CC BY
54
CHURCH SINGING ART MASTERS OF THE "REIGNING CITY OF MOSCOW" IN THE 16™ — 17™ CENTURIES*
N. P. Parfentjev, South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation, parfentevnp@susu.ac.ru
Except the well-known raspevschik (chanting master) Feodor Krestjanin (his name in the sources always stands out) other masters associated with church-singing art of the Moscow School in the 16th - 17th centuries earned the recognition during their lifetime. The author of article focuses on the work of these "second position" chanting masters in the period of the highest development of the author's creativity.
Keywords: Old Russian church chanting art, author's creativity, tsar's singing diaki (choristers), Feodor Krestjanin, Ivan Nos, Deacon Foma (Filaret), Login Shishelov, Christopher, Luka Ivanov.
Moscow masters of singing art (the 16th — 17th centuries) who were already recognized by the contemporaries were usually closely connected either with the tsar's or the patriarch's courts as far as they were employed as the court singers, krestovye diaki, the clergymen of court churches. Other masters, sometimes also renowned and outstanding ones, were serving at the monasteries and churches of Moscow. Among all masters there were those who went from different places. The service in the capital demanded quick acquisition of regional traditions of singing. Thus, they became the representatives of the Moscow school of singing. So there was a formation of special creative direction, called today the Moscow School in ancient Russian chanting music.
It was already mentioned that only thanks to Feodor Krestjanin's popularity and recognition among the contemporaries and his pupils there some of his works and some facts from the biography of this renowned master were preserved [14; 19; 20]. There is even less information about the life and art of other masters.
Feodor Krestjanin's companion — Ivan Nos — also started his career at the tsar's court. The historical document "The Introduction, where and since when the eight-mode (octophonic) singing was established in Russia" says that "in Novgorod the Great there were old masters — Savva Rogov and his brother Vasily". Their two pupils became brilliant choir leaders: "Ioann Nos and the priest Feodor Krestyanin were working in the residence of the tsar Ivan the Terrible in Alexan-drova Sloboda". The third pupil — Stephan Golysh — at the same time was "walking around the towns and teaching pupils" [64, fol. 201—201v]. We have no information where Ivan Nos comes from, but the initial period of his singing career was surely connected with Novgorod the Great and Savva Rogov's singing school, where the future master was grasping the professional subtleties of the chanting art.
The information about Ivan Nos is very scarce. Apparently, right after finishing his education at Savva Rogov's school he was also "walking around the towns" searching for some job (of a teacher or some other job that a literate person could perform). In the archives of the Iosifo-Volokalamsky Monastery — one
* Work is executed at financial supported by the Russian Humanitarian Scientific Fund (PEHO), project № 13-04-00077.
of the most significant monasteries of Russia — we came across some data concerning the activities of a certain "young" monastery servant Ivan Nos. Most probably, the future renowned master of singing and this monastery worker is one and the same man.
The Iosifo-Volokalamsky Monastery was founded in 1479 within easy reach of Moscow. In the short course of time it became a centre of great importance in terms of political and cultural life of Russia. The monastery scribes — copyists, writers — were of great value, as well [for example: 12]. Following the precepts of Reverend Iosif (Sanin), the founder, ideologist and defender of the monastery possession, the monks had a large farm with numerous villages and trades. The monastic elders were in charge of different fields of activities, but there was a need for some supervisors, educated people outside the monastery. As a rule they were called "monastery servants" (or monastery workers), at times — "stewards". They were employed for the definite period of time after which they were sent to a different place.
Thus, on November, 26, 1548, the monastery treasurer Lavrenty "was giving the keys" to the servants including Ivan Nos — "to the village Otchischevo to Ivan Nos — key, as for Vasily, for icon-painter, St. Nicholas Day period vernal" [49, fol. 28]. This record is the first mention of Ivan Nos in the monastery documents. It is interestingly enough that Ivan Nos replaced a representative of the artistic profession — an icon-painter. In April, 1549, Ivan Nos, among others, was given a payment — 40 altyn (1,2 roubles). Later he was sent to different settlements (Ivanovskoe, Luk-ovnikovo, Novoe). Occasionally he got payments for the serving people — yard cleaners or stokers [49, fol. 28v, 64, 79v, 103, 139v). Apparently, Ivan Nos' monastery service brought good profit1. The documents of the Iosifo-Volokalamsky Monastery mention the name of Ivan Nos for the last time in February, 1557, when his service period was over and another supervisor was appointed for the settlement Novoe [49, fol. 150]. In further monastery documents there were found no references to Ivan Nos. The inventory of the monastery library contains the only record concerning Ivan Nos — his giving the singing book "Ermoloy" (Heirmologion) as a present [12, p. 89] (it is not clear when it happened
1 Note that monetary contributions of monastic servants for recording them in synodic were huge sums — 90— 100 roubles. [25, fol. 21, 101 etc.].
Alexandrova Sloboda. Engraving of the 16th century
as far as the earlier record is dated 1545). The following records of Ivan Nos' activities concern the time of his staying in Alexandrova Sloboda together with Feodor Krestjanin.
"The Introduction" states that "Ivan Nos and priest Feodor Krestjanin were staying with the tsar Ivan the Terrible in his favourite settlement Alexandrova Sloboda" [64, fol. 201v]. We cannot say for sure whether Ivan Nos was employed before Feodor Krestjanin or not. Judging by the further documents Ivan Nos was employed as the tsar's krestovy diak to perform singing and other functions during the "domestic prayer" of the tsar in his place or in the Krestovaya Chamber.
The staff list of the krestovye diaki dated March, 20, 1573 contains only one full name (with the patronymic and surname-nickname) of the nine mentioned singers — Ivan Yuijev son Nos [2, p. 35]. The tsar Ivan gave him his money payment (10 roubles) and cloth payment (48 altyn). Among his partners Ivan Nos held the fourth place and got the third biggest payment. The fact that his name was written with the patronymic undoubtedly points at his great authority at the court. Probably, Ivan Nos started to serve earlier than Feodor Krestjanin and was a bit older than him.
From "The Introduction" we know that while staying in the Sloboda he created chants for the Triodion as well as numerous sticherons and doxastikons in honor of many saints, and theotokions of Menaia [64, fol. 202]. These are the chants form the two types of Sticheraria — Lenten and Holyday. After the canonization councils of the 1540-s and The Stoglav (The Hundred Chapters), 1551, the singing masters worked at creating services or separate chants in honour of "the new miracle-workers". Ivan Nos also contributed to this work. Unfortunately, there were found no works marked with his name among the chant manuscripts. Apparently, they were created before the 1570—1580-s and enlarged the fund of anonymous works. The interest to the chants of
authorship marked the end of the 16th — the beginning of the 17th centuries. One more reason consists in the fact that Ivan Nos had no pupils who, as a rule, were the first to put down the interpretations of their teachers; after that the chants were copied and spread in different collections.
The activities of one more connoisseur of singing art are also connected with the tsar's court. They can serve an example of the interconnection between the court and monastery chanting masters as well as the evidence of close link that existed among the singing centres of different regions. At the tsar Ivan the Terrible court this master was known as Deacon Foma (Thomas).
In order to serve at the tsar's court Foma had to demonstrate not only outstanding natural abilities but also extensive knowledge in the field of the singing art. Unfortunately, the data about the early period of his life are lost. The first records inform that "he was staying in Alexandrova Sloboda together with the tsar Ivan the Terrible" and served at the tsar's Pokrovsky Cathedral [11, p. 252]. This period marks the second half of the 1560-s. At that time Feodor Krestjanin served in the Sloboda as a court priest. Foma could not only hear the singing of this outstanding didascalos but also could learn a lot.
Since the end of the 1560-s Foma who took the monastic vow under the name of Filaret stayed at the monastery of the Trinity and St. Sergius. Thanks to his great knowledge of the singing art he was promoted the choir leader; since the late 1570-s Filaret served as ustavshchik (head of choir) for more than 40 years [9, p. 63). During 40 years of his serving and teaching he undoubtedly shared all his experience, which he received while singing at the tsar's court, and enriched the monastery traditions.
Among the Moscow chanting masters closely connected with the tsar's court there was the Anonymous Diak whose records of the late 16th — early 17th centuries containing the works of various authors, copybooks
with his own chants are of great interest1. He was an experienced assistant in the process of training the tsar's singing diaki (choristers) conducted by Feodor Krestjanin [18, 23].
First of all, the Anonymous Diak was busy simplifying the complicated variants of chants and practicing them on the eve of important church services. It was done for those who could not master the singing of difficult neumes and formulae especially for young singers. This work was conducted under the master's supervision and was sometimes paid by the singers. In the manuscripts the Anonymous Diak marked it in the following way: "For the Demesvenny chant two grivnas; "without fitas — two altyns, with fitas — 1 grivna"; "for the mastery — two altyns; "for the songs of praise — 4 den'gas, for the whole service — 1 grivna", etc. [29, fol. 1v; 31, fol. 2, 3; 32, fol. 1v].
The Anonymous Diak's records demonstrate his professional approach to this business. He mentions, for example, that dots in the text stand for line borders, commas — "neume rest" (short break for taking a breath); or clarifies how the neumatic sign "light arrow with cross and cloud" should be performed in some chant following Feodor Krestjanin's mastery and it should be performed "without the cloud" in Anonymous Diak's interpretation [32, fol. 1]. One more time he refers to Feodor Krestjanin's experience and gives the following advice: "You should preserve this mastery during the whole chant"; "Krestjanin taught to sing it this way: quickly"; "The master sang it this way... sing it steadily"; "The master was singing the whole chant in the fourth mode, the end — the eighth mode" [27, fol. 58, 66; 31, fol. 4v; 34].
These examples prove that the Anonymous Diak carefully recorded everything concerning Fe-odor Krestjanin's art. All the manuscripts contain his remarks: "The master sang it this way", "It was performed by Krestjanin", "The master sang the neume notation", and "Krestjanin sang it for pupils" etc. At times the Diak marked where from he received this record, for example: "Year 7113 (1605), March, 15, 5th week of the Lent, Friday — Krestjanin's interpretation taken from Iosif who took it from Ofonya Vorogov" [35]. Doubting the authenticity of Krestjanin's variant he specified it and possible after verification from the master himself marked in the following way: "Written — Year 7112 (1603), September, 13, not Krestjanin's interpretation, taken from Kuz'ma, the priest's son, Basmannikov"; "In some interpretations it is done this way, unlike to Krestjanin's variant" [27, fol. 73; 33, fol. 1v]. The Diak was interested in the master's attitude to other existing interpretations: "I asked Krestjanin in year 7111 (1603) and he said: I do not sing "Pesn' vsyaku dukhovnu" ("Песнь всяку духовну") as worldly variant" [31, fol. 4v]. The following is Song itself.
Thus, in his remarks to the singing records the Anonymous Diak serves Feodor Krestyanin's pupil who deeply respects his "teacher" or "master" and is guided by the texts edited under his direction. At the
1 S. G. Zvereva believes that this diak was Ivan Demidov Zherdev (Zherdin). However, in addition that the singer has served in the 1st stanitsa (group) of tsar's choir, no evidence is given [69, p. 104].
same time being an artistic person, the Anonymous Diak digresses from the mainstream version allowing some intonation variability. In some cases he demonstrates his own art: "The master Krestjanin sang it. Mine is in a sufficient interpretation" (about variants of recording the same chant); "The Master sang in two, so the mastery is that along the line. It is better this way." (refers to separate interpretations of the same formula); "The Master sang it by means of neumes, look at my variant" (about the line of the same chant) [31, fol. 4v; 32, fol. 1] etc. This subtle variability speaks for the vibrant breathing of the singing practice and reflects the development of the musical theoretical thought in the framework of Feodor Krestjanin's tradition involved in the upbringing of the tsar's singing diaki choir and the formation of new artistic principles of the masters closely connected with the tsar's court.
The artistic nature of the Anonymous Diak can be vividly seen in his interpretations of separate complicated neumes, formulae or lines of the chants, which were given in parallel with other variants and were marked by the pronouns "I", "mine", "my" etc [26, fol. 161v, 362, 365v; 31, fol. 4, 4v; 32, fol. 1v, 2; 34; etc.]. There can be found complete singing works belonging to this master, as well. Thus, the chant the-otokion "Podo krovo tvoi Vladychitse" ("Подо крово твои Владычице") from the Octoechos is marked "My neume interpretation" [28]. The text of the Octoechos really contains the same theotokion, which has formulas (named fita and popevka) in encrypted tracings without explanations-interpretations [27, fol. 79— 79v]. One can also mention the Diak's interpretations for the chant theotokion "Raduisya solnechny oblache" ("Радуйся солнечный облаче" — "my neume"), for the Easter Hymn to the Theotokos "Svetisya, svetisya Noviy Ierusalime" ("Светися, светися, новый Иерусалиме" — "mine is in a sufficient interpretation"), for two Glorifications of the Virgin ("mine", "Putniy style, my same") and for the verse from solemn part of Matins — the polieley "Khvalite imya Gospodne" ("Хвалите имя господне" — "I made changes in comparison with this version in accordance with the practice of chanting") [29, fol. 1v; 32, fol. 1; 34; 35].
The Anonymous Diak's records mention the creative activities of the following masters of church singing art — Feodor and Ivan, whose names were well-known at the tsar's court and who were Feodor Krest-janin's sons (It is worth mentioning that their names coincide with those of Ivan the Terrible's sons).
The Anonymous Diak assuming that the outstanding master's sons had the same mastery of the singing art wanted to get their works. Sometimes, the obtained manuscripts were not authentic. Thus, in one of his manuscripts the Anonymous Diak told a story how a certain Stepan from Kazan was performing a heirmos with Feodor Krestjanin and later copied service on the church holiday, penitential verses and other works for him. During this work Krestjanin's son Feodor asked Stepan to copy his own Fitnik (collection of explanations the very encrypted sophisticated formulas — "fita"). Stepan secretly copied it for himself as well. This record edited on July, 15, 1602, was copied for the tsar's singing diaki. However, in the Anonymous Diak's opinion, incorrect interpretations of the formulae were done not by Feodor,
Krestjanin's son. Stepan "told a lie that it was Feodor's interpretation" [30, fol. 1v—2]1.
The most important thing here is the fact that "young Feodor", like his father, was known as a master of formula interpretations. The mastery of his art led to the creation of his own chanting interpretations. In fact, in the Diak's manuscript there is a chant devoted to three saints — the theotokion "Pokrovo tvoi Prechistaya" ("Покрово твои Пречистая") — and accompanied by the remark: "This text is taken from Krestjanin's chant book. The neume notation is done by his son Feodor, interpreted and explained by son himself. Written in 7115 (1607) on March, 19. Edited here" [30, fol. 8].
Resorting to the line of the chant the Anonymous Diak marked: "Feodor the son usually sang it this way", or "Ivan the son sang it this way". Further on the line is supplied with remarks: "The master sang it at his master and said so", etc. [36]. Thus, the sources prove the existence of Feodor Krestjanin's two sons who professionally dealt with the art of chanting.
Most probably "young" Feodor was Feodor Krest-janin oldest son. In 1584—1585 he was serving as a deacon at the tsar's Blagoveshensky Cathedral, where Feodor Krestjanin himself served as a priest. In January 1585 the tsar Feodor Ioannovich gave young Feodor some cloth for his performing "Mnogoletiya" (The wishes for long life) at Christmas and Epiphany [5, р. 197]. Krestjanin's second son — Ivan Fedorov the priest's son — in 1584—1585 served in the 6th stanitsa (group) of the tsar's choir among the adolescent singing diaki. In this choir he served till 1635 taking part in the chant performances during the official ceremonies, for example, during Vasily Shuisky's and Mikhail Romanov's coronations, Patriarch Filaret's ordination or other joyous events of the tsar's family — wedding ceremony, christening ceremony of crown princes, etc. Since 1617 the master's second son is mentioned among the singers who were teaching "small singing diaki" [17, р. 332—333].
There was one more chanting master, a representative of the Moscow singing school, connected with the tsar's court. His works are fixed in the early 17th century manuscripts of the library for the tsar's singing diaki with the following remarks: "Mikhailov interpretation", "Mikhail's variant". This proves the fact that master Mikhail was a well-known personality. Probably he served as a singing diak or in the clergy of court churches2. As all other singing masters Mikhail contributed greatly to the interpretation process of some chants. For example, among the "lines from the Epiphany heirmoses" we come across "Mikhailov version"; in another case before the line there is a remark: "taken from Eremey who said that it is Mikhail's interpretation" [30, fol. 3v; 39]. There were also preserved the complete works of this master, which prove that he had a good command of the Putevoy style chanting. Thus, his sticheron for the 6th mode in Virgin Mary's honour "Sveto prevechnyi" ("Свето превечныи") and Easter sticherons "Paskha svyaschennaya" ("Пасха
1 We know that Feodor Krestjanin's Fitnik was existed, but in this case we are talking about Fitnik of his son Feodor.
2 The complete lists of courtiers' singers and clergymen of the 16th — the first quarter of the 17th centuries are not preserved.
священная"), "Mironositsy zheny" (" Мироносицы жены") and some other chants, are recorded by means of the Putevoy style notation [40].
The activities of the masters connected with the tsar's court and the court choir of the singing diaki beyond all doubt exerted a significant influence on the development of the common traditions and common space of the Moscow singing. This space embraced not only the churches and monasteries located in Moscow. The Russian tsars accompanied by their choir also frequently visited various festive ceremonies in the neighbouring churches and cloisters. During such church ceremonies the singers performed the chants together with the local choir brothers. From time to time the people connected with the singing service at the court happened to be among these choir brothers (e. g. the deacon Foma). Thus, there was a close interconnection between the singing centres of Moscow and its neighbourhoods that resulted in the maintaining of common traditions in regional singing schools.
As a rule the framework of such schools marked the works of large monasteries that could afford the choirs, the best heads (leaders) of the choir and senior choristers. These masters coming from different regions of the country often introduced the new musical intonation material (first of all concerning the formula or lines interpretation). Thus special monastery chants were born. First they were included in the singing books and later they became widespread among the professional musicians.
One of the Moscow monasteries connected with the names of outstanding masters and works of old singing art was the Kremlin Chudov Monastery. The results of its singing masters' activities are worth mentioning here as well. Let us give a number of examples. In the manuscript of the turn 16th—17th centuries we come across "a new interpretation" ("they sing this way in Chudov now") of the sticherons: "Blazhimo tya" ("Блажимо тя"), "Dostoino est' blazhiti tya" ("Достойно есть блажити тя"), "Rodi vesi pesn'mi" ("Роди веси песньми") [7]. It should be noted that at the turn of the centuries the monastery had two outstanding masters — the choir head Login Shish-elov (1585—1610) and the choir brother Christopher (1586—1601). It is possible that the above-mentioned innovations are connected with these names.
We have already mentioned Login Shishelov's name [for example: 22]. He came into the history of old-Russian church singing as an outstanding chanter, singing master and choir leader in the monastery of the Trinity and St. Sergius, though he spent a considerable part of his life in Moscow, in the Chudov monastery.
The master was born in the northern city of Ustug the Great; there is a cinnabar record in one of the Trinity books made at the times when Login was well known in the monastery. This record presents a remark opposite monk Tikhon's name (who died in 1594/95); it is written that the monk "comes from Ustug and he is father of choirmaster Login" [3, р. 146]. Thus we get to know that the monastery of the Trinity and St. Sergius (Troitse-Sergiev) was the residence of the master's father and Ustug the Great was the birthplace of both monks. Login's surname is mentioned in the inventory of the Troitse-Sergiev Monastery books (was drawn
up 1642): "The written and presented collection of sticherons belongs to Login, named Shishelovskoy". [3, р. 146). The name "Shishelovskoy" refers here to the collection of sticherons1. Consequently, the master's surname was Shishelov (Шишелов). This surname was frequently met among serving people in the 16th century [for example: 57, р. 179, 190]. The musical theoretical work of the 17th century "Skazanie o zarembah" mentions Login's nickname — "Korova" ("Cow")2.
Login Shishelov's young years fell on the time of Ivan the Terrible's oprichnina. We know nothing about the reasons why he left Ustug and took monastic vows. The earliest documentary sources mention him in 1585/86 in the cash receipts and payments book of the Chudov monastery. Among different expenses there were written some payments — e.g. monthly monetary payment for the choir brothers and choirmasters. All in all there were four choirmasters in the Chudov monastery, but Login is mentioned nowhere in the beginning of the year (September or October). Only on December, 3, 1585 Login from Ustug gets the November payment in the amount of 1 grivna (0,1 rouble) instead of the choirmaster Iona Protopopov [41, fol. 112v]. Thus, Login Shishelov started to serve as a golovstik (head of choir) of the Chudov monastery since November 1585. Apparently, he appeared here at this very time. He was called "Login from Ustug". Further on he regularly received his payment [41, fol. 126v, 143v, 157, 178v, 189, 198, 222]3.
It was rather difficult to settle down in the Chudov monastery inside the Moscow Kremlin being a golovshik. Login must have stayed in Moscow for some time first and became famous as a singer-clergyman with outstanding vocal abilities (later they will write about him that he "was a singer with a God-given talent: his voice was beautiful, light and powerful") and as a connoisseur of the church singing as well. In the monastery his art and knowledge were to get perfected. It is a well-known fact that on holidays the best singers from Moscow gathered here, e.g. the tsar's and the patriarch's choirs took part in festive church ceremonies together with the choir brothers. Due to this fact, the singing practice must have been at the highest level in the monastery. Apparently, that was the reason why musically talented Login was appointed here. Since June 1586 one more monk — Christopher (Khristophor) — was serving in the monastery as a singer [41, fol. 210v]; he is the future author of the singing art treatise — "The Key to the Neumes" ("Ключ знаменной", 1604) [10].
1 The marks of monastic librarians: Lupandinskoy, Lopo-tukhinskoy, Zuevskoy etc. are often found in the manuscript collections. These designations of the books are derived from the names, surnames or nicknames of presenters. Similar recordings were sometimes included in the inventory of the monastic libraries.
2 "Skazanie" informs everyday nicknames of outstanding chanting masters and teachers (didaskaloi) by which they were known among professional chanters [8, fol. 376v— 377].
3 Unfortunately, except book of 1585/86, other similar documents of the Chudov monastery have not been pre-
served. Therefore, to establish any of the facts connected with the stay of Login in this monastery is not possible.
During the first years of staying in the monastery Login copied a large Sticheraria (collection of sticherons) for himself and marked it at the end that it took him about a year to write this book. This book has a very modest design, no decorations but it has been attracting the researchers' attention for several centuries. This collection of sticherons was of great interest to us because of the two singing cycles in the Putevoy style chanting which were included by Login Shishelov with his mark of Ivan the Terrible's authorship [54, fol. 98, 100v, 222v].
Login's interest to the author's works was growing. He could perform up to 10 and more different variants of the same text. Login created his own chants as well. All this made him a famous master and a great authority.
Many educated monks copied the books in the monastery. The Chudov Monastery Elders also worked as editors at the Moscow Printing House preparing the books for publishing. Login Shishelov was among them in the early 17th century.
The master had to prepare the first Russian edition of the Church Charter (Typicon): "With the help of God the beam of enlightenment began to shine in the heart of the wise tsar and grand prince Vasily Ivanovich... about the corrections of the holy writings. with the blessing of the Moscow patriarch Ermoghen. according to the metropolitans', archbishops', and all holy people's advice"4.Here one should pay attention to the highest sanction that Login received starting his work. He had to do the following. Like many other books, which were copied for centuries, the Church Charter was translated from Greek to Slavic with some omissions and mistakes [13, p. 312]. Login's task was to analyze different versions of the Charter and to complete those omissions and correct the mistakes.
Having no experience of such kind of editing work Login, first of all, was afraid to omit or overlook something. His text was collected from various texts of the Typicon — Jerusalem, Holy Mountains, Studit, Holy Elders and others. The major part of the book was devoted to the information about the Slavic-Russian saints services, which made the Charter look like an authentic Russian book, giving "national Russian direction" and "local color". It then remained in its other publications almost throughout 17th century [13, p. 317]. However, Login included in his book a lot of irrelevant and inconsistent information. There were some errors, misleading facts, wrong descriptions of the rites and discrepancies in the prayers [13, p. 313, 316]. All this was a result of earlier inconsistence of the book. Login himself wrote in the introduction: "With love and generosity we began this work and finished it with honest and great results" [13, p. 314].
The Charter, edited by Login Shishelov, was published by the Moscow Printing House in 1610. Anisim Radishevsky performed the technical part of this work (he became famous in 1606, when the edition of the Gospel with lace engravings was published). In spite of all the drawbacks the first edition of the Charter was
4 From the preface to the Church Charter 1610. Cited in: 13, p. 311—312.
wide spread in Russian eparchies till February, 1633, when the second edition was published1.
After publishing the Charter in 1610 Login's activities as an editor of the Moscow Printing House came to a close. The same year he left the Chudov Monastery and Moscow occupied by the Poles (in September) and settled down till his death in the Troitse-Serguiev Monastery where his father used to be a monk.
The monk Christopher who appeared in the Chudov monastery later than Login Shishelov since June 1586 was employed as a choir brother with the payment 2 altyn and / den'ga (6,25 kopecks) per month [41, fol. 210v, 222v]. Besides his singing duties he was actively involved in the work of the famous scriptorium section of the monastery, mastering not only the art of singing but also the art of book writing.
Christopher was born in Moscow: in one of the records in the Gospel he noted that he is a Muscovite. He took the monastic vows far from the capital, though, in the Kyryllo-Belozersky Monastery [10, p. 193]. Having become a monk, he decided to leave the northern cloister and came back to Moscow.
During his staying in the Chudov monastery Christopher took part in writing significant books, e. g. the Menaia in 1600. The researchers consider his handwriting as one of the best handwritings among the Chudov monastery masters [10, p. 203]. At the same time there is no available chant book so far copied by Christopher during his staying in Moscow. Apparently, his knowledge of singing art at that time corresponded to the requirements of the singing practice of the monastery choir. But it was here, in the atmosphere of high art, where the development of the future outstanding master of old-Russian music took place. The short period of his work at "The Key to the Neumes" (1604) after he left the Chudov monastery only proves it.
Christopher's departure to the Kyryllo-Belozersky Monastery took place nearly 1601. In 1600 he was involved in the copying of the Chudov's the Menaia; his next book — the chanting Sticheraria (collection of sticherons) — was finished in 1602 in Kyrillov [6; 10, p. 194 etc.].
The above-mentioned Login Shishelov and Christopher connected with the Chudov school of church singing became outstanding masters. There were other outstanding masters in the Chudov monastery. We know that the monastery attracted the best Moscow singers on holidays (as well as others who were staying in Moscow at that time). For example, on December, 27, 1585 the monastery treasury gave money to the singers ("slavlenshiks") who came to glorify the Lord at Christmas: e.g. to the tsar's singing diaki; to the two stanitsas (groups) of diaki and one stanitsa of podiaki from the metropolitan's choir as well as to the three podiaki who were performing in the "Peschnoe
1 With the release of the new edition of the Charter Patriarch Filaret in the summer of 1633 ordered to collect and burn all copies of 1610, which allegedly Login printed without the blessing of the Patriarch and the Cathedral [1, p. 337—338]. Recall that in the Preface to the Charter of 1610 Login wrote that he had received such a blessing. But probably in a "time of troubles", it was formal, without consideration of the results of editorial work
deystvo"; to the singing diaki and podiaki of Ryazan-sky, Kolomensky and Vologodsky church hierarchs; to the singing (krestovye) diaki of some private choirs of B. Godunov and D. Godunov, A. Schelkalov and V. Schelkalov; to the choirmasters and choir brothers of the Chudov monastery [41, fol. 121v—123]. The Chudov monastery singers could not only hear the tsar's and the metropolitan's choirs but also take part in their holiday ceremonies during which the tsars and metropolitans were present. The mastery of those choirmasters and choir brothers, no doubt, equaled that one of the court singers. It was they who kept the monastery singing traditions.
The available documents of the period 1585— 1586 mention the names of these masters and describe the structure of the monastery choir [41, fol. 78v—79, 103, 112v—113, 126—127v, 143v—144, 157 etc.]. Thus, the golovshiks (heads of choir) were the following: Iona Klyk, Ioasaf Luzheny and Feoktist. One more golovshik, Iona Protopopov, was replaced by Login Shishelov from Ustug. Consequently, there were no more than four golovshiks at one time — two for each of the monastery churches: the Archangel Michael Church of Miracle and the Church of Prelate Aleksy. The choir brothers were the following: Mark Baskov, Serapion the Old, Filaret and Christopher. This staff was regularly (each 2—3 months) changed by Elisey, Niphont Bezzuby (Toothless), Epiphan and Pimen Kazanets (from Kazan). The singing duties were performed by Ferapont, Kyrill and Tikhon. They performed duties replacing each other. All in all there were 5—6 choir brothers from the professional masters. Thus, in one choir there were no more than 2— 3 singers including the golovshik. During the ordinary church services there also were some monks who were able to perform the chants together with the professional masters. During holiday services they were to perform together with the most well known choirs of Russia.
The artistic traditions formed by professional singing masters such as Login and Christopher continued their development in the Chudov monastery. The chants "Nyne sily nebesnye" ("Ныне силы небесные") and "Vozbrannoi voevode" ("Возбранной воеводе") [55, fol. 168, 175v] as well as the prokeimenon "Da ispravitsya molitva moya" ("Да исправится молитва моя") and the cherubic hymn "Izhe kheruvimy" ("Иже херувимы") [63, fol. 197, 203v] were wide spread in the chant books of the late 17th century in the Chudov variant. Throughout two centuries the Chudov monastery remained one of the leading Moscow centres of church singing art.
The 17th century was not marked by such great masters of Moscow school singing art as the previous century was. It can be explained by a number of reasons. The introduction of different chants with melismatic elements, especially the extended drawling Great and Putevoy style chanting, considerably lengthened the duration of the divine services. The "mnogo-glasie" (kind of polyphony when different parts of the service were performed simultaneously) was a way out in this situation; it resulted, though, in the creation of anti-mnogoglasie polemical writings directed not only against the most polyphony, but also against the
creation of chanting variants. In the 17th century the amount of such works was on the increase. The universal negative attitude to the "multi-chanting" variants led to the reduction of author's creative works.
On the other hand, the final stage in the formation of the Russian state contributed to the integration of culture and self-awareness of regional schools, whose masters revealed their individual artistic principles. The new revival of chant creating in the second half of the 16th — the beginning of the 17th centuries was followed by the period of reflection. First of all, the neume notation needed improvement and unification. Some masters independently started to search for the ways of this improvement. It resulted in the creation of the so called "okozritel'nye pometky" (special marks) which marked the more accurate pitch of the neumatic notation signs, regulated the nuances of singing1.
In fact, numerous manuscripts of the first half 17th century contain these "pometky" (marks) above the neumes. Sometimes these were just letters (p, b, m etc.) which pointed at the melody nuances: steadily, fast, quietly etc., but more often there can be come across those which are not present in the manuscripts of the 17th century (d, m, ce etc.) [for example: 42; 52; 56; 58—60; 65; 66]2. In the 1650—60-s a universal system of marks was introduced, called "cinnabar signs" (or "Shaidurovskye" signs)3.
However the manuscripts also give evidence of the fact that till the mid 17th century there were several systems of such marks. "Skazanie o zarembah", written in the second half of the 17th century, informs that "these marks were created by Russian philosophers after the Lithuanian devastation during the Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich's reign". The authors are also enumerated here: first of all the Muscovite Luka — the priest of the Nikolo-Yavlenskaya church at the Arbatskye Gates [8, fol. 376—378]. His system of marks did not receive universal recognition, though his life and activities are worth paying attention to.
The study of the 17th century archives really proves that there was Luka Ivanov in the church of Nikola Yavlensky behind the Arbatskye gates in the Streletskaya Sloboda. At the end of the 1620-s and throughout the 1630-s he served as a deacon of this church [43; 44]. During the 1640-s Luka Ivanov was a priest of the same church [45; 48, fol. 84v]. Luka got his state payment — money for the cloth in the amount of 4 roubles. The church of Nikola Yavlensky was one of the Moscow parish churches where the priests received the ruga — special payment from the tsar treasury. The church was built of stone to the order of the ruler and future tsar Boris Godunov in 1593 [68, p. 162]. Apparently the clergyman of the ruga church had to possess great mastery in the church-singing
1 For example, tsar's singing diaki trained by Feodor Krestjanin at the turn 16th — 17th centuries used such "masters' special marks" [23].
2 In this connection we point out the unique "Skazanie pometkam" 17th century which explains the meaning of these "masters' marks": г — громко (loud), д — держи (hold), ю — опрокинь (overturn), з — завопи (scream), с — скоро (quickly) and so on. [53].
3 About the Novgorodian Ivan Shaydurov for example,
see. 15, p. 41—42.
art. The mention of Luka Ivanov's name in the first row of "the Russian philosophers" who dealt with the improvement of the old notation system points at his authority in this field. He might have imparted his knowledge to his son who chose the career of a priest as well. Since 1649/50 Luka Ivanov's son Nazarey served in the church of Nikola Yavlensky as a priest [48, fol. 189].
Like other masters Luka Ivanov created his own musical interpretations of some lines of the chants (especially, if they had "taynozamknenny" (encrypted) neume formulae). In one musical reference book of the 17th century we can find the variant marked by "Luka's interpretation" [8, fol. 424]. Another manuscript contains his interpretation of the upper line (for the higher voice) of the 8-mode chant from the Octoechos [67, fol. 161]. This master also was the author of the dox-astikon "Preklonil esi glavu" ("Преклонил еси главу" — mark "Lukin rospev") in the Great Chant style for the Theophany [61].
Master Luka Ivanov's creative activities made him famous during his serving as a deacon in the church of Nikola Yavlensky. One of the chant collections of the 17th century proves it. This chant collection (manuscript book) is kept in the archives of the Yaroslavl region (GAYaO. Kol. rukop., Inv.1, №459/97). This collection contains a number of chant books (Heirmologion, Obikhod (the Book of chants most frequently used in the services), Octoechos and Collection of Lent Sticherons) and large cycles of everyday and festive chants in Virgin Mary's honour. The manuscript has the owner's mark: "This book belongs to Yury, Leontyev son" (fol. 1) and a later mark which states that on March, 1, 1657 "the hierodeacon Lavrenty from the Yaroslavl' Tolgsky monastery (the Church of the Presentation of the Holy Virgin in the Temple), who was staying at St. Nicolas the Miracle-Worker in Rubleny city, brought this chant book "Sticherons" at the commemoration for his and his parents souls in the Yaroslavl' Assumption Cathedral of the Holy Virgin and local miracle-workers, Princes Vassyly and Konstantin and left this record hierodeacon Lavrenty himself " (fol. 2—463).
This record about Lavrenty's staying at St. Nicolas the Miracle-Worker in Rubleny city makes us come to the conclusion that the Moscow church of Nikola Yavlensky is meant here. The Prikaz scribes marked the location of this church as "near Bely Gorod" (White city) or "in the Zemlyanoy Gorod" (Ground city). According to the maps and plans of Moscow this church was located near the Arbatskye gates which were outside the Bely Gorod right in the Zemlyanoy one. It used to be the Wooden Gorod (Wooden city) which after being burnt by the Poles was fortified by the earthen wall ("Ground city") and the stockade ("Rubleny (log) city") in the 1630-s. According to the payment books of the early 1640-s when Luka Ivanov became the priest of the Nikola Yavlensky Church his place of a deacon was taken by a certain Leonty. In 1645 there was already a different deacon there [45—47]. Most probably, it was Leonty who took the monastic vow and got the new name of Lavrenty4. The Yaroslavl' Tolgsky Vvedensky
4 Recall that in the 17th century it became a tradition when accepted new monastic name had to begin with the same letter as the old worldly one.
Monastery became the new employment of the hiero-deacon. The above-mentioned book for some time belonged to deacon Lavrenty's son—Yury. Later it passed into the hands of a father-monk and was presented by him to the Yaroslavl' Assumption Cathedral.
The notes made by Lavrenty prove that he knew Luka Ivanov very well in the time when he was a deacon of the Nikola Yavlensky church (1630-s). After the Hir-mologion Lavrenty (in those years Leonty) wrote: "The hirmuses belong to Luka Ivanovich Tveritin, the deacon of the Moscow church of Nikola Yavlensky. Recorded from his interpretation" (fol. 62v). Before the collection of Lent sticherons he wrote: "The triodions belong to the deacon of the Moscow Nikola Yavlensky church Luka Ivanovich Tveritin. Recorded from his interpretation" (fol. 291). There are also other notes, e.g. after the book of church chants: "Father Superior Pamva's Obihod is recorded from his variant" (fol. 192v)'; before the Oc-toechos: "The Octoechos is interpreted by the Ussol'e masters" (fol. 193)2. All this proves that the manuscript was ordered and compiled from the copies of chant interpretations made in the 1630-s. Apparently, Leonty-Lavrenty himself ordered this book as he was closely watching the writing process. Lavrenty also prepared the copies and left his own remarks3.
The above-mentioned records demonstrate Lavrenty's great respect to the Moscow deacon Luka. He calls Luka "Ivanovich" which was used in the 17th century only in reference to the high society (the tsar's family members, the boyars, other court dignitaries and princes), but, apparently, the full patronymic was also admitted between educated people of the same status. Lavrenty decided to mark the high authority of those interpretations which were included in the book. Consequently, in this context deacon Luka Ivanovich Tveritin is presented as a great authority. His interpretations were of great value, he was already a renowned connoisseur of church singing art. It is worth mentioning that Lavrenty gave us the full name of deacon Luka with the surname-nickname — Tveritin. Such nicknames were given to newcomers to mark their previous place of living (or birthplace). Thus, in Moscow Luka (or his ancestor as Luka is usually called the Muscovite) could get a nickname Tveritin marking his coming from Tver'.
The neume text of the book has no "pomety" (remarks) which proves the information from the "Skaza-nie o zarembah" — that Luka Ivanovich Tveritin was improving the notation being a priest, i.e. in the 1640-s. As far as the book contains copies from the master' interpretations of the 1630-s this manuscript, unfortunately, does not present Luka's theoretical searchings4.
1 Pamva served as hegumen in the Vologda Pavlov monastery in those very 1630-ies, when Luka Ivanov was a deacon [15, p. 179].
2 Note also chants of "Usolsk" version (fol. 153v—154, 147). About Usolskaya school of chanting masters see.: 16, 21, 24.
3 The scribe of the collection after the large section specifies the number of completed notebooks himself: "There are 8 notebooks in Heirmos" (fol. 62), etc. After Obikhod he noted and the cost of the work: "30 altyn (0,9 roubles) were taken for" (fol. 192v).
4 The collection includes the rite of "Health bowls" and Mnogoletie (the wish of many years of life) to the Tsar Alex-
"The heirmuses belong to Luka Ivanovich Tveritin, the deacon of the Moscow Nikola Yavlensky church.
Recorded from his interpretation" (GAYaO. Kol. rukop. Inv. 1. № 459 (97). Fol. 62v)
While a deacon Luka dealt with copying the church books like many other connoisseurs of church singing art. His interpretations from the Heirmologion and the Collection of Lent sticherons became the pattern for the corresponding parts of the book. Probably, the fact that Luka Tveritin knew Leonty (who was also a renowned master of church singing art) resulted in Leonty's appointment as a deacon of the Nikola Yavlensky Church whereas Luka became a priest. It can also account for the respectful behaviour. It is well known that Leonty served in the Moscow church not long and some years later left for the Yaroslavl' monastery as monk Lavrenty.
The above-mentioned book is, beyond any doubt, of great importance. Luka Tveritin's examples of the work of authorship can be met in different personal chant books of that time. This book at first sight has no chants or their fragments with reference to this master. However the masters themselves did not mark their interpretations: these remarks were usually added by their pupils or by those who knew the interpretations of different styles and who was interested in editing, comparing and correcting them (singing diaki, scribes, etc.). The study of the chants with Luka's interpretation is likely to discover new works of this master.
Master Luka Ivanovich Tveritin was living in the time when the reforms in the theory of the old-Russian chant music were about to happen. To a certain extent he also took part in the improvement of the old notation system. He came into history as the creator of the
ei Mikhailovich (since 1645). Consequently, the manuscript can be dated to the mid 40s — the first half of the 50s of the 17th century.
mark system, as the author of interpretations and as a competent copyist of chant books.
The amount of singing works belonging to the Moscow masters was extremely extensive. The fact is that the major part of them was left anonymous. There are few manuscripts containing the information about the creators or the place of creation. Besides the above-mentioned masters one should also mention the singing diaki of the patriarch's choir. The most common naming of chants, connecting them with the works of the masters of capital, such as singers of patriarch's chorus, occur more frequently. In the first half of 17th century manuscripts there are some chants in the interpretation of the patriarch's diaki: the many lines (polyphony) theotokion, the many lines (polyphony) Demesvenny style chanting of two sticherons and the patriarch's Putevoy style chant [37—38; 50]. The collection of the last quarter 17th century also contains the Patriarch Nikonovskaya (Patriarch Nikon's) Cherubic Hymn [55, fol. 130—132].
There are more general names for the Moscow school interpretations. For example, the beginning of 17th century collection of chants has some works of the "Moscow interpretation" [62, fol. 338, 342, 345v, 395v, 413v]. Other manuscripts of the same period mark some chants as "Moscow ones" [4; 51; 67, fol. 150]. Such generalizations could appear in the collections created outside the capital. Even a greater number of anonymous works were included in the manuscripts created within Moscow and therefore did not record the name of the obvious local (Moscow) versions.
There are many facts indicative of masters' representing the Moscow school creative activity. Some of them, being outside of the school, have contributed to the high development of the theory and practice of chanting art in the regional centres (cities, monasteries), gained fame throughout Russia.
References
1. Acty, sobrannye v bibliotecakh i arkhivakh Rossiyskoy imperii Arkheograficheskoy Expeditsii Imperatorskoy Academii Nauk [Historical Acts Collected by the Archaeographical Expedition of the Academy of Sciences in the Libraries and Archives of the Russian Empire]. St. Petersburg, 1836, v.3.
2. Alshits, D.N. Novyi document o ludyakh i prikazakh Oprichnogo dvora Ivana Groznogo posle 1572 goda [The New Document on People and Departments of the Oprichny Yard of Ivan the Terrible of 1572]. Istoricheskiy arkhiv. [Historical archives]. Moscow; Leningrad, 1949, v. 4.
3. Arseniy, ier. Opisanie slavyanskikh rukopise' biblioteki Svyato-Troitskoy Sergievoy lavry [Description of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra library Slavic manuscripts]. Moscow, 1878, v. 2.
4. BRAN [Library of Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg]. № 32.16.18, fol. 116.
5. Dopolneniya k actam istoricheskim, sobrannye i izdannye Arkheograficheskoy Komissiey Imperatorskoy Academii Nauk [Additions to historical acts collected and published by the Archaeographical commission.]. St. Petersburg, 1846, v. 1.
6. GIM [State Historical Museum, Moscow]. Shukin. №767, fol. 419.
7. GIM. Sinod.-pev. № 1357, fol. 18—19.
8. GIM. Sinod.-pev. № 219, fol. 376—424.
9. Kanon prepodobnomu ottsu nashemu Dionisiu, arkhi-mandritu Sergievy Lavry, s prisovokupleniem Zhitiya ego [Canon and life of our father Dionysius, Archimandrite Sergius Lavra, Wonderworker of Radonezh, with the accession of his life description]. Moscow, 1855.
10. Khristophor. Kluch znamennoy, 1604 [Key znamen-ny, 1604] / publ. by M. Brazhnikov, G. Nikishov. Pamyatniki russkogo muzykal'nogo iskusstva [The monuments of Russian musical art]. Moscow, 1983, issue 9.
11. Kloss B.M. Nikonovskiy svod i russkie letopisi XVI—XVII vekov. [Nikon's Chronicle and Russian chronicles of 16th — 17th centuries]. Moscow, 1980.
12. Knizhnye tsentry Drevney Rusi: Iosifo-Volokolamskiy monastyr' [Book Centers of Old Russia: Joseph Volokolamsk Monastery]. Red. D.S. Likhachev. Leningrad, 1991.
13. Mansvetov I.D. Tserkovnyi Ustav (Tipik), ego obra-zovanie i sud'ba v Grecheskoy i Russkoy tserkvi [Church Charter (Tipik), his education and fate in the Greek and Russian churches]. Moscow, 1885
14. Parfentjev N.P. About Activity of Feodor Krest'janin — the Master of Musical-Written Art of XVI — the Beginning XVII Centuries. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences, 2009, V.2 (3), p. 402—413.
15. Parfentjev N.P. Drevnerusskoe pevcheskoe iskusstvo v dukhovnoy kulture Rossijskogo gosudarstva XVI—XVII vv.: Shkoly. Tsentry. Mastera. [Old Russian chant art in the intellectual culture of Russia in the 16th — 17th centuries. Schools. Centers. Masters]. Sverdlovsk, 1991, 234 p.
16. Parfentjev N.P. O Stroganovskoy masterskoy knizh-no-rukopisnogo iskusstva XVI—XVII vekov [About Stro-ganov' workshop book and manuscript art of 16th — 17th 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], 2008, issue 10, p. 43—62.
17. Parfentjev N.P. Professionalnye muzykanty Rossi-yskogo gosudarstva XVI—XVII vekov. 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.
18. Parfentjev N.P., Parfentjeva N.V. About Feodor Krestjanin's creative activity in the 1598—1607 years. Vestnik Uzhno-Ural'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser.: Sotsial'no-gumanitarnye nauki [Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series: Social Sciences and the Humanities], 2015, v. 15, № 2, p. 60—70.
19. Parfentjev N.P., Parfentjeva N.V Basic principles of copyright Creativity in the works Feodor Krestjanin (d. ok. 1607) Vestnik Uzhno-Ural'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser.: Sotsial'no-gumanitarnye nauki [Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series: Social Sciences and the Humanities], 2015, v. 15, № 1, p. 78— 91.
20. Parfentjeva N.V Metodologicheskie podkhody v izuchenii teoreticheskikh osnov tvorchestva vydayuschego-sya moskovskogo raspevschika Feodora Krestjanina (um. ok. 1607) [Methodological approaches in the study of the theoretical foundations of the outstanding Moscow raspe-vschik (chanting master) Fedor Krestjanin's creative ativity (d. c. 1607)]. Vestnik Uzhno-Ural'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser.: Sotsial'no-gumanitarnye nauki [Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series: Social Sciences and the Humanities], 2012, issue 18, p. 111—120.
21. Parfentjeva N.V, Parfentjev N.P. Avtorstvo v proizve-deniyakh raspevschika Stroganovskoy shkoly Ivana (Isayi) Lukoshrova (um. ok. 1621) [The authorship of the works of Stroganov School raspevschik Ivan (Isaya) Lukoshkov (d. c. 1621)]. Vestnik Uzhno-Ural'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser.: Sotsial'no-gumanitarnye nauki [Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series: Social Sciences and the Humanities], 2008, issue 11, p. 54—70.
22. Parfentjeva N.V., Parfentjev N.P. O deyatel'nosti masterov Troitse-Sergievskogo monastyrya v oblas-ti drevnerusskogo muzikalnogo iskusstva (na primere tvorchestva Logina Shishelova) [The activities of the Trinity Sergius monastery masters in the ancient Russian art of church music (on the example of Login Shishelov's creative ativity)]. Vestnik Uzhno-Ural 'skogo gosudarstvennogo uni-versiteta. Ser.: Sotsial'no-gumanitarnye nauki [Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series: Social Sciences and the Humanities], 2013, issue 1, p. 92—103.
23. Parfentjeva N.V., Parfentjev N.P. Osvoenie repertuara masterami pevcheskoy shkoly Fedora Krestjanina na rubege XVI—XVII vv. [Mastering the repertoire by masters of Fe-dor Krestjanin's chanting school at the turn of 16th — 17th 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], 2012, issue 19, p. 83—90.
24. Parfentjeva N.V., Parfentjev N.P. Stroganovskaya shkola kak vydayuscheesya napravlenie v tserkovno-pe-vcheskom iskusstve Rossii XVI—XVII vv. [Stroganov School as a outstanding direction in the church-chanting art of Russia 16th — 17th centuries]. Vestnik Ural'skogo otdele-niya RAN: Nauka. Obshestvo. Chelovek [Bulletin of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Science. Society. The Man], 2013, № 2, p. 105—117.
25. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 181. Inv. 8. №141, fol. 21—101.
26 RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1573, fol. 161 —365
27 RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1574, fol. 58— 79v.
28 RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1577, fol. 1— -1v.
29 RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1578, fol. 1— -1v.
30 RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1579, fol. 1— 8.
31 RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1584, fol. 2—4v.
32 RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1585, fol. 1— 2.
33 RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1587, fol. 1— -1v.
34 RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1588, fol. 1.
35 RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1589, fol. 1.
36 RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1591, fol. 1.
37 RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1604.
38 RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1608.
39 RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1714, fol. 3v.
40 RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1729, fol. 1— -1v.
41 RGADA. F. 196. Inv. 1. №273, fol. 78— 223
42. RGADA. F. 381. № 289, fol. 316.
43. RGADA. F. 396. Inv. 2. №529 (1628—1629), fol. 27v.
44. RGADA. F. 396. Inv. 2. №535 (1634—1635), fol.
54.
45. RGADA. F. 396. Inv. 2. №536 (1640—1641), fol. 93v.
46. RGADA. F. 396. Inv. 2. №537 (1641—1642), fol. 103.
47. RGADA. F. 396. Inv. 2. №538 (1645—1646), fol. 91v.
48. RGADA. F. 396. Inv. 2. №540 (1648—1650), fol. 84—189.
49. RGADA. F. 1192. Inv. 2. № 1, fol. 28—150.
50. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 37. №364, fol. 280—281.
51. RGB. F. 178. №766, fol. 352—352v.
52. RGB. F. 210. №1.
53. RGB. F. 299. №212, fol. 173.
54. RGB. F. 304. №428, fol. 98—222v.
55. RGB. F. 379. №19, fol. 130—175v.
56. RGB. F. 379. №29.
57. RIB [State Public Historical Library of Russia]. St. Petersburg, 1876, v. 3.
58. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Kir.-Bel. № 605/862.
59. RNB. Kir.-Bel. № 612/869.
60. RNB. Kir.-Bel. № 617/874.
61. RNB. Kir.-Bel. № 638/895, fol. 97v—98v.
62. RNB. Kir.-Bel. № 681/938, fol. 338—413v.
63. RNB. Kir.-Bel. № 712/969, fol. 197—203v.
64. RNB. Q.1.1101, fol. 201—202.
65. RNB. Sof. № 492.
66. RNB. Solov. № 277/292.
67. RNB. Titov. № 4455, fol. 150—161.
68. Zabelin I. E. Istoriya goroda Moskvy [History of the City of Moscow]. Moscow, 1905, part 1.
69. Zvereva S.G. Muzykal'nye chernoviki khora gosudarevikh pevchikh diakov nachala XVII v. [The beginning of the 17th century musical drafts of the sovereign's choir singers]. Pamyatniki kultury. Novye otkrytiya, 1991. [Cultural heritage. New discoveries, 1991]. Moscow, 1997.
Received May 28, 2015
Bulletin of the South Ural State University Series «Social Sciences and the Humanities» 2015, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 91—102
УДК 783(470.5) + 94(470.5)
ББК Ч611.3 + Т3(2Р36)-7 + Щ313(2)
мастера певческого дела в «царствующем граде» москве xvi—xvii ВВ.
Н. П. Парфентьев
Кроме широко известного распевщика Фёдора Крестьянина (его имя в источниках всегда выделяется особо), прижизненное признание заслужили и другие мастера, связанные с церковно-певческим искусством Московской школы XVI—XVII вв. В статье основное внимание уделяется деятельности этих мастеров «второго плана» в период наивысшего развития авторского творчества.
Ключевые слова: древнерусское церковно-певческое искусство, авторское творчество, государевы певчие дьяки, Фёдор Крестьянин, Иван Нос, дьякон Фома (Филарет), Логин Ши-шелов, Христофор, Лука Иванов.
Литература и источники
1. ААЭ. — СПб., 1836. — Т. 3.
2. Альшиц, Д. Н. Новый документ о людях и приказах Опричного двора Ивана Грозного после 1572 г. /Д. Н. Альшиц // Исторический архив. — М.; Л., 1949. — T. 4.
3. Арсений, иер. Описание славянских рукописей библиотеки Свято-Троицкой Сергиевой лавры / Арсений. — М., 1878. — Ч. 2.
4. БРАН. № 32.16.18. Л. 116.
5. ДАИ. — СПб., 1846. Т. 1.
6. ГИМ. Щукин. № 767. Л. 419.
7. ГИМ. Синод.-пев. № 1357. Л. 18—19.
8. ГИМ. Синод.-пев. № 219. Л. 376—424.
9. Канон и житие отцу нашему Дионисию, архимандриту Сергиевы Лавры, радонежскому чудотворцу, с присовокуплением жития его. — М., 1855.
10. Христофор. Ключ знаменной. 1604 /публ., перев. М. Бражникова и Г. Никишова //Памятники русского музыкального искусства. — Вып. 9. — М., 1983.
11. Клосс, Б. М. Никоновский свод и русские летописи XVI—XVII вв. /Б. М. Клосс — М. : Наука, 1980.
12. Книжные центры Древней Руси: Иосифо-Волоколамский монастырь как центр книжности / отв. ред. Д. С. Лихачев. — Л., 1991.
13. Мансветов, И. Д. Церковный Устав (Типик), его образование и судьба в Греческой и Русской церкви / И. Д. Мансветов. — М., 1885.
14. 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. 402—413.
15. Парфентьев, Н. П. Древнерусское певческое искусство в духовной культуре Российского государства XVI— XVII вв.: Школы. Центры. Мастера /Н. П. Парфентьев. — Свердловск : Урал. гос.ун-т, 1991. — 234 с.
16. Парфентьев, Н. П. О строгановской мастерской книжно-рукописного искусства XVI—XVII вв. / Н. П. Парфентьев //Вестник Южно-Уральского государственного университета. Сер.: Социально-гуманитарные науки. — 2008. — Вып. 10. — С. 43—62.
17. Парфентьев, Н. П. Профессиональные музыканты Российского государства XVI—XVII вв.: государевы певчие дьяки и патриаршие певчие дьяки и подьяки /Н. П. Парфентьев. — Челябинск, 1991. — 446 c.
18. Parfentjev, N. P. About Feodor Krestjanin's creative activity in the 1598—1607 years. / N. P. Parfentjev, N. V. Par-fentjeva // Вестник Южно-Уральского государственного университета. Сер.: Социально-гуманитарные науки. — 2015. — Т. 15. — № 2. — С. 60—70.
19. Parfentjev, N. P. Basic principles of copyright Creativity in the works Feodor ^es^a^n (d. ok. 1607) / N. P. Parfentjev, N. V. Parfentjeva // Вестник Южно-Уральского государственного университета. Сер.: Социально-гуманитарные науки. — 2015. — Т. 15. — № 1. — С. 78— 91.
20. Парфентьева, Н. В. Методологические подходы в изучении теоретических основ творчества выдающегося московского распевщика Федора Крестьянина (ум. ок. 1607) / Н. В. Парфентьева //Вестник Южно-Уральского государственного университета. Сер.: Социально-гуманитарные науки. — 2012. — Вып. 18. — С. 111—120.
21. Парфентьева, Н. В. Авторство в произведениях распевщика Строгановской школы Ивана (Исайи) Лукошкова (ум. ок. 1621 г.) / Н. В. Парфентьва, Н. П. Парфентьев //Вестник Южно-Уральского государственного университета. Сер.: Социально-гуманитарные науки. — 2008. — Вып. 11. — С. 54—70.
22. Парфентьева, Н. В. О деятельности мастеров Троице-Сергиевского монастыря в области древнерусского музыкального искусства (на примере творчества Логина Шишелова) /Н. В. Парфентьева, Н. П. Парфентьев //Вестник ЮжноУральского государственного университета. Сер.: Социально-гуманитарные науки. — 2013. — Вып. 1. — С. 92—103.
23. Парфентьева, Н. В. Освоение репертуара мастерами певческой школы Федора Крестьянина на рубеже XVI—XVII вв. /Н. В. Парфентьева, Н. П. Парфентьев //Вестник Южно-Уральского государственного университета. Сер.: Социально-гуманитарные науки. — 2012. — Вып. 19. — С. 83—90.
24. Парфентьева, Н. В. Строгановская школа как выдающееся направление в церковно-певческом искусстве России XVI—XVII вв. /Н. В. Парфентьева, Н. П. Парфентьев //Вестник Уральского отделения РАН. Наука. Общество. Человек. — 2013. — № 2. — С. 105—117.
25. РГАДА. Ф. 181. Оп. 8. № 141. Л. 21—101.
26. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1573. Л. 161—365.
27. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1574. Л. 58—79 об.
28. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1577. Л. 1—1 об.
29. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1578. Л. 1—1 об.
30. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1579. Л. 1—8.
31. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1584. Л. 2—4 об.
32. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1585. Л. 1—2.
33. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1587. Л. 1—1 об.
34. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1588. Л. 1.
35. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1589. Л. 1.
36. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1591. Л. 1.
37. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1604.
38. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1608.
39. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1714. Л. 3 об.
40. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1729. Л. 1—1 об.
41. РГАДА. Ф. 196. Оп. 1. № 273. Л. 78—223.
42. РГАДА. Ф. 381. Оп. 1. № 289. Л. 316.
43. РГАДА. Ф. 396. Оп. 2. № 529 (1628—1629). Л. 27 об.
44. РГАДА. Ф. 396. Оп. 2. № 535 (1634—1635). Л. 54.
45. РГАДА. Ф. 396. Оп. 2. № 536 (1640—1641). Л. 93 об.
46. РГАДА. Ф. 396. Оп. 2. № 537 (1641—1642). Л. 103.
47. РГАДА. Ф. 396. Оп. 2. № 538 (1645—1646). Л. 91 об.
48. РГАДА. Ф. 396. Оп. 2. № 540 (1648—1650). Л. 84—189.
49. РГАДА. Ф. 1192. Оп. 2. № 1. Л. 28—150.
50. РГБ. Ф. 37. № 364. Л. 280—281.
51. РГБ. Ф. 178. № 766. Л. 352—352 об.
52. РГБ. Ф. 210. № 1.
53. РГБ. Ф. 299. № 212. Л. 173.
54. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 428. Л. 98—222 об.
55. РГБ. Ф. 379. № 19. Л. 130—175 об.
56. РГБ. Ф. 379. № 29.
57. РИБ. — СПб, 1876. — T. 3.
58. РНБ. Кир.-Бел. № 605/862.
59. РНБ. Кир.-Бел. № 612/869.
60. РНБ. Кир.-Бел. № 617/874.
61. РНБ. Кир.-Бел. № 638/895. Л. 97 об.—98 об.
62. РНБ. Кир.-Бел. № 681/938. Л. 338—413 об.
63. РНБ. Кир.-Бел. № 712/969. Л. 197—203 об.
64. РНБ. Q.1.1101. Л.201—202.
65. РНБ. Соф. № 492.
66. РНБ. Солов. № 277/292.
67. РНБ. Титов. № 4455. Л. 150—161.
68. Забелин И. Е. История города Москвы /И. Е. Забелин. — Ч. 1. — М., 1905.
69. Зверева, С. Г. Музыкальны черновики хора государевых певчих дьяков начала XVI в. / С. Г. Зверева //Памятники культуры. Новые открытия. Ежегодник, 1991. — М., 1997.
ПАРФЕНТЬЕВ Николай Павлович, заведующий кафедрой искусствоведения и культурологии, ЮжноУральский государственный университет (г. Челябинск), 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: parfentevnp@susu.ac.ru
Поступила в редакцию 28 мая 2015 г
