ("Блаженна на 8 гласов") '. Then he introduced in the text editing, indicating the end of the leaf: "Summer 7109 [1600] on November 20, the day were sung and corrected my ... [cut off]" [22 fol. 3—4]. The same cycle exists in the other Anonymous Diak's manuscript. But here "The blessed are" of the 1st mode is given in two interpretations. Before the first of which states: "Blessed are" the whole was written in razvod neumes and corrected according to the Khristiyanin handwritten leaf' [20, fol. 116]. Again, when it became necessary to have the recording of the chant as "razvod" (with the disclosure of melody content of complex neumes by more simple ones), the singer turned to the records of the master.
July, 15, 1602. The Anonymous Diak carefully collected everything related to the creation not only of Feodor Krestjanin but his sons too. From the sources it is clear that the master had two sons. The eldest son Feodor "Molodoy" ("Young") is mentioned in the 1584—1585 biennium as a deacon of the same Cathedral of the Annunciation, where Krestjanin himself served as pop. In January, 1585 Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich bestowed him "good" broadcloth for being "on the clock" in Christmas and Epiphany Day when he led the singing for Tsar's multitude of years [4, p. 197]. The second Krestjanin's son, Ivan Feodorov son Popov, in 1584—1585 years was listed in the minor 6th "stanitsa" (structural unit of the Tsar's choir) among the teenage singers beginning their career. In this choir he served until 1635, taking part in the performance of hymns during the ceremonies of national importance, such as coronations of Vasily Shuisky and Mikhail Romanov, on the enthronement of Patriarch Filaret, during "the royal sovereign joy" — weddings, christenings heirs, etc. Since 1617 the master's son himself was mentioned among the singers who "taught to sing small singing diaki (choristers)" [10, p. 332—333].
As you can see, the sons of Feodor Krestjanin really were professionally connected with the church-singing art. Already in the early 17th century the Anonymous Diak, believing that they are just as sons of the outstanding master owned art of singing as perfect as their father, tried to get their works. But it was happened that received Dyak "second-hand" materials aroused doubts about the authenticity of authorship attributed to them.
Thus, in the write accompanying "Rozvody of hirmus on 8 modes", the Diak pointed out in several stages by cinnabar and ink that one chanter Stepan, who arrived from Kazan, rehearsed chant-hirmus with Feodor Krestjanin and then at the request of the master he copied for him "holiday", repentance verses and other chants. At this time Stepan got acquainted with the eldest Krestjanin's son Feodor Molodoy (Young), who gave him his own hand-written "Fitnik" with a view to Stefan would copy the text of "verse" in the 7th mode "Is tebe Presviataia Bogoroditse Devo" ("Ис тебе Пресвятая Богородице Дево") for him (Feodor Molodoy)2.
1 During the first half of the 17th century chants "Blessed are of 8 ecclesiastical modes" were often placed in chanting Octoechos. From the middle of the century this location of them became the main one [see: 11, p. 118 and others].
2 There is commonly known Fitnik composed by Feo-
A • V
■Ц. - ■ ~ /«
Mi.iwfIM^WKI"opKnfdjiB«(**<<» .
ардголч.
fa - .„ifitufrtn«^«! fionpff''
XV
V «Л
;» ■» rfr ' • «-■ r»v сл БаА*«а,нл НГМ» r Iff)
f af/Jf nyfA/ь. ufa rvisfr/гл*л к(кй>/я3
«pf f f * ~ * f t * '/Г** ! I ' Г
t t t ^JfeMrtHMO
^r i''-'
гшссвлвмрГа л '
л » л £
a*.pep.'" ,
а
fit$/Ы€на
On that occasion, Stepan without permission, secretly copied Fitnik for himself. From this source, then, July 15, 1602, the Anonymous Diak wrote presented in the manuscript "rozvody" of hirmus lines. Despite the fact that the Diak himself made corrections in the records in his opinion there were "bad rozvody". Therefore, the Diak assumed that it was "not Feodorov razvods" and Stepan "lied that it is Feodorovo" [44, fol. 1, 1v—2]1.
1602/1603 years. The contemporaries were very interested in attitude of Feodor Krestjanin to folk art, namely in its penetration into the church chanting. The Anonymous Diak dared to ask the master himself when had the chance: "I at the summer 7111 [1602/1603 years] asked Khristianin, and he said: Do not sing on worldly «Pesn' vsyaku dukhovnu» («Песнь всяку духовну»)". This chant apparently indicated by Feodor Krestjanin as not suitable for chanting in the church Diak recorded, indicating: "This is marked as worldly" [22, fol. 4v].
August-December, 1606year. Came to us this time records have fixed in Krestjanin's interpretations one more cycle marked as "Additional Hirmuses" ("Ирмосы прибыльные"). This cycle includes the chants from the Hirmologion, 5th mode (chant's 4, 5, 7—9): "Providya dukhome Avvakumo" ("Провидя духоме Аввакумо"), "Ognennyi um" ("Огненный ум"), "Aggelomo otroki" ("Аггеломо отроки"), "Tsareskikh detey molitva" ("Цареских детей молитва"), "Tya pache uma" ("Тя паче ума"). The full collection of these chants can be found in two mostly identical texts-columns. One of them reads: "These profitable hirmuses are taken from Khristianin. He himself wrote them, words and neumes. He wrote neumes on them newly in August, 7114 [1606]. We have written on Saturday, in December, 13, 7115 [1606]" [46, fol. 1]. In the second text there is the same remark with the continuation: "Edited. His (Krestjanin's) interpretation is done in shorthand; words come from the old Hirmologions" [45, fol. 2—2v.]. Both texts are written by Feodor Krestjanin's assistant the Anonymous Diak of the tsar's choir. Besides, one chant ("Ognenny um") is added separately with a mark: "This hirmus is interpreted by Krestjanin" [46, fol. 42].
It should be noted that the "Additional Hirmuses" are followed by the hirmus "Iz chreva adova" ("Из чрева адова"), mode 8, chant 6. Its text is slightly edited by cinnabar signs above the neumes. However, this hirmus cannot be considered Krestjanin's work as far as the main musical text is almost identical to the variant from the Hirmologion (the turn of 15th — 16th centuries) [47, fol. 102]. Consequently, the complete cycle "Additional Hirmuses" interpreted by Feodor Krestjanin consists of 5 hirmuses of the 5th mode. The missing hirmus of 6th song was substituted by a corresponding chant of the 8th mode in a wide-spread version.
Thus, we have two complete texts of the cycle plus the hirmus "Ognenny um" as well as the information not only about Feodor Krestjanin's authorship but also about the exact time when the interpretation was done (August, 1606), when it was copied and edited
dor Krestjanin. It consists of the razvodies of fita formulas that master made. Probably, in this case fitnik is a small collection of musical-guide content, including and selected chants.
1 These words refer to the "other lines of Epiphany hirmuses" [44, fol. 1].
by the Anonymous Diak (December, 13, 1606). We also know that the Moscow master "interpreted the chant once again" — created his own singing variant (interpretation), taking the old poetical texts from the old Hirmologion. Word texts of the hirmuses belong to "razdel'norechie" (with additional vowel sounds), musical texts consist of typical chant formulae of the 5th mode; there are no complicated neume structures. The ratio of the notation signs and the word text is of a syllabic type. The singing style can be defined as the Znamenny chant. Let us pay attention to the fact that the hirmuses, interpreted by Feodor Krestjanin, are "profitable" which means additional. They are not included in the obligatory ones.
Such hirmuses, especially as a separate cycle, can be met rather rarely. We managed to find their anonymous texts dated by the mid-end of the 16th century. One of the sources marked them as "pribylnye" (additional) [48, fol. 87, 91—91v]. The texts of the mid 16th century reflect the single variant of the hirmuses which considerably differs from Krestjanin's interpretation [for example: 27, fol. 87—91v; 36, fol. 212v—216]. The 1590-s text in comparison with earlier versions is a bit different on the formula level — some formulae are replaced by fita inscriptions but the whole structure is preserved [35, fol. 25—26v]. The last hirmus "Tya pache uma" is the only exception — here there is one additional formula. The 1590-s chant like the earlier versions also differs from Krestjanin's variant. It should be noted that the anonymous texts do not contain the chant "Tsarskikh detey molitva", though in the 1590-s manuscript it is presented as a word text without musical notation.
The fact that the additional hirmuses can be rarely met in sources can be explained by their special role. Judging by the content one can presume that they were meant for the "Peshnoe Deystvo" (Furnace Fiery Performance). Singing additional hirmuses of the 5th mode in the final of the "Peshnoe Deystvo" is also mentioned in the Chinovniks (Guidance on conducting church services) [49, р. 44]. Let us take into account that the tsar's singing diaki resorted to Krestjanin's variant on December, 13, not long before the "Peshnoe Deystvo". The sources claim that the tsar's choir did not always take part in this ceremony. In 1606 Feodor Krestjanin still renovated the musical content of this cycle, whereas the singing diaki started to rehearse it and prepare for the "Peshnoe Deystvo".
The available sources allow comparing Krestjanin's variant with earlier variants of interpretation. The textual analysis showed the difference in the quantitative composition of formulae. Thus, the anonymous hirmus cycle of the mid 16th century contains 34 formulae — "popevkas". The amount of formulae "popevkas" in the anonymous variant of the 1590-s increased at the expense of the last hirmus "Tya pache uma". The amount of "popevkas" in Krestjanin's variant is different — 54. In comparison with Krestjanin's version the anonymous variants are more ordinary, lacking the dynamics of the structural development inherent to Krestjanin's interpretations. In Krestjanin's cycle we can observe some regularity: the amount of formulae in chants is on the increase (from 9 to 15). The outstanding "raspevshik" (chanting master) deliberately
extends the musical pattern gradually. Thus, judging by the analysis results, we can conclude that Feodor Krestjanin's cycle is an independent work of art. It is more sophisticated and includes a greater amount of formulae and chants.
The master fulfilled his task of creating a more complicated and extended cycle "Additional Hirmuses" with the help of the following techniques. The structural division of the musical material is closely connected with the content of the hymnography text. The beginning of each image-bearing semantic phase is emphasized by musical form means. The division of the chant is characterized by repetitions of this or that formula in the similar sectors, the culmination zones-peaks coincide with the initial parts or sentences. The musical expressive means perform one more function—semantic one. The master had a good command of underlining the most significant parts of the poetic text: the linear division of the chant with the help of typical endings-finalisis, the pitch change for marking the peaks, line rhyming by means of similar formulae etc.
The revealed techniques and means of semantic disclosure were not invented by Feodor Krestjanin himself. They were developing over the period of time forming some canonic rules. The anonymous authors were well aware of them as well. The way of Feodor Krestjanin's employing them speaks for their diverse and original development. The master's most significant artistic achievement concerns the strong accent of the each hirmus initial lines by quart upward swing, its division into parts and the ending of sentences or stanzas. This key intonation pattern unites all the hirmuses. One more consolidation means was the author's device of repeating the last popevka (one and same uniform) in the initial lines of the subsequent hirmus. Note the subtle underlining one and same uniform popevkas of the lines close in sound and on syntactic parallelism [more details: 9].
As we can see, Feodor Krestjanin demonstrated his great mastery of a raspevshik (chanting master) in his cycle "Additional Hirmuses". This cycle presents a unique example of the author's interpretation. It is characterized by an individual compositional structure has no analogues in the past.
Spring of 1607year. Mainly this time records are fixed Feodor Krestjanin's and his assistant Anonymous Diak's ways of teaching, when they used as examples the line of chants. It is noteworthy that the Diak, pointing especially Krestjanin's chanting of separate lines from chants "blajgennas" ("Blessed are they") simultaneously wrote his variant of their singsongs. He said in his records: "Master sang so 7115 [1607] year"; "Lent, while the 4th week, on Saturday; Master was singing neumes. See my"; "Khristianin was singing it, and I had been recorded by music neumes)" [22, fol. 4v].
It is interesting that the Anonymous Diak pays attention not only to how Feodor sings separate lines chants, but also as it is done by his sons. For example, examining the line chanting "Ne ostavi menya" ("Не остави меня") he recorded: "Ivan's son sang so [...]; Son Feodor sang so as usually [...]"; "Behold. Master sang with his master1, said so [...]"; "Another workshop
1 Recall that Feodor Krestjanin studied chanting under Savva Rogov who was Novgorod inhabitant.
[...]"; "Master himself sang so [...]" [24, fol. 1].
Krestjanin's sons of course were authoritative chanting masters for the Anonymous Diak also. He wrote the chant-Theotokion "Pokrovo tvoi Prechistaya" ("Покрово твои Пречистая") in honour of the "Three Saints" (Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom) in a musical version of Feodor Molo-doy marking: "These verse taken from Khris[tianin]. The neumes are of his son Feodor and his written razvod of chanting. We have written here 7115 [1607] March 19, we have edited, straightened. Three Saints" [44, fol. 8].
August 4,1607. The records indicated by this date are the last Krestjanin's lifetime mention of him (later not detected). They testify with documentary precision that the master continued to work, to practice the art of chanting with his disciples. Here he shows and explains the features of singing of neumes in combination with the neuma "skameytsa": "7115 [1607] August 4th day, Tuesday, Khristianin sang his disciples so [...]"; "And sang to us and he held it [skameytsa]"; "Khristianin so talked about it: everywhere and from the skameytsa to sing quickly. To sing it quickly [?]" [20, fol. 66]. After 1607 in the documentary records the Feodor Krestjanin's name is not mentioned. Obviously, this was the last year of his life.
Thanks to the draft copies of the manual made by the Anonymous Diak we can assume that he was a professional singing diak, a true successor of Feodor Krestjanin. His knowledge was very deep, his methods of teaching combined theory and practice. In his manual the Diak gives the fragments from the chants and presents the razvody basing on the text edited under Feodor Krestyanin's direction. At the same time the Anonymous Diak acts as an artistic person and allows some deviations from the main text which results in the variability inside the formula. This slight variability points at the vitality of singing practice and reflects the endless creative search of the musical theoretical thought. It lies in the framework of Krestjanin's tradition which serves the basis of the tsar's choir activities. The Anonymous Diak's records, reflecting the creative activities of the outstanding master in the last decade of his life, of course, are the most valuable historical source.
References
1. BRAN [Library of Academy of sciences of Russian, St. Petersburg]. 32.16.18, fol. 94—95.
2. GIM [State Historical Museum, Moscow]. Sin. Pev. №59, fol. 48—50v.
3. GIM [State Historical Museum, Moscow]. Sin. Pev. №99, fol. 496—497.
4. Dopolneniya k actam istoricheskim, sobrannii i izdan-nii Arkheograficheskoy Komissiey. [Additions to historical acts collected and published by the Archaeographical commission]. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 1846.
5. Zabelin I. E. Tsarskiy vykhod v den' Bogoyavleniya [Tsar's procession on the day of the Epiphany]. Moskvitya-nin. Moscow, 1850, part 1, pp.19—25.
6. Zvereva S. G. Muzikalnye chernoviki khora gosu-darevykh pevchikh diakov nachala XVII v. [The tsar's choir singing chanters' musical drafts singing diaki beginning of the 17th century]. Pamyatniki kultury. Novye otkrytiya. Ezhe-godnik, 1991 [Monuments of culture. New discoveries. Year-
book, 1991]. Moscow, 1997, pp.102—106.
7. Kudryavtsev M. Istoriya pravoslavnogo monashestva v Severo-Vostochnoy Rossii [The history of Orthodox monas-ticism in the Northeastern Russia]. Moscow, 1881.
8. Parfentjev N.P. Drevnerusskoe pevcheskoe iskusstvo v dukhovnoy kulture Rossiyskogo gosudarstva XVI—XVII vv.: Shkoly. Tsentry. Mastera [Old Russian chant art in the spiritual culture of Russia in the 16th—17th centuries. Schools. Centers. Masters]. Sverdlovsk, 1991. — 252 p.
9. Parfentjev, N.P., Parfentjeva, N.V. "Irmosy pribyl'nye" moskovskogo raspevschika Fedora Krestyanina ["Heirmos profitable" of the famous Moscow master of chanting Feodor Krest'yanin] (1606). Vestnik Uzhno-Ural 'skogo gosudarstven-nogouniversiteta. Ser.:Sotsial'no-gumanitarnyenauki[Bulle-tin of the South Ural State University. Series: Social Sciences and the Humanities]. Chelyabinsk, 2011, v. 17, pp. 78—84.
10. Parfentjev N.P. Professionalnye muzikanty Rossi-yskogo gosudarstva XVI—XVII vv.: Gosudarevy pevchie diaki i patriarshie pevchie diaki i podiaki [Professional Russian musicians of the 16th—17th centuries. The Tsar's singing diaki and the patriarch's singing diaki and podiaki]. Chelyabinsk, 1991. 446 p.
11. Parfentjev N.P. Traditsii i pamyatniki drevnerusskoy muzikalno-pismennoy kultury na Urale [Traditions and monuments of Old Russian musical-written culture in the Urals]. Chelyabinsk, 1994. 445 p.
12. Parfentjev N.P. Usolskaya shkola v drevnerusskom pevcheskom iskusstve XVI—XVII vv. [Usolye (Stroganov) school in the Old Russian chanting art of the 16th—17th centuries]. Pamyatniki literatury i obschestvennoy mysli epokhi feodalizma [Monuments of literature and social thought in epoch of feudalism]. Novosibirsk, 1985, pp. 53—69.
13. Parfentjev N.P., Parfentjeva N.V. Khronika tvorcheskoy deyatelnosti Feodora Krestjanina v 1598— 1607 gg. [Chronicle of creative activity Feodor Krestjanin's creative activity in 1598—1607 years]. Kultura i iskusstvo v pamyatnikakh i issledovaniyakh: Sb. nauch. tr. [Culture and art in monuments and research: Collection of proceedings]. Chelyabinsk, 2006. Vip.4, pp.100—129.
14. Parfentieva, N.V. Pevcheskiy tsykl "Tropari Iordan-skie" v raspeve moskovskogo mastera XVI veka Feodora Krestjanina [Chanting cycle "Troparions Jordan" in singsong of Moscow master of the 16th century Feodor Krestjanin]. Traditsii i novatsii v otechestvennoy dukhovnoy kulture: Sbornik materialov nauch. konf. [Traditions and innovations in the Russian spiritual culture: Proceedings of the Scientific Conference]. Chelyabinsk, 2007, pp.8—17.
15. Parfentjeva N. V. Pevcheskiy tsykl "Tropari Iordan-skie" v russkoy rukopisnoy traditsii XII—XVII vv. [Chanting cycle "Troparions Jordan" in Russian manuscript tradition of the 12th—17th centuries]. Kultura i iskusstvo vpamyatnikakh i issledovaniyakh: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov. [Culture and art in monuments and research: Collection of proceedings]. Chelyabinsk, 2007, issue 5, pp. 84—95.
16. Parfentieva N.V. Tvorchestvo masterov drevnerussko-go pevcheskogo iskusstva [The creative works of the Old Russian chanting art]. Chelyabinsk. 1997, 338 p.
17. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 135. Dep. 4. Par. 2. № 12.
18. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 135. Dep. 4. Par. 2. № 13.
19. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 188. № 1573.
20. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 188. № 1574.
21. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 188. № 1576.
22. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 188. № 1584.
23. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts,
Moscow]. F. 188. № 1585.
24. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 188. № 1591.
25. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 381. № 152.
26. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 113. № 240 (third quarter of the XVI century), fol. 449.
27. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 113. № 245.
28. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 304. № 409 (XV century), fol. 214—215v.
29. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 304. № 428.
30. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 304. № 441.
31. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 304. №2 445, fol. 299v—301v.
32. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 304. №2 449, fol. 305v—308v.
33. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 354. № 140.
34. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Kir.-Bel. № 581/838 (beginning of the XVI century), fol. 356— 357.
35. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Kir.-Bel. № 586/843 (1590-s years).
36. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Kir.-Bel. № 652/909 (1558 year), fol. 74v—75.
37. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Kir.-Bel. №675/932.
38. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Sof. №480, fol. 230—231.
39. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Titov. №3636 (first quarter of the XVI century), fol. 211—212v.
40. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Pogod. №380 (the fourth quarter of the XVI century), fol. 356v—357.
41. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Q.1.1101.
42. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Q.1.15.
43. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Q.1.418.
44. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 188. № 1579.
45. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 188. № 1586.
46. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 188. № 1573a.
47. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 396. № 3721.
48. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 113. №2 255. (middle XVI century).
49. Terentjeva P.V. Rekonstruktsiya chinoposledovaniya Peschnogo deystva [Reconstruction of the Fiery Furnace rite]. Drevnerusskoe pesnopenie. Puti vo vremeni: Po mate-rialam yauch. konf. "Brazhnikovskie chteniya" 2008—2009 godov [Ancient Russian chants. Way in time. Proceedings of the conference on "Brazhnikovskie reading" 2008—2009 years]. St. Petersburg, 2011.
50. Feodor Krestjanin. Stikhiry [Sticherons]. Publ. by M.V. Brazhnikov. Pamyatniki russkogo muzykalnogo iskusstva [The monuments of the Russian musical art]. Moscow, 1974, v.3.
51. Khristofor. Kluch znamennoi [Key to znamenny chant], 1604. Publ. by M. Brazhnikov. Pamyatniki russkogo muzykal'nogo iskusstva [The monuments of Russian musical art]. Issue 9. Moscow. 1983. 293 p.
52. Parfentjev N.P. AboutActivity ofFeodor Krestjanin— the Master of Musical-Written Art of 16th — the Beginning 17th Centuries. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences. 2009, v. 2 (3), pp. 403—414.
Received Desember 5, 2014
Bulletin of the South Ural State University Series «Social Sciences and the Humanities» 2015, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 60—70
УДК 783(470.5) + 94(470.5) ББК Ч611.3 + Т3(2Р36)-7 + Щ313(2)
о творческой деятельности федора крестьянина
В 1598—1607 гг.
Н. П. Парфентьев, Н. В. Парфентьева
Сведения о том, как протекала деятельность Федора Крестьянина при хоре государевых певчих дьяков даёт уникальный комплекс источников — сохранившиеся записи песнопений и их фрагментов, выполненные одним из этих певцов. Записи Безымянного Дьяка часто сопровождаются пространными ремарками, которые относятся к 1598—1607 гг., охватывая последнее десятилетие жизни выдающегося мастера. Изучение их в контексте древнерусской певческо-рукописной традиции помогает раскрыть суть творческих подходов Крестьянина при создании собственных произведений, позволяет показать использовавшиеся им приемы в обучении певческому делу, дает возможность воссоздать своеобразную хронику его профессиональной деятельности в указанный период.
Ключевые слова: древнерусское певческое искусство, авторские произведения, Фёдор Крестьянин, творческая деятельность, государевы певчие дьяки.
ПАрФЕнтьЕВ николай Павлович, заведующий кафедрой искусствоведения и культурологии, Южно-Уральский государственный университет (г. Челябинск, Россия), доктор исторических наук, доктор искусствоведения, профессор, заслуженный деятель науки Российской Федерации. Автор более 100 научных трудов, в том числе 6 монографий, в области истории духовной культуры России и древнерусского искусства. E-mail: [email protected]
ПАрФЕнтьЕВА наталья Владимировна, декан исторического факультета, Южно-Уральский государственный университет (г. Челябинск, Россия), доктор искусствоведения, профессор, заслуженный деятель искусств Российской Федерации. Автор более 80 трудов, в том числе 3 монографий, в области истории и теории древнерусского искусства. E-mail: [email protected]
литература и источники
1. БРАН. 32.16.18. Л. 94—95.
2. ГИМ. Син. пев. № 59. Л. 48—50 об.
3. ГИМ. Син. пев. № 99. Л. 496—497.
4. Дополнения к Актам историческим, собранные и изданные Археографической комиссией. — Т. 1. — СПб., 1846.
5. Забелин, И. Е. Царский выход в день Богоявления / И. Е. Забелин // Москвитянин. — Ч. 1. — 1850. — С. 19—25.
6. Зверева, С. Г. Музыкальные черновики хора государевых певчих дьяков начала XVII в. / С. Г. Зверева //Памятники культуры. Новые открытия : ежегодник за 1991 г. — М., 1997. — С. 102—106.
7. Кудрявцев, М. История православного монашества в Северо-восточной России /М. Кудрявцев. — М., 1881.
8. Парфентьев, Н. П. Древнерусское певческое искусство в духовной культуре Российского государства XVI—XVII вв.: Школы. Центры. Мастера/Н. П. Парфентьев. — Свердловск, 1991. — 252 c.
9. Парфентьев, Н. П. «Ирмосы прибыльные» знаменитого московского распевщика Федора Крестьянина (1606 г.) / Н. П. Парфентьев, Н. В. Парфентьева // Вестник Южно-Уральского государственного университета. Сер.: Социально-гуманитарные науки. — Челябинск : ЮУрГУ, 2011. — Вып. 17. — С. 78—84.
10. Парфентьев, Н. П. Профессиональные музыканты Российского государстваXVI—XVII вв.: Государевы певчие дьяки и патриаршие певчие дьяки и подьяки /Н. П. Парфентьев. — Челябинск, 1991. — 446 c.
11. Парфентьев, Н. П. Традиции и памятники древнерусской музыкально-письменной культуры на Урале / Н. П. Парфентьев. — Челябинск, 1994. — 445 c.
12. Парфентьев, Н. П. Усольская школа в древнерусском певческом искусстве XVI—XVII вв. и произведения ее мастеров в памятниках письменности /Н. П. Парфентьев //Памятники литературы и общественной мысли эпохи феодализма. —Новосибирск, 1985. — С. 53—69.
13. Парфентьев, Н. П. Хроника творческой деятельности Федора Крестьянина в1598—1607 гг. / Н. П. Парфентьев, Н. В. Парфентьева //Культура и искусство в памятниках и исследованиях : сб. науч. тр. — Челябинск: ЮУрГУ, 2006. — Вып. 4 — С. 100—129.
14. Парфентьева, Н. В. Певческий цикл «Тропари Иорданские» в распеве московского мастера XVI в. Федора Крестьянина / Н. В. Парфентьева // Традиции и новации в отечественной духовной культуре : сб. материалов науч. конф. — Челябинск : ЮУрГУ, 2007. — С. 8—17.
15. Парфентьева, Н. В. Певческий цикл «Тропари Иорданские» в русской рукописной традиции XII—XVH вв. / Н. В. Парфентьева //Культура и искусство в памятниках и исследованиях : сб. науч. тр. — Челябинск : Изд-во ЮУрГУ, 2007. — Вып. 5. — С. 84—95.
16. Парфентьева, Н. В. Творчество мастеров древнерусского певческого искусстваXVI—XVII вв. (На примере произведений выдающихсяраспевщиков) /Н. В. Парфентьева. — Челябинск, 1997. — 338 с.
17. РГАДА. Ф. 135. Отд. 4. Р. 2. № 12.
18. РГАДА. Ф. 135. Отд. 4. Р. 2. № 13.
19. РГАДА. Ф.188. № 1573.
20. РГАДА. Ф.188. № 1574.
21. РГАДА. Ф.188. № 1576.
22. РГАДА. Ф.188. № 1584.
23. РГАДА. Ф.188. № 1585.
24. РГАДА. Ф.188. № 1591.
25. РГАДА. Ф. 381. № 152.
26. РГБ. Ф. 113. № 240 (3-я четв. XVI в.). Л. 449.
27. РГБ. Ф. 113. № 245.
28. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 409 (XVв.). Л. 214—215 об.
29. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 428.
30. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 441.
31. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 445. Л. 299 об. — 301 об.
32. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 449. Л. 305 об. — 308 об.
33. РГБ. Ф. 354. № 140.
34. РНБ. Кир.-Бел. 581/838 (началоXVI в.). Л. 356—357.
35. РНБ. Кир.-Бел. 586/843 (1590-е гг.).
36. РНБ. Кир.-Бел. 652/909 (1558 г.). Л. 74 об.—75.
37. РНБ. Кир.-Бел. 675/932.
38. РНБ. Соф. № 480. Л. 230—231.
39. РНБ. Титов. № 3636 (1-я четв. XVI в.). Л. 211—212 об.
40. РНБ. Погод. № 380 (4-я четв. XVI в.). Л. 356 об.—357.
41. РНБ. Q. 1.1101.
42. РНБ. Q. 1.15.
43. РНБ. Q. 1.418.
44. РГАДА. Ф. 188. № 1579.
45. РГАДА. Ф. 188. № 1586.
46. РГАДА. Ф. 188. № 1573а.
47. РГАДА. Ф. 396. № 3721.
48. РГБ. Ф. 113. № 255 (сер. XVI в.).
49. Терентьева, П. В. Реконструкция чинопоследования Пещного действа /П. В. Терентьева //Древнерусское песнопение. Пути во времени: по материалам науч. конф. «Бражниковские чтения» 2008—2009 гг. — СПб., 2011.
50. Фёдор Крестьянин. Стихиры / публ. и иссл. М. В. Бражников //Памятники русского музыкального искусства. — Т. 3. — М, 1974.
52. Христофор. Ключ знаменной, 1604. /публ. и перев. М. Бражникова, Г. Никишова ; коммент. и исслед. Г. Никишо-ва //Памятники русского музыкального искусства. — Вып. 9. — М., 1983. — 293 с.
52. Parfentjev, N. P. About Activity of Feodor Krestjanin — the Master of Musical-Written Art of XVI — the Beginning XVII Centuries / N. P. Parfentjev // Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences. 2009. — V. 2 (3). — P. 403—414.
Поступила в редакцию 05 декабря 2014 г.
