CC BY
52
basic principles of author's creativity IN the works feodor ^est^n^ (D. of. 1607)1
N. P. Parfentiev, South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation, [email protected]
N. V. Parfentieva, South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation [email protected]
The study of peculiarities of creativity in terms of the medieval canon of art is one of the most complex scientific problems. The general principles of creativity were formed over the centuries. The authors of article have examined their effect on the example of the outstanding Moscow raspevschik (chant master) Feodor Krestjanin' works. These universal artistic principles are the melody variability inside the formula, the formula-transformation and formula- renovation variabilities, creativity on the base of the archetype, creation chants "similar to" the reference of pattern and others. The scientists have shown originality of refraction of some of these principles in the author's works of master. The researchers used a proprietary developed by them method of structurally formulae analysis of ancient chants. This method requires that you must take into account the author's melodic content of neumatic signs and formulas of the author chants.
Keywords: musical-written chanting art, ancient Russian art of singing, works of authorship, the universal general principles of the author's creative, structurally formulae analysis method, Feodor Krestjanin.
Historical conditions in Russia of 16th century have prepared growth in a society of interest to creativity of musical — written chanting art's masters of various regions. Ancient historical writings and documents show, that the special aura of reverence surrounded the name of Moscow master Feodor Krestjanin. Studying of this composer's (raspevshik) and teacher's (didaskal) life and activity history shows, that he was one of the most outstanding representatives of professional — musical art of Russia 16th — the beginnings 17th centuries. The high natural gift, the received knowledge at the best teachers, acquaintance to outstanding masters of that epoch and their products have allowed him to develop own creativity and to deserve a recognition at contemporaries. Not casually, Russian tsars, since Ivan the Terrible, trusted training and education of the chanting choristers (diaks) to him [more details: 60].
The master's works were drawing the attention of his contemporaries, which can be proved by their spread in the late 16th — early 17th centuries. There was no old-Russian chant book that did not contain Krestjanin's variants of interpretations. The master's attention was attracted to the collection of sticherons, in particular, doxastikons from the liturgical cycles for great holidays: the Nativity of the Virgin Mary "Reverend your Nativity" (Всечестное твое Рождество), Presentation of the (Holy) Virgin in the Temple "David Proclaim" (Давыдо провозгласи), the Nativity of Christ "In nativity scene settled" (Во вертепо воселился), the Theophany "The Jordanian troparions" (Тропари ердынскыя) [7, fol. 202v—203v; 24, fol. 1—2; 40, fol. 354v—355; 51, fol. 347]. For performing hymns in honour of Princes Sts. Boris and Gleb Krestjanin also created his interpretation "Come received the baptism Russian gathering" (Приидите новокрещении рустии собори) [35, fol. 339—339v]. He also made interpretations for the Lent sticheron, for the Hymn to the Theotokos and kontakion for Easter [25, fol. 1; 40, fol. 206v; 52, fol. 117;].
1 Work is executed at financial supported The Russian Humanitarian Scientific Fund, project no 13-04-00077.
Feodor Krestjanin also resorted to the choristers' book of church singing "Obikhod" which contained the most popular (common) chants in divine service. In the part "Liturgies" one can find the master's interpretations for the chants "Be silent, all mortal flesh" (Да молчит всяка плоть человеча), performed instead of the Cherubic Hymn, and "Arise, O God" (Воскресни Боже), instead of the Hallelujah [5, fol. 23—24v; 6, fol. 43]. For the special part of the service — the Polieley — Feodor Krestjanin created the chant to the prokeimenon "Praise the Name of the Lord" (Хвалите имя Господeне) [45, fol. 100]. The remarks to the verse "Blessed are the un-defiled" (Блажени непорочнии) and "Praise the Name of the Lord. Hallelujah" (Хвалите имя Господене. Аллилуия), put down by one of the singing diaki, can also be connected with the master's chants1.
The cycle "The Evangelica Sticherons" consisting of 11 works in the Great Chant is considered to be the peak of Feodor Krestjanin's activities [8, fol. 236—261; 18, р. 125—132; 58]. As a rule this cycle was placed as a special part of the chant book the Octoechos. The master made the new version of the first mode chant for the Octoechos " For the sake of meal sold" (Снеди ради) [23, fol. 116].
One more chant cycle in Krestjanin's interpretation is available at present — "Irmosy pribylnye" (Additional Hirmuses). This cycle includes the chants from the Hirmologion (mode 5, songs 4, 5, 7—9): "Foreseeing by spirit Avvakum" (Провидя духоме Аввакумо), "Fiery mind" (Огненныи ум), "Youths have been saved by Angels" (Аггеломо отроки сохрани), "Tsar's children prayer" (Царских детей молитва), "Thee more than the mind's natural Virgin" (Тя паче ума естественную Деву) [26, fol. 1, 2].
As it was mentioned above, the history of chant discovery in Krestjanin's interpretation has always been
1 In the records it is accordingly indicated: "It was sung by Khristianin, and I recorded by musical signs" [24, fol. 4v]; "1605, March, 15... it (chant) called Khrestiyaninov's was taken from Joseph and he have copied it in Ofonia Vo-rogov" [27, fol. 1].
of great interest to researches. However, only a few among the above-mentioned works of Feodor Krestj anin were investigated. Still the received data speak for the master's artistic principles.
The first is the principle of variability inside the formula, which is universal and characteristic of all old-Russian chant interpretation. The mechanism of this principle has already been revealed by the example of separated chant fragments, which were used during the reconstruction of the master's ABC chant books, so-named "azbuka's" [more details: 62]. At this time we are greatly interested in its most complete realization — its implementation on every structural level of the artistic work.
The brightest example here is the interpretations of the chant "Be silent, all mortal flesh" (Da molchit vsyaka plot' chelovecha) which have been mentioned in reference to the reconstruction of the master's Demesvenny ABC [62, p. 1429—1430; 13]. This chant was performed on the Saturday of Holy Week during the liturgy in memory of St. Basil the Great instead of the Cherubic Hymn — at the critical point of placing the Sacrament on the altar. The earliest of the existing records refers to the 1480-s [39, fol. 1]1.
It will be recalled that earlier the chant "Da molchit" had several variants of melody. In spite of the differences in the musical and graphical aspect, the complicated way of chant was common for them. Undoubtedly, chant masters at that time also wanted to make their melodies sound solemn and out of the ordinary. Hence they refused the traditional formulae of the Znamenny chant and avoided any mode indication [12, p. 124].
Later during the 16th century there existed the singing variant of the chant which had an established notation (name it typovoy). Though there are no identical texts of the typovoy variant of this chant, their difference do not considerably change the formula inscriptions and concern differences and changeability of signs as well as the increase or decrease of the amount of signs in one and the same neumatic formula code inscription. This phenomenon is typical of such inscriptions as far as their signs are sung not separately, but altogether, in definite combinations cipher the formula chant. That is why there is a possibility of some insignificant replacements, changes, additions or reductions of signs in the neumatic inscription, which suggested the melody interpretation but did not reflect it itself. Initially the formula chants passed from the master to his pupils orally. The interpretation was made by memory, but the formula inscription hinted at its melodic content.
In the process of evolution during the 16th century the typovoy chant "Da molchit" was accumulating slight inscription differences; they did not change its musical and graphical character which was preserved till the last quarter of the century. In numerous manuscripts of that time the final word of the first part "vernym" [truly] is preceded by the cinnabar "3" which refers to the Demesvenny style. The chant is recorded in the Stolpovoy notation but there can be found the signs not relating to this neumatic notation. There are no "fita" inscriptions here as well. On the structural level we deal
1 In the chanting manuscript of the mid-15th century hymn "Da molchit" there are no musical signs [53, fol. 214v].
here with the composition which consists of numerous musical formulae united by the same cadence. Almost every word is given in this way. One syllable here is expressed by nearly five neumes. Apparently, this is an ornamental type of melody, melisma. All in all, the typovoy chant consists of 34 formulae, two formulae more than in the oldest type. The thing is that in earlier versions the final "Hallelujah" inscription was given only one time. The typovoy variant adds two more variants of "Hallelujah". This tradition of three-version Hallelujah became a must for the whole future tradition of its inscription [13, p. 217—220].
The increase of interpretation variants for the chant "Da molchit" by the end of the 16th century was marked by its appearance in Feodor Krestjanin's chants. Besides this variant at the turn of the 16th — 17th centuries there appeared a significant number of other interpretations. The research provided proof that all of them came from the typovoy chant as its graphical modification. It can also be assumed that the complex neumatic notation of the 16th century typovoy chant gave rise to numerous versions which resulted in various, regional at times, formula interpretations. These differences were accumulating spontaneously, at the turn of the centuries when regional cultures were integrating into the all-Russian culture they came into the open and their theoretical study began. Deliberate fixation of the chant variants with a great amount of regional and author's peculiarities signifies the new level of data generalization [12, p. 124—125].
Thus, the chant attracted raspevshiks (chant masters) from various singing centres, including such outstanding figures as Feodor Krestjanin. Interestingly enough, the Ussol'e school (Stroganov's) master Ivan (Isaiya) Lukoshkov started to interpret the chant in spite of the fact that it already had the "Usol'e neume" (version). Simultaneously there existed the interpretations made by the Troitsky deacon Iona Zuy and anonymous choir brothers of the Troitse-Sergiev Monastery. The manuscripts of the early 17th century often contain other anonymous interpretations done in the accordance with the Putevoy and Demesvenny notations. The found selection of interpretations makes it possible to study Feodor Krestjanin's and other masters' creative work in the context of their school traditions. In which way did the masters follow their traditions, how did they contribute to them? How similar are the artistic principles of the same school masters? At the same time we have the material for the study of outstanding masters and their artistic principles — Feodor Krestjanin, in particular.
The chant "Da molchit" consists of two parts. In the church singing practice the second part started after taking the Sacrament to the altar. The first part of the chant is a tragic perception of Christ's feat—Christ's sacrifice for the sake of the humanity; everybody listens to it with fear and awe. The next part presents the enlightened praise of the feat, when the angels glorify the Lord and sing "Hallelujah". This change of emotional state is masterfully expressed in all the masters' interpretations [more details: 12, p. 125—128].
To reveal the peculiarities of Feodor Krestjanin's variant one should compare it with other variants of the above-mentioned masters. The analysis showed that all these variants contain the same formula structure and
Linear organization and form of the chant
№ Line form
1 Da molchit vsyaka plot' chelovecha (Да молчит всяка плоть человеча) Part 1
2 I da stoit strakhom i trepetom (И да стоит страхом и трепетом)
3 I nichto zhe zemnago v sebe da pomyshlyaet (И ничто же земнаго в себе да помышляет)
4 Tsare bo tsarstvuyuschim I Gospod' gospodstvuyuschim (Царе бо царствующим и Господь
господствующим)
5 Khristos Bog nash proiskhodit zaklatisya (Христос Бог наш происходит заклатися)
б I datisya v sned' Э vernym (И датися в снедь Э верным).
Spusk (Stat'ya) (Спуск (Статья)). Part 2
7 Predydut zhe semu litsa angelestii (Предыдут же сему лица ангелестии)
8 So vsemi nachaly i vlast'mi (Со всеми началы и властьми)
9 Mnogochitaya kheruvim (Многочитая херувим)
1O I shestokrylnaya seraphim (И шестокрылная серафим)
11 Litsa zakryvauschee (Лица закрывающее)
12 I vopiusche pesn' (И вопиюще песнь).
13 Alliluya, Alliluya, Alliluya (Аллилуйя, Аллилуйя, Аллилуйя).
similar formula interpretations, which correlate on the level of melodic variability inside the formula. Classifying the differences one can state that slight rhythmical and intonation changes in the formulae add a peculiar melody pattern and preserve the main musical contour. Such formulae transform the melody, forming stylistic peculiarities of this or that author's interpretation. The decisive factor here is connected with the quantitative differences: for the chant within the tradition their amount is 46—66, for the works of various traditions — 153—194. For example, for Krestjanin's and Ussol'e variants there were found 153 differences: from rhythmical and pitch differences up to the differences in the character of the melodic movement [14, p. 66; 18, p. 27—28].
The author's interpretations present the new fixation of the established variant of the typovoy chant "Da molchit". The similarities mostly concern their structure both on the level of formula boundaries and on a larger level — in certain lines and parts. In the framework of the medieval canonical culture the masters appreciated and preserved the old traditions, that is why the typovoy variant of the 16th century could not be "cancelled" and replaced by a different one, even if it belonged to the great master's creative works. Feodor Krestjanin was creating his interpretation basing upon the experience of previous generations. The creative editing was based on the tradition going back to the 15th century. The master did an impressive work disclosing the significance of the old neume formulae and transforming some of them.
However, one should find out which style the master's work belongs to. As it was mentioned above, one peculiarity of the 16th century chant inscription was the cinnabar Э which was put before the final word "vernym" (truly) and was a sign of the Putevoy and Demesvenny styles. In the manuscript there are variants of this chant with the mark "Put" which are given in the Putevoy notation. They allow analyzing whether Krestjanin's variant belongs to the Putevoy style. To achieve it one should interpret the putevoy variant in Stolpovoy notation. The interpretation obtained proved that the variants have considerable stylistic differences: the putevoy one is more prolonged and slowed; Krestjanin's variant is more rhythmical and dynamic. Taking into account that the master's work does not
distinguish modes, that it is not excessively melismatic (which is opposite to the Putevoy chant) and some other points, one can refer it to the Demesvenny style [13, p. 223—224].
Thus, in the framework of the fixed structure, not changing cardinally the contours of melody formulae Feodor Krestjanin as well as the other masters recorded in the chant "Da molchit" the lively breath of his own singing practice. In the professional singing sphere of Russia starting from the late 16th century there appeared a particularly keen interest to the similar practice of great masters and this interest was not accidental. The slightest nuances in the interpretations of these or those neumes, formulae and lines were studied carefully and fixed. In the condition of canonical art this plenitude of microstructures was a great stimulus of creative impulse. We can see that the canon (hymnographic text, formulae structure, melody contour) still allowed the possibility of creativity. The conflict of the novelties and long-established traditions laid the foundation of the great reserves of creativity — the heart of the future artistic development of the canonic art. First of all they concern the expression of the melody variability inside the formula, which became the universal artistic principle.
The next principle which was widespread in the creative works of the old-Russian masters was the usage of the archetype in the process of chant or interpretation creating. Its brightest embodiment is connected with the doxastikons from the chant cycles for the Twelve Festivals-Days of the Church. Feodor Krestjanin also resorted to them. Let us consider the following works, which have often attracted the researchers, as an example.
From the chant cycle "Presentation of the (Holy) Virgin in the Temple" (November, 21) the master chose the chant which discloses in the beginning of the ceremony in a highly poetic and elevated way the main essence of the event. It is a doxastikon "Davydo provozglasy" (Davyd Proclaim). The chant variants made by Feodor Krestjanin and famous Ussol'e masters were included in one of the mid of 17th century manuscripts [7, fol. 201v —203v].
The musical and textological study of the both variants was conducted by S. V Frolov on the basis of the
suggested method of "formal statistic analysis" [59]. However, as it was noted, the utmost difficulty for the research of old chant texts was connected with the fact that one and the same singing meaning of the formula can be interpreted with the help of different graphical means (encrypted inscriptions ore their interpretations— explanations by simple neumes), whereas one and the same graphical formulae may be interpreted differently by the masters of different schools (melody variability inside the formula). S. V. Frolov's method does not take it into account therefore the great amount of the results can be invalid. In our opinion, the great masters' interpretations should be analyzed with the reference to the peculiarities of their records.
The research in the field of old-Russian chant books proves that the notation variant of the doxastikon "Davydo provozglasy" existed in the 12th century Russia. Till the mid of the 15th century it was performed among the sticheron cycle "na stykhovne" and preserved its original musical and graphical variant, which refers to the Znamenny chant [for example: 4, fol. 164; 30, fol. 68—68v; 44, fol. 12—12v]. The hymnographic text of the doxastikon is of the old style. Almost each syllable has a separate sign, only occasionally one syllable takes a neume complex with complicated melismatic interpretations. All in all in this chant there are 22 formulae (including 1 fita).
In the 15th century manuscripts besides the above-mentioned variant there are at least four other variants, which differ from the old one and from one another [20, fol. 69v; 47, fol. 49v—50; 50, fol. 47—47v; 54, fol. 60—60v; ]. The creative interest in reference to the doxastikon "Davydo provozglasy" can be explained in the following way. With the change of the Studite Rule by the Jerusalem Rule this chant doxastikon was performed on the Presentation of the (Holy) Virgin in the Temple not "na stichovne" as before but in a sticheron cycle "na Gospodi vozzvah" during the small vespers. At the same time the doxastikon was included in the lity. Later there appeared the tradition to perform "Davydo provozglasy" in the "maly" (small) chant during the small vespers and in the great chant (Great Znamenny, Putevoy, Demesvenny) during the lity [more details: 12, p. 146].
From the four musical variants of the doxastikon which appeared in the 15th century in the form of the Znamenny chant but of a more complicated melody pattern in comparison with the chant of the older tradition, the variant of the late 15th century is the dominant one [47, fol. 49v—50]. It is this variant which defined the formula location characteristic of the later versions. The further development of the chant is accompanied with one more change in the history of musical graphics at the turn of the 15th — 16th centuries [36, fol. 216; 41, fol. 208—208v]. Finally, at this time there appears the structure which serves the basis for Krestjanin's and Ussol'e variants. This chant also absorbed the peculiarities of the previous period which speaks for its continuity in the development of the musical text of the doxastikon. The foundation of the melodic variant consists of the Znamenny chant formula structures and complicated formula structures coming from the old times.
The links of the old chant variant of the 12th — 15th centuries with the later individual works are so indirect
that it cannot be unconditionally considered the base for these works.
Another thing is the version of the 15th — 16th centuries whose status in the doxastikon is dubious: on the one hand, it goes back to the oldest variant (archetype); on the other—it serves a prototype for the development of regional versions — derivatives, which resulted in the author's variants [12, p. 148].
In fact, on the base of the prototype in the last quarter of the 16th century there appeared new musical texts in the Moscow and Ussol'e traditions. They appeared at the final stage of school development in singing art. Feodor Krestjanin's version can be referred to the turn of the 16th — 17th centuries. The copy of this work is the earliest [48, fol. 21—22]. As we can see, Krestjanin's version of the doxastikon got recognition among the professional singers in the master's lifetime. The lifetime copies of outstanding masters are of great value due to the fact that they are likely to reflect the author's peculiarities of the intonation content as well as the artistic principles of the chanters.
Ghant "Davydo provozglasy". Singsong — "[B]olshoi s Krestiyaninova" [7, fol. 201v]
The author's versions of the doxastikon "Davydo provozglasy" took hold in the manuscripts in the early 17th century. In the written version they could preserve the encrypted formula inscriptions, but also could have a different graphical look thanks to the interpretations— explanations by simple signs of the musical melodic content of these formulae. The copies of exceptional value are those in which the formulae are given both in encrypted formula inscriptions and interpretations—
explanations. This allows identifying the formulae of the derivative and the author's version. There exist combined versions of Krestjanin's and Ussol'e chants. A great amount of both versions copies was widely used throughout the whole 17th century. Krestjanin's version was usually marked as "Bolshoy" (great), "Bolshym znamenem" (great neumes) or "In perevod bolshei"(chant great). Alongside these versions there appeared new anonymous ones, sometimes exceeding Krestjanin's variant in length, as well as syllabic ones of the small Znamenny style [12, p. 149].
Having so many different musical variants of the doxastikon "Davydo provozglasy" at hand, let us compare Feodor Krestjanin's variant with the Ussol'e chant — the variant which it was compared with in the old chant books. To do it one should first define how much these variants depend on the derivative and prototype and then contrast them. Only in this case one can judge the depth of the transformation by masters.
The research showed that the single root — the prototype — gave rise to derivative versions of the Moscow and Ussol'e traditions which bear resemblance to it. However, the derivatives are the purely new works with their individual peculiarities. The Moscow derivative is characterized by the considerable artistic freedom and falling outside the limits in terms of length and melodic originality. The Ussol'e derivative is characterized by rigidity and tendency to traditionalism. The prototype alterations are not so prominent here as in the Moscow variant.
As it was mentioned above, the derivatives and the author's variants differ in the form of inscription. The derivatives, similar to the prototype, have all the formulae in the form of encrypted formula inscriptions, whereas in the author's variants the part of the formulae are interpreted. The musical melodic content of these formulae are explained by simple neume signs (the rest interpretations can be restored thanks to their presence in some copies). The main difference of the author's variants consists in the transformation and at times formula substitution. Comparing the derivative of the Moscow tradition with Feodor Krestjanin's chant we found out that the number of identical formulae is 23, partially transformed are 6, fully renovated — 2. The
total number of formulae coincides — 31. Krestjanin's variant is a new chant in the canonic singing art. The Moscow chanter's art is reflected on the level of the transformation and renovation variability. Similar to Krestjanin's variant, the Ussol'e chant of the doxastikon is a purely new work created from the derivative. On the one hand it consolidates the development of the musical-graphical text in the frame of regional tradition, preserving 21 out of 31 formulae, on the other hand — it transforms the melody and brings in originality [12, p. 149—151].
Thus, Krestjanin's and Ussol'e variants of the doxastikon "Davydo provozglasy" present the results of the step-by-step purposeful work done by several generations of Russian masters. One can define the degree of similarity and difference between these works with the help of the 17th century copies and their deciphering which discloses the melodic content of the formulae. All the formulae can be analyzed on the rhythmic and intonation level. It turns out that similar features prevail over the differences; in Krestjanin's and Ussol'e variants of the doxastikon "Davydo provozglasy" only 10 formulae are completely different.
It should be noted that this technique of formula analysis [61] allowed us to define the character of the genetic connection of the prototype, derivatives and the author's variants, gave us the knowledge about their similarities and differences and showed the dynamics of the creative process expressed by means of formula-transformation and formula-renovation variability. However, we did not receive the answer to the question concerning the originality of similar artistic principles in different author's variants. To study this issue one should refer to the figurative-semantic content of the doxastikon and find out how the artistic tasks were solved in the master's creative works.
The text of the chant opens with the phrase about David who announced the Virgin Mary's appearance in the Temple and foresaw her consecration. This initial part was created under the influence of the Old Testament prophecies, psalm 71 in particular, which was composed by David himself. Then here comes the second, central part of the doxastikon which falls into two subparts:
Linear organization and form of the chant
№ Line form
1 Davyd provozglasi Tya chistaya (Давыд провозгласи Тя чистая)
2 Prezhe vidya osveschenie (Преже видя освящение) Part 1
3 Vkhoda Tvoego vo tserkve (Входа Твоего во церкве)
4 Vo ney zhe kontsi denese veselyatisya (Во неи же концы денесе веселятися)
5 Slavoslovete Tya Vladychitse (Славословете Тя Владычице ) Part 2 (s. 1)
б Prezhe rozhdestva Deva (Преже рожества дева)
7 I po rozhestve prebyste chista (И по рожестве пребысте чиста)
8 Mati slova zhivota (Мати слова живота)
9 Mati slova Tvoretsa (Мати слова Твореца)
1O Denese Zakhariya vo tserkove veselitesya (Денесе Захария во церкове веселитеся)
11 Vospriimoshi Tya Vladychitse (Восприимоши Тя Владычице) (s. 2)
12 I svyataya svyatykho raduetesya (И святая святыхо радуетеся)
13 Vospriimoshi Tya istochnika zhivota nachego (Восприимоши тя источника живота нашего)
14 Teme i my pesnemi vozopiemo (Теме и мы песнеми возопиемо) Part 3
15 Za ny moli Sina i Boga nashego (За ны моли Сына и Бога нашего)
16 Darovati namo veliu milost' (Даровати намо велию милость).
the first tells about the joy of the church glorifying Our Lady; the second presents a new figure — a priest of Jerusalem temple Zakhary who brought Mary to the temple. The chant finishes with the third part — the address to the Virgin Mary. Thus, the chant consists of the introduction (part 1), the body (central part, part 2) and the conclusion (part 3).
While analyzing the peculiarities of musical realization in the Krestjanin's and Ussol'e variants of the hymnographic text of the doxastikon we come across different approaches. The differences reveal themselves mainly in the opening part (4 out of 6 formulae are correlated on the level of formula-renovation variability). Feodor Krestj anin has a passionate about the process of «plaiting» flexible melody lines, performed the subtlest rhythm and intonation vibrations. Usually his line more extended and refined than Usolsky chant. The Ussol'e melismatic singing is applied in exceptional cases (at the beginning of the parts, at the highest emotional peaks). In each of the variants the masters marked in their own way new features of the hymnographic text on the level of content. These sectors take the greatest number of differences. At the same time both variants have similar roots going back to the prototype. The continuity of the development is realized in the form of the given linear structure, stability and transforming variability of the majority of formulae; innovation is realized in the form of renovating variability. The concentration of renovated sectors at the crucial semantic change of the text points at the masters' intention to add creativity to the level of form. Thus, the uniqueness of the variants becomes apparent in the key moments of the doxastikon form — in the initial parts of the big sectors. For Feodor Krestj anin melismatic singing is a means of achieving richness and diversity of the melodic movement. The Ussol'e masters used it as a shape-generating component. In the Ussol'e variant all rhythmic and verbal as well as formula and melodic structures form a well-balanced unity whereas in Krestjanin's variant the author's intention to hyperbolize the melody is very prominent.
Thus, the long-term historical development of the doxastikon "Davydo provozglasy" as a work of singing resulted in the appearance of variants which reflected the regional traditions existing at the end of the 16th century. However, the service at the court's temple and the first-class performers — the tsar's singing diaki — urged Feodor Krestjanin to create a more sophisticated and exquisite work of art on the base of the Moscow tradition.
One more example of Feodor Krestjanin's creativity on the base of the archetype is the 4th mode chant "Vo vertepo veselilsya" (In nativity scene settled). This doxastikon being included in the Christmas chants (December, 25) concludes the sequence of the sticherons "na stikhovne". The master again chooses the chant which vividly discloses the meaning of this Great Feast. This is the probable reason of its great popularity among other masters. In the second quarter of 17th century manuscript we come across a unique selection of its variants: the first one is a short variant named in other copies as "Men'shoi" (Small) and followed by "In perevod Ussol'skoi" (The Ussol'e variant) and "In perevod Khristiyaninov moskovskoi" (Feodor Krest-janin's Moscow variant) [40]. The last two variants
Ghant "Vo vertepo" . Singsong — "Khristiyaninov moskovskoy" [40, fol. 355]
are of great importance here as their analysis will let us demonstrate the artistic peculiarities of outstanding masters, including Feodor Krestjanin.
The oldest chant variant of the doxastikon "Vo vertepo voselilsya" can be found in the manuscript of the 15th — mid 16th centuries collection of sticherons [for example: 34, fol. 21; 37, fol. 84—84v; 43, fol. 221v]. In the second half of the 16th century there appeared its two different musical interpretations on the base of one variant. Both chants were widely spread in the collections of the Stroganov's book workshop as well as in the chant books which were written and used in various regions of Russia [for example: 2, fol. 310; 3, fol. 501; 31]. Outside the Moscow and Ussol'e schools both variants of interpretation became popular in the first half of the 17th century. In the chant books of this period these variants are anonymous. It indicates the fact that the chants were universally recognized and became part of the general Russian tradition of music. As a rule, the Ussol'e variant in all the collections was placed before the Moscow one.
Thus, the earliest chant version of the 15th — mid 16th centuries doxastikon which reflects its oldest melody can be considered the archetype which gave rise to the subsequent musical variants of this chant. The texts of the late 16th century contain the derivative chants done in the framework of the Ussol'e and Moscow tradition. The records of these chants consist mainly of encrypted neumatic inscriptions of formulae. The beginning of the 17th century was the time when Krestjanin's and Ussol'e interpretations appeared and became popular. The corresponding
derivatives lie in the basis of these variants. The main simple neumes) the encrypted neumatic inscriptions difference consists in interpreting (explanations by of formulae.
Linear organization of the variants
№ Krestjanin's (Moscow) № ussol'e interpretations (perevod)
1 Vo vertepo voselilsya esi (Во вертепо воселился еси) 1 Vo vertepo voselilsya esi (Во вертепо воселился еси)
2 Khriste Bozhe (Христе Боже) 2 Khriste Bozhe (Христе Боже)
3 I yasli Tya vospriyasha (И ясли Тя восприяша) 3 I yasli Tya (И ясли тя)
4 Pastyri ezhe (Пастыри еже) 4 Vospriyasha (Восприяша)
5 I volsvi (И волсви) 5 Pastyri ezhe i volsvi (Пастыри еже и волсви)
6 Poklonishasya (Поклонишася) 6 Poklonishasya (Поклонишася)
7 Togda (Тогда) 7 Togda ubo prorocheskaya (Тогда убо пророческая)
8 Ubo prorocheskaya (Убо пророческая)
9 Ispolnichasya (Исполнишася) 8 Ispolnichasya propovedi (Исполнишася проповеди)
10 Prorecheniya (Проречения)
11 I angeleskiea sily (И ангелеския силы) 9 I angeleskiea da (И ангелеския да)
12 Divlyakhusya (Дивляхуся) 10 Sily divlyakhusya (Силы дивляхуся
13 Vopiusche I glagolusche: Slava (Вопиюще и глаго-люще: Слава) 11 Vopiusche I glagolusche (Вопиюще и глаголюще)
14 Sokhozheniu Tvoemu edine (Сохожению Твоему едине) 12 Slava sokhozheniu Tvoemu edine (Слава схоже-нию Tвоему едине)
15 Chelovekolubeche (Человеколюбече). 13 Chelovekolubeche (Человеколюбече).
The analysis showed that differences between archetype and Moskow derivative prevail: in the Moscow variant there is a greater number of formulae; all fita inscriptions are changed; part of the fita formulae are reaplaced by others; finally, some words of the text or their pronunciation is changed. In the Moscow tradition variant melismatic singing prevails and acquires the Great Chant features1. The intonation and structure elements were also revised. The appearance of new formulae resulted in the change of the linear organization of the Moscow derivative, the number of lines increased up to 15 (in the Ussol'e tradition there are 13 lines). The comparison of the Ussol'e derivative with the archetype revealed its great dependence from the latter. At the same time the Ussol'e variant is characterized by a new musical and graphical layout of lines 8, 10—13. Slight differences in the inscription of signs and fitas can alo be occasionally met. The musical organization, that is the mode system, formula sequence and interconnection of the parts, is preserved [more details: 12, p. 159—160].
Thus, in the second half of the 16th century there appeared two traditions concerning the doxastikon "Vo vertepo voselilsya" — the more independent Moscow tradition and the more conventional Ussol'e tradition. In the manuscripts they are presented as derivatives from the oldest variant.
The copies of Krestjanin's and Ussol'e variants of the early 17th century reflect the new way of doxastikon writing where formula inscriptions are interpreted. It is worth mentioning that Feodor Krestjanin interpreted fita and other formulae in his own way. It is proved by some manuscripts which contain two variants of neume interpretation: above the interpretation variant in the majority of sources
1 Some manuscript copies of chant have the remarks: «Another version the Great « [29, fol. 344—344v], «Great» [49, fol. 379—379v].
there exists cinnabar editing whose text coincides with Krestjanin's variant as well [21, fol. 245—245v2; 29, fol. 344—344v].
To study the unique application of the artistic principles in each of the variants one should penetrate into their melodic structure. The deciphering of both variants was done with the help of a wide range of the late 17th century sources and allowed analyzing not only the formula but the rhythmic and intonation structure as well [12, p. 161—165]3.
In general Feodor Krestjanin's variant is richer and more exquisite in terms of melodic diversity. It is performed in the Great Chant style with the great range of sounding. This complicated chant was apparently created for the best and most professional choir of the tsar's singing diaki (choristers) where the master was serving at that time. The Ussol'e variant is characterized by noble lucidity, harmony, sense of proportion and subjection to the common idea. Smaller melodiousness, closeness to the archetype and therefore greater canonicity made the Ussol'e variant accessible to public at large.
Both variants demonstrate a bright melodic art of the old masters of singing; freedom of melodies can impress by a great variety of searchings on the base of the same formula. Feodor Krestjanin's mastery can be characterized by the device of composition variability, the Ussol'e mastery — by transforming and renovating variability. These are two independent works of the leading schools of singing art in the 16th — 17th centuries. Both variants reflect a high peak in the development of musical culture of their time. However, the Moscow variant is notable for a greater artistic freedom.
2 The last handwritten version is included in collection of manuscripts of the tsar's singing diaki. Obviously, Krestjanin's disciple made the correction.
3 Publication of the musical text deciphering you can see: 15, p. 94—98.
Cycle "The Evangelical Sticherons". Singsong "Perevod Krestjaninov" [8, fol. 236]
The large-scale singing cycle "The Evangelical Sticherons" consisting of 11 chants in the style of the Great Chant has a special place in Feodor Krestjanin's creative works. M. V. Brazhnikov was the first who started to study this work of art. Publishing this precious monument of the old-Russian art of church singing this scholar deciphered the sticherons and studied their musical and poetic content. M. V. Brazhnikov presumed that Krestjanin planned the compositional structure of the chants and created them himself [58, p. 153]. The close study of the cycle in the context of a wider range of sources proved that the problem of Krestjanin's authorship is rather controversial [18, p. 125—141].
Analyzing Feodor Krestjanin's "Sticherons" M. V. Brazhnikov, unfortunately, did not compare them with the help of textual method with the oldest sources since the 12th century and failed to reveal the degree of independence and originality in the interpretation of the chants. The scientist was well aware of the necessity and importance of such evolutional analysis of the cycle. He wrote that "the 16th century manuscripts are of great interest here as far as there one can find the unknown texts of "The Sticherons" made by Feodor Krestjanin and their interpretations belonging to the deacon from Tver" [58, p. 144]. Let us remind that the well-known "Introduction to where and since when the eight mode singing appeared in Russia" has a record that Krestjanin told his pupils about "the Evangelical Sticherons: once upon a time there lived a deacon in Tver who was wise
and devout, he interpreted "The Evangelical Sticherons" [57, p. 21—22].
Was Feodor Krestjanin really the author of the interpretation, that is, did he himself create formula constructions or his authorship is connected with something of a different kind? We studied the long-term evolution process with the help of the suggested above textual analysis of the formula structures. This method presupposes the close study of formula structures found in the texts of chants since the oldest ones [61].
It is a well-known fact that one of the earliest old-Russian manuscripts available — Blagovesh-ensky Kondak Collection (the turn of the 11th — 12th centuries) — contains the cycle of "The Evangelical Sticherons" [55, fol. 121v—125]. The musical text of the oldest source (the archetype) falls into sectors which can be classified according to some parameters as formula structures. The formula analysis of the 12th — 15th centuries sources gave the following results. Initially "The Evangelical Sticherons" in Russia were presented in a complicated syllabic — melismatic style. All the sources contain common archetypal formulae. As a result there was obtained a formula structure of the Sticherons — complicated chants rich in various formula inscriptions (so named "fita's", "litso's") and intra-syllabic chanting interpretations. The mastery of the composition revealing the sense of the hymno-graphic text is evidence of the mastery of old-Russian singers (raspevshiks) and their ability to convey the idea with the help of musical means [16—19 u gp.].
Throughout the 15th century each new kind of graphical means was connected with the previous period. At the same time the distance from the archetype became more prominent. The 1580-s marked the turning point in the evolutional development of the archetype when the "raspevshiks" added more melodiousness increase the length of the spatial expansion to it. The main difference of this period's texts consists in the appearance of a great number of new formulae which can be classified as "litsa". They transformed the style from the syllabic melismatic into melismatic (the Great Chant). At this stage these formulae become the main structural elements. The Stolpovoy notation variant of the Sticherons can be of great interest here together with the cinnabar "3" which points at some special styles: Putevoy, Demesvenny or, like here, the Great Znamenny [38, fol. 428v—433v]. It can be proved by the mode system and a great number of formulae "quilismas" which are absent in the Demesvenny style. The singing variants of the 80-s served the basis for the development of the universal, typal chant, which existed till the late 16th century. Interestingly enough, the variant with the cinnabar '3" is the closest to the Typal chant. One can assume that this initial variant was created by "the wise deacon from Tver" who was mentioned in "The Introduction".
Thus, throughout four centuries the musical graphics of "The Evangelical Sticherons" was getting more and more sophisticated in terms of inscriptions and formula number. This was the story of the typal variant in the Great Chant style rich in intra-syllabic chant. It is recorded by means of a chain of encrypted neumatic inscriptions of formulae. The texts of the typal chant are characterized by the some graphic stability. This variant
became the basis for the subsequent development of the sticherons. It was this variant that was employed by the Moscow chanter Feodor Krestjanin.
During the master's lifetime there appeared new records of the cycle which had much in common with the typal chant and were different at the same time. The earliest new variant of the sticherons was found in the Stroganov's collection (1584) [3, fol. 224v—237v]1. The main peculiarity of that text is the following: first the interpretations of encrypted neumatic inscriptions formulae are given in the plain Stolpovoy notation, which cardinally changed the graphical form of the sticherons. At the same time the original formula composition of the chants was on the whole preserved2.
Thus, the beginning of the 1580-s is the turning point in the neumatic notation of "The Evangelical Sticherons". Only professional masters who had extensive knowledge of the old-Russian theory of music could perform this complex task of reproducing the musical content of a great amount of earlier encrypted inscriptions. This enormous work could be done only by a singing centre of great authority with efficient staff and a collection of manuscripts. At that time the only centre of this kind was Ivan the Terrible's court. "The Evangelical Sticherons" were sung not only during church ceremonies but also during theatrical performances and the tsar's appearances in public [9, р. 65]. The development of ceremonialism in the court's life demanded more frequent resort to the sticherons and the understandability of their neumatic notation. Apparently, the early interpretation of the chant was created by the Moscow masters with the participation of Feodor Krestjanin, the leading "raspevshik" and didascalos [18, р. 130]3.
At the turn of the 16th — 17th centuries there appeared the texts where the interpretations of formulae became more and more diverse. Some formulae were given by means of the plain neumatic notation. The process of disclosing the complicated musical formulae was under way and led to different interpretability. The unique text of the sticherons marked as Krestjanin's variant was dated the mid 17th century by M. V. Brazhnikov. We compared the formula inscriptions of the typal chant with Krestjanin's variant and came to the conclusion that the formula structure of the sticherons was not created by the Moscow master: it was formed long before Feodor Krestjanin's activities [for example: 16, р. 79]. What was Feodor Krestjanin's role then and why is his name marked in the text?
In Krestjanin's interpretation variant of the sticherons there is one more interpretation presents — the
1 In the collections there are chants of the early Moscow and Usol'e traditions. About of the creation of the manuscript see: 11, р. 44—47, 9.
2 A new variant we call as "razvodnoy typal" where the interpretations — explanations reproducing the musical content of the earlier encrypted neumatic inscriptions of formulae. They are given in the plain Stolpovoy notation. The version of the earlier period is called as "taynozamknenniy typal". It has the encrypted neumatic inscriptions of formulae. More info about correlation of formulae inscriptions and formulae interpretations-explanations see: 18, р. 127—130.
3 About fixation of the early Moscow chant in the Stroganov's manuscript see: 11, p. 55, 56. In the collection there are also other chants in this singsong.
Ussol'e variant, written above the lines [19, р. 98—99]. Such comparison of the variants was common practice in the 17th century manuscripts. As an example we can mention a famous document — "The Note" by Alexander Mezenets [1]. Thus, having a common formula structure, the text of the sticherons reflects different variants of formula interpretation in the framework of two leading traditions — the Moscow and Ussol'e schools. The uniqueness of this text consists in the fact that here Feodor Krestjanin's manner of formula interpretation coincides with the Moscow school to which the master belonged. The author's peculiarities of interpretation can be traced on the micro structural level as a melodic variability inside the formula.
To study these artistic peculiarities we deciphered or interpreted Krestjanin's variant into the modern notation. The similar attempt was also made by M. V. Brazhnikov. However, some observations and conclusions obtained by means of the formula structure analysis on the level of musical content contradict numerous conclusions made by Brazhnikov [16; 17; 19]. The brightest contradiction concerns the main problem of the investigation — defining Krestjanin's role in the creation of his interpretation and his creativeness.
On the whole, we can conclude that Feodor Krest-janin, thanks to his extensive knowledge in the field of singing art theory, managed to present and explain in his interpretation all the complicated encrypted formulae of the chants which appeared at the end of the 15th century. Without changing the formulae structure he interpreted the musical and intonation content of the given melodic formulae, transformed and considerably renovated them. Thus, on the basis of the existing formula composition the master created his own version of the chant. Krestjanin's aim here was to put the chant in order by means of interpreting complicated formulae
Cycle "Additional Hirmuses". Singsong — "Znamya of Feodor Krestjanin" [26, fol. 1]
and neumes in the framework of the Moscow tradition, as well as the court's performing traditions of the tsar's singing diaki. He brilliantly performed his task working on the basis of the archetype. For increasing artistic expressivity he improved the melodiousness of some fragments, for instance, added melismatic singing for the sounding of the key words. His interpretation received a universal acclaim and became the example for the future generations.
In Krestjanin's interpretations there exists one more cycle marked as "Additional Hirmuses". This cycle includes the chants from the Hirmologion, 5th mode: "Providya dukhome Avvakumo" ("Foreseeing by spirit Avvakum", chant 4), "Ognenny um" ("Fiery mind", chant 5), "Aggelomo otroki" ("Youths have been saved by Angels", chant 7), "Tsareskih detei molitva" ("Tsar's children prayer", chant 8), "Tya pache uma" ("Thee more than the mind's natural Virgin", chant 9). 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 Krestjanin. 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)" [26, fol. 1]. In the second text there is the same remark with the continuation: "Edited. Krestjanin's interpretation is done in shorthand; words come from the old Hirmologions" [26, 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" [22, fol. 42].
It should be noted that the "Additional Hirmuses" are followed by the hirmus "Iz chreva adova" ("From the depths (belly) of hell", mode 8, chant 6). Its text is slightly edited by cinnabar signs above the neumes. However, this hirmus cannot be considered Krestja-nin's work as far as the main musical text is almost identical to the variant from the Hirmologion (the turn of 15th — 16th centuries) [28, 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 widespread 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 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) [33, 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: 32, fol. 87—91v; 46, 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 [42, 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 "Tsarskih detei 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 Deistvo" (Furnace Fiery Performance). Singing additional hirmuses of the 5th mode in the final of the "Peshnoe Deistvo" is also mentioned in the Chinovniks [56, p. 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 Deistvo". 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 Deistvo".
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 Krestj anin's version the anonymous variants are more ordinary, lacking the dynamics of the structural development typical of 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 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 hymnographic text. The beginning of each image-bearing 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 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 content 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 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: 10].
As we can see, Feodor Krestjanin demonstrated his great mastery of a raspevshik in his cycle "Additional Hirmuses". This cycle presents a unique example of the author's interpretation which is characterized by an individual compositional technique. This was one of Feodor Krestjanin's last works. As it was mentioned above, in August, 1607, Krestjanin was still singing and teaching his pupils [23, fol. 66], after 1607 his name is not mentioned in documental sources. Apparently, this was the last year of his life.
The study of Feodor Krestjanin's life and work as a raspevshik and didascalos proves that the master was one of the most renowned representatives of the professional musical art in the 16th — early 17th centuries of Russia. His natural gift, deep knowledge in the field of church-singing theory, his awareness of the existing outstanding schools and their works gave rise to the development of his own artistic career and brought him fame and recognition among the contemporaries. It is no mere chance that the Russian tsars, starting from Ivan the Terrible, entrusted him with teaching and looking after their singing diaki. This direction of his professional activities defined his main artistic principle — the creation of his own variants of interpretation on the basis of derivatives from the archetype. The author's interpretation-explanation of the encrypted neume formulae not only facilitated the mastering of the singing repertoire but also formed the ABC of the master which included formulae and their interpretations in all the existing styles (Znamenny, Putevoy, Demesvenny) [62]. The restoration of this ABC allows deciphering and studying Feodor Krestjanin's works with great authenticity. It is of great importance as far as many of the master's works are to be studied in the future.
References
1. Alexander Mezenets i drugie. Izvescheniye... zhe-layuschim uchitsya peniyu. 1670. / Publ., perev. i issled. N.P. Pafentyeva; comment. Z.M. Guseynovoy. [Alexander Mezenets and others. Notification. to those learning to sing. 1670 / published, translated and studied by N.P. Pafen-tyev; comments by Z.M. Guseynova]. Chelyabinsk, 1996.
2. BRAN [Library of Academy of sciences of Russian, St. Petersburg]. Strog. № 44.
3. GIM [State Historical Museum, Moscow]. Edinov. № 37.
4. GIM [State Historical Museum, Moscow]. Sinod. № 279 (XII century).
5. GIM [State Historical Museum, Moscow]. Sin. Pev. № 1357.
6. GIM [State Historical Museum, Moscow]. Uvar. № 695.
7. IRLI [Russian literature institute (Pushkin house), St. Petersburg]. Brazh. №25.
8. IRLI [Russian literature institute (Pushkin house), St. Petersburg]. Ust-Tsilem. № 404.
9. Parfentyev, N.P. Drevnerusskoe pevcheskoe iskusst-vo v dukhovnoy kulture Rossiyskogo gosudarstva XVI— XVII vv.: Shkoly. Tsentry. Mastera. [Old Russian chant art in the spiritual culture of Russia in the XVI—XVII centuries. Schools. Centers. Masters]. Sverdlovsk, 1991.
10. Parfentyev, N.P., Parfentyeva, N.V. "Irmosy pribyl'nye" moskovskogo raspevschika Fedora Krestya-nina (1606) ["Heirmos profitable" of the famous Moscow master of chanting Feodor Krest'yanin (1606)]. Vestnik Uzhno-Ural 'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser.: Sotsial'no-gumanitarnye nauki [Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series: Social Sciences and the Humanities]. Chelyabinsk, 2011, v. 17. pp. 78—84.
11. Parfentiev, N. P. O Stroganovskoy masterskoy kni-zhno-rukopisnogo iskusstva XVI—XVII vekov [About the Stroganov's workshop of hand-written art of the XVI—XVII centuries]. Vestnik Uzhno-Ural'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser.: Sotsial'no-gumanitarnye nauki [Bulletin of the South Ural State Universiti. Series: Social Sciences and the Humanities]. Chelyabinsk, 2008, v. 10, pp. 44—56.
12. Parfentiev N.P., Parfentieva, N.V. Usol'skaia (Stroganovskaia) shkola v russkoy muzike XVI—XVII vv. [Usolye (Stroganov) school in the Russian music of the XVI—XVII centuries]. Cheliabinsk, 1993, 348 p.
13. Parfentieva N.V. K rekonstruktsii avtorskoi formulno-intonatsionnoi azbuki demestvennogo raspeva moskovskogo mastera Fedora Krestjanina (um. ok. 1607) [The reconstruction of Demestvenniy chant formula-intonation alphabet of the Moscow master Feodor Krestjanin's authorship (died about 1607)]. Kul'tura i iskusstvo v pamiatnikakh i issledovaniiakh [Culture and art in monuments and researches]. Cheliabinsk, 2007, v. 5, pp. 212—231.
14. Parfentieva N.V. Printsipy avtorskogo khudozhestvennogo tvorchestva masterov drevnerusskogo muzikalno-pis'mennogo iskusstva XVI—XVII vv. [Principles of author's art creativity of the ancient-Russian musical-written art masters of the XVI—XVII centuries]. Vestnik Uzhno-Ural'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser.: Sotsial'no-gumanitarnye nauki [Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series: Social Sciences and the Humanities]. Chelyabinsk, 2008, v. 10. pp. 63—73.
15. Parfentieva, N.V. Slavnik "Vo vertepo voselilsya" v Usol'skom I Moskovskom "perevodakh" [Slavnik "Vo vertepo voselilsya" in Usol'e and I Moscow "singsongs"] // Drevnerusskaya pevcheskaya kultura i knizhnost'// Drevnerusskaya pevcheskaya kultura i knizhnost' [Ancient Russian chant cultura and booklor]. Leningrad. 1990, v. 4, pp. 81—99.
16. Parfentieva, N.V. Stikhiry evangel'skie v tvorchestve moskovskogo raspevschika XVI veka Fedora Krestjanina (Stikhira pervaya) [Evangelical sticheras in the creation of Moscow master of chanting Feodor Krestjanin of XVI century (the first stichera)] // Kultura i iskusstvo v pamyatnikakh i issledovaniyakh [Culture and art in monuments and researches]. Chelyabinsk, 2003, v. 2, pp. 60—79.
17. Parfentieva, N.V. Stikhiry evangel'skie v tvorchestve moskovskogo raspevschika XVI veka Fedora Krestjanina
(Stikhira vtoraya) [Evangelical sticheras in the creation of Moscow master of chanting Feodor Krestjanin of XVI century (the second stichera] // Traditsii i novatsii v otechestven-noy dukhovnoy kulture: Sbornik materialov region. nauch. konf [Traditions and innovations in the national spiritual culture. Collections of materials of regional science conference]. Chelyabinsk, 2005, pp. 98—115.
18. Parfentieva N.V. Tvorchestvo masterov drevnerusskogo pevcheskogo iskusstva [The creative works of the old Russian chanting art]. Chelyabinsk. 1997, 338 p.
19. Parfentieva, N. V. Stikhiry evangel'skie v tvorchestve moskovskogo raspevschika XVI veka Fedora Krestjanina (Stikhira tret'ya) [Evangelical sticheras in the creation of Moscow master of chanting Feodor Krestjanin of XVI century (the third stichera ...] // Kultura i iskusstvo v pamyat-nikakh i issledovaniyakh: Sbornik nauchnykh statey [Culture and art in monuments and researches]. Chelyabinsk, 2006, v. 4, pp. 74—99.
20. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 181. № 711 (middle of XV century).
21. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 188. № 1573.
22. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 188. № 1573a.
23. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 188. № 1574.
24. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 188. № 1584.
25. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 188. № 1585.
26. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 188. № 1586.
27. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 188. № 1589.
28. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 396. № 3721.
29. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 37. № 355.
30. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 113. № 3 (XIV century).
31. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 113. № 238.
32. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 113. № 245.
33. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 113. № 255 (middle XVI century).
34. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 113. № 257.
35. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 178. № 766.
36. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 304. № 408.
37. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 304. № 409.
38. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 304. № 417 (1480-s yearsthe ).
39. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 304. № 418.
40. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 304. № 429.
41. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Kir.-Bel. № 581/838.
42. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Kir.-Bel. № 586/843 (1590-s years.).
43. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Kir.-Bel. № 629/886.
44. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Kir.-
Bel. № 637/894 (XV century).
45. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Kir.-Bel. № 642/889.
46. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Kir.-Bel. № 652/909 (1558 year).
47. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Kir.-Bel. № 654/911 (second half of XV century).
48. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Kir.-Bel. № 658/915.
49. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Kir.-Bel. № 682/933.
50. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Pogod. № 45 (1422 year).
51. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Sof. №492.
52. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Sol. № 690/751.
53. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Q.1.№ 94.
54. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Q.I.94 (middle of XV century).
55. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Q.n.1. № 32.
56. Terentyeva P.V. Rekonstruktsiya chinoposledovaniya Peschnogo deystva [...] // Drevnerusskoepesnopenie. Puti vo vremeni: Po materialam yauch. konf. "Brazhnikovskie chteni-ya" 2008—2009 godov. [Reconstruction of the rite Fiery Furnace. Ancient Russian chants. Way in time. Proceedings of the conference on "Brazhnikovskie reading" 2008-2009 years.St. Petersburg, 2011.
57. Undolsky, V.M. Zamechanuya dlya istoriyy tserkovnogo peniya v Rossii. [Notes for the history of the church chant in Russia]. Moscow. 1846, pp. 21—22.
58. Fedor Krestjanin. Stikhiry [Feodor Krestjanin. Sticherons] / publ. M.V. Brazhnikov. Pamyatniki russkogo muzykalnogo iskusstva [The monuments of the Russian musical art]. Moscow, 1974, v.3.
59. Frolov, S.V. "Bolshoy" rospev Fedora Krestjanina na tekst prazdnichnoy stikhiri ["The Great" chant of Feodor Krestjanin on the text of the holyday stichera]. Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoy literarury Instituta russkoy literatury (Pushkinskiy Dom) Academii Nauk SSSR. [Treatises of the department the Ancient Russian literature of the Russian literature institute (Pushkin house) Academy of sciences of the USSR]. Leningrad, 1981, v. 36, pp. 295—307.
60. Parfentjev N.P. About Activity ofFeodor Krestjanin— the Master of Musical-Written Art of XVI — the Beginning XVII Centuries. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences. 2009, v. 2 (3), pp. 403—414.
61. Parfentjev N.P., Parfentjeva, N.V. On the Structural-Formula Method of Researching Ancient Russian Chants as Musical-Written Art // Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & social sciences. 2008, v. 1 (3), pp. 384—389.
62. Parfentyev, N.P. Reflection of the main directions of didaskal Feodor Krest'yanin's creative activity in monuments of writing of XVI—XVII centuries. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences. 2013, v. 10, pp. 1423—1432.
Received Desember 5, 2014
Bulletin of the South Ural State University Series «Social Sciences and the Humanities» 2015, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 78—91
УДК 783(470.5) + 94(470.5)
ББК Ч611.3 + Т3(2Р36)-7 + Щ313(2)
основные принципы авторского творчества В произведениях федорА крестьянина (Ум. ок. 1607)
Н. П. Парфентьев, Н. В. Парфентьева
Изучение особенностей творчества в условиях средневекового канонического искусства является одной из сложнейших научных проблем. На примере произведений выдающегося московского распевщика Фёдора Крестьянина в статье рассматривается применение сложившихся на протяжении веков общих творческих принципов (внутриформульная мелодическая вариантность, формульная вариантность, преобразование архетипа песнопения, создание песнопения «на подобен» и др.). Выявляется своеобразие преломления некоторых из этих принципов в авторских произведениях мастера. Исследователями применяется собственный метод структурно-формульного анализа древних песнопений, предусматривающий учет авторского содержания фиксирующих их знаков и формул.
Ключевые слова: древнерусское певческое искусство, авторские произведения, общие и авторские принципы творчества, метод структурно-формульного анализа, Фёдор Крестьянин.
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. Александр Мезенец и прочие. Извещение... желающим учиться пению (1670 г.) / Введение, публ., перев. и историч. исслед. Н. П. Парфентьева; комментарии и исслед. памятника З. М. Гусейновой. — Челябинск : Челяб. Дом печати, 1996. — 584 с.
2. БРАН. Строг. № 44.
3. ГИМ. Единов. № 37.
4. ГИМ. Синод. № 279 (XIIв.).
5. ГИМ. Син. пев. № 1357.
6. ГИМ. Увар. № 695.
7. ИРЛИ. Браж. № 25.
8. ИРЛИ. Усть-Цилем. № 404.
9. Парфентьев, Н. П. Древнерусское певческое искусство в духовной культуре Российского государства XVI—XVII вв.: Школы. Центры. Мастера. /Н. П. Парфентьев. — Свердловск : УрГУ, 1991. — 236 с.
10. 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. — Вып. 17. — Челябинск : ЮУрГУ, 2011. — С. 78—84.
11. Парфентьев, Н. П. О строгановской мастерской книжно-рукописного искусстваXVI—XVII вв. /Н. П. Парфентьев //Вестник Южно-Уральского государственного университета. Сер.: Соц.-гуманитарные науки. — Вып. 10. — Челябинск : ЮУрГУ, 2008. — С. 44—56.
12. Парфентьев, Н. П. Усольская (Строгановская) школа в русской музыке XVI—XVII вв. /Н. П. Парфентьев, Н. В. Парфентьева. — Челябинск, 1993. — 348 с.
13. Парфентьева, Н. В. К реконструкции авторской формульно-интонационной азбуки демественного распева московского мастера Федора Крестьянина (ум. ок. 1607) / Н. В. Парфентьева // Культура и искусство в памятниках и исследованиях : сб. науч. тр. — Вып. 5. — Челябинск : ЮУрГУ, 2007. — С. 212—231.
14. Парфентьева, Н. В. Принципы авторского художественного творчества мастеров древнерусского музыкально-письменного искусства XVI—XVII вв. /Н. В. Парфентьева //Вестник Южно-Уральского государственного университета. № 6 (106). Сер. : Социально-гуманитарные науки. — Вып. 10. — Челябинск: ЮУрГУ, 2008. — С. 63—73.
15. Парфентьева, Н. В. Славник «Во вертепо воселился» в Усольском и Московском «переводах» /Н. В. Парфентьева //Древнерусская певческая культура и книжность : сб. науч. тр. ЛГИТМиК. — Вып. 4. — Л., 1990. — С. 81—99.
16. Парфентьева, Н. В. Стихиры евангельские в творчестве московского распевщика XVI в. Федора Крестьянина (стихира первая) /Н. В. Парфентьева //Культура и искусство в памятниках и исследованиях: сб. науч. ст. — Вып. 2. — Челябинск: ЮУрГУ, 2003. — С. 60—79.
17. Парфентьева, Н. В. Стихиры евангельские в творчестве московского распевщика XVI в. Федора Крестьянина (стихира вторая) /Н. В. Парфентьева //Традиции и новации в отечественной духовной культуре : сб. материалов науч.-практ. конф..— Челябинск : ЮУрГУ, 2005. — С. 98—115.
18. Парфентьева, Н. В. Творчество мастеров древнерусского певческого искусства XVI—XVII вв. (на примере произведений выдающихсяраспевщиков) /Н. В. Парфентьева. — Челябинск, 1997. — 338 с.
19. Парфентьева, Н. В. Стихиры евангельские в творчестве московского распевщика XVI в. Федора Крестьянина (стихира третья) /Н. В. Парфентьева // Культура и искусство в памятниках и исследованиях : сб. науч. ст. — Вып. 4. — Челябинск : ЮУрГУ, 2006. — С. 74—99.
20. РГАДА. Ф. 181. № 711 (серед. XVв.).
21. РГАДА. Ф. 188. № 1573.
22. РГАДА. Ф. 188. № 1573а.
23. РГАДА. Ф. 188. № 1574.
24. РГАДА. Ф. 188. № 1584.
25. РГАДА. Ф. 188. № 1585.
26. РГАДА. Ф.188. № 1586.
27. РГАДА. Ф. 188. № 1589.
28. РГАДА. Ф. 396. № 3721.
29. РГБ. Ф. 37. № 355.
30. РГБ. Ф. 113. № 3 (XIV в.).
31. РГБ. Ф. 113. № 238.
32. РГБ. Ф. 113. № 245.
33. РГБ. Ф. 113. № 255 (сер. XVI в.).
34. РГБ. Ф. 113. № 257.
35. РГБ. Ф. 178. № 766.
36. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 408.
37. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 409.
38. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 417 (80-е гг. XVв.).
39. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 418.
40. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 429.
41. РНБ. Кир. Бел. № 581/838.
42. РНБ. Кир. Бел. 586/843 (1590-е гг.).
43. РНБ. Кир. Бел. № 629/886.
44. РНБ. Кир. Бел. № 637/894 (XVв.).
45. РНБ. Кир. Бел. № 642/889.
46. РНБ. Кир. Бел. 652/909 (1558 г.).
47. РНБ. Кир. Бел. № 654/911 (втор. пол. XVв.).
48. РНБ. Кир. Бел. № 658/915.
49. РНБ. Кир. Бел. № 682/933.
50. РНБ. Погод. № 45 (1422 г.).
51. РНБ. Соф. № 492.
52. РНБ. Сол. № 690/751.
53. РНБ. Q. 1. № 94.
54. РНБ. Q. I. 94 (серед. XVв.).
55. РНБ. Q. п. 1. № 32.
56. 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.
57. Ундольский, В. М. Замечания для истории церковного пения в России /В. М. Ундольский. — М., 1846. — С. 21—22.
58. Федор Крестьянин. Стихиры / публ. и исслед. М. В. Бражникова // Памятники русского музыкального искусства. —Вып. 3. — М., 1974.
59. Фролов, С. В. «Большой»роспев Фёдора Крестьянина на текст праздничной стихиры /С. В. Фролов // Труды Отдела древнерусской литературы Института русской литературы (Пушкинский дом) АН СССР. — Т. 36. — Л., 1981. — С. 295—307.
60. Parfentyev, N. P. About Activity of Feodor Krestjanin — the Master of Musical-Written Art of XVI — the Beginning XVII Centuries / N. P. Parfentyev // Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences. 2009. — V. 2 (3). — P. 403—414.
61. Parfentjev, N. P. On the Structural-Formula Method of Researching Ancient Russian Chants as Musical-Written Art / N. P. Parfentjev, N.V. Parfentjeva // Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & social sciences. 2008. — V. 1 (3). — P. 384—389.
62. Parfentyev, N. P. Reflection of the main directions didaskal Feodor Krest'ianin's creative activity in monuments of writing XVI—XVII centuries / N. P. Parfentyev // Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences. 2013. V. 10. P. 1423—1432.
Поступила в редакцию 05 декабря 2014 г.
