CC BY
28
DOI: 10.14529/ssh200410
on creative activity of the master of church-singing
ART Ivan (ISAIAH) LUKOSHKOv (DIED circa 1621)
N. P. Parfentiev, [email protected], N. V. Parfentieva, [email protected],
South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation
The authors of the scientific study summarize and investigate data about one of the most prominent representatives of old Russian music — Ivan (in monasticism — Isaiah) Lukoshkov, son of Trofim. Contemporaries knew him as master of Usol'e (Stroganovs) church singing art school of the 16th—17th centuries. The authors provide an overview of the artworks — Lukoshkov's chants, and on the example of the most representative of them the creative principles and techniques of this raspevshik (Old Russin composer) are shown. The researchers base their observations and conclusions on the study of a wide range of documentary and narrative sources, church singing manuscripts of the 12th—17th centuries. In the course of the study of the Old Russian music artworks they use the author's textological formula-structural method.
Keywords: Old Russian church singing art, author's creativity, Usol 'e (Stroganovs) musical school, Ivan (Isaiah) Lukoshkov.
Ivan Lukoshkov, son of Trofim is the most outstanding representative of the Stroganovs' school of "Usolsky singing", which was recognized in the church art of Russia in the 16th—17th centuries. According to the well-known Old Russian musical-historical written source "The Introduction, where and since when the eight-mode (octophonic) singing was established in Russsia" he was Novgorodian Stephan Golysh's pupil, and then "he spread and filled a lot of znamenny singing"[93, fol. 202]. The master's becoming as a "raspevshik" (znamenny chanting composer) took place in Usol'e Vychegodskoie town, in the possession of the Stroganovs. Even in the 17th century when Lukoshkov was known under the monastic name of Isaiah singers and scribes underlined his connection with the Usol'e school: "Usol'e variant, interpreted by monk Isaiah", "The variant of Isaiah Lukoshko, the Usol'e singing" [65, fol. 195, 494v]. Thus, no matter where this master's activities took place he carried the Usol'e traditions, grasped in the Usol'e land in his youth, for the rest of his life. He remained the representative of his musical school as the trend of Russian church art1.
The future renowned chanting master was born in the family of Trofim Lukoshkov circa 1555. Most probably he was descended from townspeople of Usol'e Vychegodskoie (Solvychegodsk)2. In the 1570-s the Stroganovs noted the youth man good at professional art of singing. At this very time they started to form the choir for their family Blagoveshensky (Annunciation) Cathedral that was nearly built. Thus, Ivan Lukoshkov became Stephan Golysh's pupil. In those parts of the Cathedral, which were completed, the divine services were held with the participation of chanters. After the great fire in May of 1576, which caused considerable damage to the Cathedral, the divine services were stopped. During three years some churches of the
1 Researchers have drawn their attention to the musical works of the master repeatedly. More on this will be discussed later. See also: [27, p. 67—125].
2 For example, in the Book of the Census of Solvychegodsk in 1620, among the empty courtyards the yard of De-viatka Lukoshkov is named, who with his wife "wandered to Berezov, in Siberia" [44, fol. 19].
Cathedral were restored and opened. By September 1579 the Stroganovs' scribes made an inventory of the icons and all church goods, which was used as the book of contributions for many decades3. At this time Ivan Lukoshkov chose the career of a priest and due to his profound knowledge in the sphere of church singing he held the position of a deacon and later the priest of this Cathedral4.
The inventory of the Cathedral property started in 1579 was supplemented by the following goods: a precious china bowl donated by priest Ivan Lukoshkov, son of Trofim, and a document concerning the peaceful settlement of a land conflict with peasants which was kept in the pile of other papers [96, p. 77, 83; 81, fol. 26; 38, 44]. The young priest donated the china bowl to the consecrated (1584) Blagoveshensky Cathedral in the late 1580-s — early 1590-s. The above-mentioned document (peaceful settlement of a land conflict) was compiled at this very time; the Stroganovs donated their lands from Solvychegodsk and other neighboring regions5 to the Cathedral. Serving as a priest of this Stroganovs' family Cathedral Ivan Lukoshkov made pilgrimages to various monasteries and several times visited the Solovetsky friary. In May 1587 he came to this monastery to pray and granted 2,5 roubles for wax; he also brought 10 roubles from the wife of the deceased Semeon Anikievich Stroganov for the memorial services [43, №№ 424, fol. 4]. Since 1590 the Usol'e priest granted to the Solovetsky treasury 9 altyns on
3 The "inventory" of the Cathedral (was published: [96]) has come down to us rewritten at the beginning of the 17th century (filigree of the 1590s), so it is difficult to judge which text was made in 1579, and which records were made later, by the time of the rewriting. Until the middle of the 17th century the scribes continued to enter information about the awards (contributions) to the Cathedral [81].
4 Let us recall that Stoglav (Hundred Chapters Sobor) allowed the appointment of deacons who had reached the age of twenty-five, and "priests" — from the age of thirty (Chapter 25).
5 The Inventory of the Cathedral mentions the deeds of sale and donation letters for "Annunciation villages", and there is also a "census of the Annunciation church villages" [96, p. 82—85].
Blagoveshensky (Annunciation) Cathedral in Solvychegodsk. 1560—1584
the memorial services for his parents [43, №№ 5, fol. 8]. During his stay in Solvychegodsk Ivan Lukoshkov created a large number of chants in the Znamenny style and got recognition as a chant master. He combined his church duties not only with his singing activities and creating new musical works but also with teaching. The 17th century sources mention him as a teacher — didascalos. Monk Evfrosin's "The Tale" pointed the singers who were proud of Lukoshkov's teaching [26, p. 71]. "The Tale about zaremby" states "the pupils of old masters (including Lukoshkov's ones) knew their art very well" [19, fol. 376—377).
Not later than in the middle of the 1590-s there was a turning point in Ivan Lukoshkov's life. Having no parents and probably being a widower he decided to take the monastic vow. There is no record so far concerning the place of this event. This rite might have taken place either in Solvychegodsk (e.g., in the Stroganovs' Vvedensky Monastery and in the town Borisoglebsky Monastery, as far as sometimes its priests were the Stroganovs' confessors) or outside the Usol'e land. It is known that having become monk Isaiah, Lukoshkov found himself in Kostroma. His relative, also Ivan Lu-koshkov (most likely son) stayed for some time in the Usol'e land. He left the town and following his father's steps took the monastic vows. Later thanks to his father who became the figure of great importance at that time he continued his career in Moscow. Isaiah Lukoshkov's family left Solvychegodsk in December 1614. The official paper referring to the property division between Andrey and Peotr Stroganovs states that Andrey got "Lukoshkov's place" and "Lukoshkov's yard" [45, fol. 1]. The cadaster document (Solvychegodsk, 1620) provides more specific information: Andrey got three
'' * 4i
¡¿c/v+JTo . Qfim
rtfi (wf« i^aJf^.-el^m^trofHaT'a^faiiy^
lA-rTf
TTVO (aozt^ . ]/l oy-rryt ^m'T'a^ zrcjAi
£m«*T"S> • M«y£rnHay
£TTT<jtjmw'*^ • 14 frrrjJT-rf^-?'-' I?" ( A <-< «' <7
II w^vwn « TJVwuae ¿oan-r^irtiJM c^.
f/\ <173 XJJMUI
HffiWMyiTai-m/jrta^sr««. Wiping
«•/«"ytum K«fylL«VIaCnXfMtrH
pcar< f he^ ji^ ^y -rt j,4TTJEi^ jr-^i, nJctA
^-zr^Po mJfiMt^ ■ ^rfo« t ZyH -A J «/«O
-frxt~- III, Mni-rto U<K"tzr<»-jt-i».Tp<\
___^ j * } _ / /
K^dtHMnTf
rS<.He-B<*. .^nxTTi^Ti(wr<>
^CJ (rx< <* .y'-m rs «« p i f sy ii,^1 ' •^iirfi^X"/¡oifi-lTcX. «» m ^asarPit'^fwrwi.
w/ • ^ . < *••
Inventory book of contributions to the Cathedral.
1579 — the middle of the 17th century
residences on the bank of the Vychegda river: priest Peotr's place, Ivashka Lagovka's place and Ivashka Lukoshkov's place [44, fol. 851]. Consequently, leaving the Usol'e land the master's son could not serve as a priest yet as he sold his parents' house to the Stroganovs1.
In Kostroma Isaiah Lukoshkov, apparently, became a priest of the main Bogoyavlensky (Epiphany) Monastery. This one was built of stone in the time of Father Superior Isaiah Shaposhnikov (1534—1572), whose name was greatly revered in this cloister [11, p. 42—43]. Having good vocal abilities and profound knowledge in the field of church singing (and the monastic name of the former highly respected Father Superior — Isaiah), Lukoshkov was in the limelight and was quickly promoted. Judging by the fact that he soon became the Head of the Bogoyavlensky monastery we can assume that he had influential patrons. These patrons could be only the boyars Godunovs who owned the land here and often visited this place. In the second half of the 1580-s — the beginning of the 1590-s Dmitry Ivanovich and his nephew, the future Tsar Boris Feodorovich, donated money on the erection of the stone walls and gates for the Kostroma Ipatievsky (St. Hypatiy) monastery, founded by their forefathers. Both the uncle and his nephew employed "krestovie diaki" whose main duty was to perform chants during divine services [38, fol. 122v—123]. The Godunovs like the Stroganovs were real connoisseurs of the Old Russian Znamenny Chant and they were greatly interested in the activities
1 "Lukoshkov's yard" is also mentioned in the "Inventory of the Nikitinsky front and back yards", compiled for its division on November 3, 1622 and signed by Maxim Yakov-levich and Peter Semeonovich Stroganovs [9, p. 26—29].
of the Usol'e didascalos. The Rostov Metropolitan, Var-laam Rogov, whose brother Savva Rogov was teaching Stephan Golysh, Lukoshkov's teacher, might have also rendered the certain patronage. Anyway, by the end of the 1590-s Isaiah was consecrated to the position of the Father Superior in the Bogoyavlensky Monastery in Kostroma1.
During the time spent in Kostroma Lukoshkov started to deal with important political matters. After the death of Tsarevich Dmitry, Ivan the Terrible's youngest son in May 1591 and the death of the childless Tsar Feodor Ivanovich in January 1598 the tsar's brother-in-law, Boris Godunov got access to the throne. He, having pushed all the other candidates of the boyars Romanovs aside, was preparing to become the elected monarch. His follower Patriarch Iov throughout 1598 was constantly gathering the Council, which was working out the grounds of Boris Godunov's reign. The Council documents were reviewed and rewritten several times. The document "The Ladder of the Council Authorities who were present at Patriarch Iov's place in Moscow (1598/99)" among other Fathers Superior mentions Isaiah Lukoshkov [94, fol. 46]. After Boris Godunov ascending to the throne the final variant of the document was adopted and dated of August, 1, 1598. On the back of the paper the church hierarchs, boyars, diaki, merchants and others put their names. Father Superior Isaiah from the Bogoyavlensky Monastery also signed this document [2, p. 48].
During this period Lukoshkov was known as a master of the Znamenny chant. In September 1601 while he was staying in Moscow one of the tsar's singing diaki (tsar's choir chanters) ordered him the interpretation of the doxastikon "O, How many blessings I have lost damned". Probably the court choir performed this chant. Its copy was kept in the library of the tsar's singing diaki [37, fol. 1; 28, p. 61]. Lukoshkov's staying in Kostroma shortly came to its end. In 1601 as Hegu-men of the Bogoyavlensky Monastery in Kostroma he bought a book — "The Catechumenation of Kyrill from Jerusalem" — from priest Ivan Nikitin [95, p. 344], and since 1602 sources mention him as the Archimandrite of Vladimir.
The Rozhdestvensky (Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary) Monastery in Vladimir was founded during the reign of Prince Vsevolod III (1191). Since 1230 it was directed by Archimandrite, earlier — Hegumen. In the middle of the 13th — early 14th centuries it was the place of the all-Russia metropolitan's residence. The white stone church dedicated to the Nativity of the Virgin Mary in 1263 became the burial place of prince Alexander Nevsky. All this defined the special role of this cloister in the life of the country. Till 1561 the archimandrites of this monastery signed important church and state documents in the first place among the monastery heads; later by Ivan the Terrible's order—in the second place after the heads of the Troitse-Sergiev (Trinity Sergiev) monastery [8; 103].
Having become the Head of one of the most significant Russian monasteries in 1602 Isaiah Lukoshkov was
1 Written evidence — the record in the handwritten book about its sale in 1601 to the Head of the Kostroma Epiphany Monastery Isaiah Lukoshkov [95, p. 344] confirms that this Hegumen and the singer are one person.
to pay great attention to its wellbeing and prosperity. During that time the Vladimir-Rozhdestvensky monastery was in favour with the highest authorities. We cannot rule out the fact that his great patrons might have supported his appointment. Interestingly enough, during the first year of Isaiah's service there was a trial case between the monastery and prince I. M. Baryatinsky concerning the settlement Palashkino and the village Serednikovo bequeathed to the monastery by prince Zamyatnya-Bestuzhev. Baryatinsky questioned the legitimacy of this land transfer, as his father-in-law left no written document confirming his last will. At that time the law also prohibited the land donations to monasteries. However, in spite of the fact that according to the tsars' (Ivan the Terrible and Feodor Ivanovich) order not to donate lands to monasteries Tsar Boris decided against prince Baryatinsky [1, p. 235—236]. At that time metropolitan and didascalos Varlaam Rogov who could also patronize Lukoshkov was still alive. After his death (in 1603) the Rostov metropolitanate was headed by Iona Dumin, the former Rozhdestvensky archimandrite. In 1603 Iona donated to Lukoshkov's monastery library an expensive manuscript — the Apostle [8, p. 74]. In 1607 under the metropolitan's financial support and Isaiah's supervision there was started the construction of the Alexander Nevsky church [103, p. 22].
Throughout Isaiah Lukoshkov's stay in the Rozhdestvensky Monastery of Vladimir prince I. M. Baryatinsky continued to claim the monastery lands mentioned in the trial. While the Russian tsars were replacing one another, the prince filed new claims to review this case. Thanks to this circumstance, we obtain documentary evidence of some events, which happened in Archimandrite Lukoshkov's life. In the letter dated October, 12, 1620, addressed to Patriarch Filaret Romanov, Baryatinsky was complaining about "Isaiah and his brethren", who 18 years ago occupied his father-in-law's land. The prince also stated that the Unfrocked Monk [False Dmitry I] while his stay in Moscow did not help in this case as far as the Archimandrite was his confessor. Patriarch Filaret ordered to grant this land to the monastery and paid no attention to the prince's claim [1, p. 235—236; 39, fol. 1]. Most probably, the Patriarch was familiar with this case. It should be noted that especially Patriarch Filaret could not blame Lukoshkov for his connection with False Dmitry. The whole Russia swore allegiance to the Unfrocked Monk; the Romanovs on returning from the exile were in grace of the court, and Patriarch Filaret was appointed as the Rostov Metropolitan [101, p. 37].
We have no data why False Dmitry I chose Isaiah, the Vladimir Archimandrite, as his spiritual father. It is unlikely that he was attracted by his fame as a master of church singing. The numerous sources prove that False Dmitry employed foreign musicians who received the highest payment in the state. He was fond of listening to music while eating, but his choir consisted of 32 singers, brought from Poland [98, v. 1, p. 63, 76; v. 2, p. 59; 23, p. 135]. During False Dmitry's short reign (July 1605 — May 1606) Isaiah Lukoshkov was his spiritual father not for long. In the tsar's letter dated December, 10, 1605 False Dmitry confirmed the Vladimir Rozhdestvensky monastery's right to the following lands, claimed by prince Baryatinsky: villages
Palashkino and Serednikovo. The tsar called Isaiah here his "spiritual father" [97, p. 204—205]. Other Fathers Superior never got such letters. This fact points at the special spiritual relations that existed between the tsar and Isaiah Lukoshkov. In January 1606 False Dmitry signed a document according to which the monastery got the right to its lands and in March the monastery was granted 150 roubles from the state treasury [3, № 264; 10, p. 343]. By May, 7 (False Dmitry's and Marina Mnishek's wedding day) Lukoshkov stopped serving as the tsar's spiritual father. On that day [23, p. 158] at the beginning of the ceremony the archpriest from the Blagoveshensky (Annunciation) Cathedral of Moscow Kremlin, the "tsarist confessor" "was saying his prayers in the chambers". In fact since Vasily III's times (1505—1533) there was established the tradition according to which the archpriest of the Blagoveshensky Cathedral became the tsar's spiritual father [25].
Being present at the tsar's wedding ceremony Isaiah Lukoshkov took part in the performance of this rite. After the Patriarch's speech in the Uspenskiy (Assumption) Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin Lukoshkov together with the monastery hierarchs brought the cross on the golden plate for blessing the newlyweds. Later the Patriarch sent him with others to bring the jewels — barms and diadem [32, fol. 4v]. The most
The wedding of False Dmitry I and Marina Mnishek.
Artist Simon Bogush. 1606. Fragment active part in the rite was attributed to the archpriest of the Blagoveshensky Cathedral Feodor: he was to marry False Dmitry and Marina Mnishek [32, fol. 2v, 3v, 6]. This could be the reason why Feodor earlier became the tsar's spiritual father. Besides, in contrast to Isaiah Lukoshkov, he was permanently staying in Moscow. It is well known that Feodor Krest'anin, an outstanding Russian church singing master and didascalos, served
Isaiah Lukoshkov's signature on the back of the approval charter on election of Mikhail Romanov as tsar. 1613
Coronation of Mikhail Romanov. 1613. Miniature of the 17th century. Fragment
at the Blagoveshensky Cathedral for a long time. It was he who told the pupils about his teacher Savva Rogov, and this teacher's pupil Stephan Golysh, who was teaching Ivan (Isaiah) Lukoshkov in the Stroganovs' lands. It is most likely that the Blagoveshensky priest Feodor Krest'anin, who was famous for his art of church singing and gained great recognition among the tsar's singing diaki, was promoted in May 1606 to the rank of an archpriest. Taking part in the state affairs and frequently visiting Moscow Isaiah Lukoshkov, no doubt, knew Feodor Krest'anin and his art very well. The works of both masters were copied and kept in the tsar's musical library.
During stormy events that happened right after False Dmitry's wedding ceremony and resulted in his death, Vasily Shuisky's accession to the throne and his dethronement, as well as the impostor False Dmitry II's invasion and the Polish intervention, Isaiah Lukoshkov stayed in his monastery. It is quite possible that during Tsar Vasily's reign he was invited to the meetings of the Council. At this time the Archimandrite's attention was concentrated on his monastery's economical activity. After the liquidation of the Polish-Swedish aggression and during the state revival of Russia Lukoshkov continued to take part in state affairs of great scale.
He still retained his high position in society and at court. Thus, being present in May 1613 at the Zemsky Sobor, which elected Mikhail Romanov "to the Tsar-dom," Isaiah Lukoshkov signed an Approval Charter immediately after the bishops, the first of the monastic Fathers-Superiors. This testifies to the special position of the monastery and himself in the church hierarchy [99, v. 1, p. 637].
In December 1614 Tsar Mikhail ordered Archimandrite Isaiah to perform the burial rite of the Tsaritsa Alexandra (Irina Godunova) in the Pokrovsky Monastery in Suzdal' [24, p. 159—160. In June 1619 the Vladimir Archimandrite Isaiah took part in the elections of Patriarch Filaret Romanov. He was playing the prominent role in the rite: together with other high-ranking people he was meeting Patriarch of Jerusalem who arrived for the Patriarch's consecration [99, v. 3, p. 187].
The next spring Lukoshkov due to some private reasons remembered his native lands. This year, 1615, Isaiah was 60 (if we counted his date of birth in the right way). On the Day of the main patronal feast of the Blagoveshensky Cathedral in Solvychegodsk (Annunciation, March, 25) he donated to it the singing book [16, fol. 1—28]. In this Cathedral Lukoshkov's church services began to take place and his own musical art started its development.
According to P. M. Stroev, Archimandrite Isaiah headed the Vladimir Rozhdestvensky Monastery till
1621 [102, p. 662]. According to D. V. Razumovsky, — till 1624, which is not proved by sources. In 1621 one document was sent to Archimandrite Isaiah [40]. In June
1622 the tsar's letter to the Rozhdestvensky Monastery was already addressed to "Pafnoty and his brethren" [41]. Consequently, the last year of Lukoshkov's being the Archimandrite in Vladimir and the year of his death was 1621. In later documents there are also no references.
The Moscow chant masters called this didascalos by the nickname Lukoshko (derived from his surname).
Collection of chants, donated by Isaiah Lukoshkov at Blagoveshchensky Cathedral in Solvychegodsk.
March 1615
Archpriest Ivan who served in the tsar's Church of the Virgin Mary Nativity was called in the same way. Most probably, he was the Usol'e chant master's son who sold his yard to the Stroganovs and made a career in Moscow. The inventory of Nikita Stroganov's property, which was sold out after his death in Moscow (1616—1620), contains several records regarding Archpriest Ivan Lukoshko's purchasing the books — New Testament, Apostle, etc. [36, fol. 57, 67, 70, 195]. The state expenses book of the sovereign's Treasury Department of 1620/21 also contains some records regarding Ivan Lukoshko's payment [42, fol. 244v—245, 277v, 334].
Thus, the life and activities of the outstanding representative of the Usol'e school of church singing art Ivan (Isaiah) Lukoshkov son of Trofim were connected with different cities. When he was the Archimandrite of large monasteries he was concerned with the prosperity of his cloisters, was invited to take part in the large-scale state and church affairs. Probably, at that time he stopped his active work in the field of church singing, which he used to do in Solvychegodsk in the Stroganovs' lands. It is worth mentioning that the 17th century authors considered Lukoshkov as chant master of Ivan the Terrible's times and called him "Isaiah from Usol'e"1. He was always associated with the Usol'e school of church singing.
1 For example, see: "The Tale of the Zarembas" [19, fol. 376v].
N. P. Parfentiev, N. V. Parfentieva
At present there exist the following chants in Lu-koshkov's interpretation: the troparion "Да молчит всяка плоть" ("Let all mortal flesh keep silent"); the prokeimenon "Да ся исправит" ("Let my prayer be corrected"); other chants of Obikhod, as well as the Sticheraria doxastikons: "Волсви персидстии" ("The Persian Magi", the Nativity of Christ); "Благовествует Гавриил" ("Gabriel is evangelizing", the Annunciation); "Царю небесный" ("The Heavenly Tsar", the Trinity); "Придете верении" ("Come in faith", the Exaltation of the Cross); "О, колико блага" ("O, how many blessings", the week about the Publican and the Pharisee) etc. The masterpiece of the Usol'e chant master's art is the cycle "Ипакои воскресные на осмь гласов" ("Hypakoes Sundy in eight Echoi"). Researchers have already examined some works. However, their study should be performed in the accordance with the Usol'e tradition of singing of the complicated signs and neumatic formulae, i.e. taking into account the Usol'e theory of music (it will be dwelt upon further on). The peculiar features of this theory can be found in the musical works created in different styles with different artistic principles1.
As an example let us study the prokeimenon "Да ся исправит" ("Let my prayer be corrected") in Lukoshkov's interpretation, found in the middle of the 17th century manuscript together with two different variants of this chant: the first of them is not marked, the second one is marked "Иного переводу Лукошкова" ("Another translation of Lukoshkov"), the third is marked "Иного знамени" ("Another znamia") [89, fol. 208].
The close study of numerous copies of this prokei-menon in the manuscripts dated the 12th — 17th centuries lets us conclude that the earliest neumatic versions appeared at the turn of the 15th — 16th centuries [63, fol. 242v; 82, fol. 183v; 83, fol. 165; 84, 230]. This time was marked by the formation of the book "Obikhod" (collection of church daily chants). This prokeimenon belongs to the chants of this kind and is characterized by the absence of modes and the peculiar structure. It was performed during the liturgy of the reserved Sacrament. After the hymn "The Gladdening Light" there were two paremia reading, then the singers were slowly performing the prokeimenon in the middle of the Cathedral:
Да ся исправит молитва моя (Da sya ispravit molitva moya), Яко и кадило предо тобою (Yako i kadilo predo toboyu). Воздеяние руку моею (Vozdeyanie ruku moeyu), Жертва вечерняя (Zhertva vechernyaya).
The very first neumanic samples of this chant dated the turn of the 15th — 16th centuries contain four lines. There are also numerous differences in the shape of very encrypted sophisticated formulae — fity (фиты). The syllabic fragments of the lines also differ at times but in general are more or less stable. As we can see,
1 More detailed historiography, research of Lukoshkov's artworks and their enumeration see: [29, p. 71—120, 270—271].
at the initial stage there was no common record of this prokeimenon. One hundred years later, in the last quarter of the 16th century, there appeared the texts, which contained "razvods" of the fity formulae. In fact, these interpretations explained and clarified the earlier encrypted neume notation system2. Razvods, written by significant amount of simple neumes, demonstrate the melody of earlier brief ciphered shapes of fity formulae. Thanks to razvods, the musical content of fity began to be transmitted not orally, as before, but in writing. The extended fity razvods had the significant amount of differences in writing. It should be noted that in the texts of the 17th century there is no uniformity in the record of this prokeimenon either, especially concerning the intra-formulae fity razvods.
The singing interpretation of Lukoshkov's prokeimenon corresponds to the musical evolution of the Great Syllabic-Melismatic Chant and observes its structural rules, which were formed at the earlier stage. In his creative works the Usol'e master did not exceed the norm determined by the fity formulae and other characteristic features of this Chant. For studying the peculiarities of Lukoshkov's interpretation one should refer to the chant books from the Stroganovs' scriptorium as well as to those two variants given alongside the master's interpretation. The special marks of the late 17th century — cinnabar signs — help us decipher the older neumatic notation and translate it into the modern one.
The texts from the Stroganovs' scriptorium of the turn of the 16th—17th centuries belong to the earliest interpretations of the prokeimenon in the Great Chant. The differences are very slight here and can be traced in the interchangeability of the neume. Other interpretations of the late 16th — early 17th centuries either repeat the musical version of the prokeimenon from the Stroganovs' texts, or correlate as their variants3. Consequently, the typical chant of the Stroganovs' singing books was not the only one in the country. It possesses definite peculiarities and can be called the Usol'e (Stroganov) tradition or the Usol'e chant.
One can naturally presume that Lukoshkov in his artistic principles was to refer to the existing Usol'e variant of the prokeimenon. In fact, the analysis of the Stroganovs' variants and the master's interpretation resulted in the following: Lukoshkov in his work preserved the Usol'e fity razvods interpretations. In the syllabic parts of the lines the author deviated from the tradition introducing his own changes. Thus, the analysis of different variants of this prokeimenon allows us to define that the Lukoshkov's chant is the closest one to the earliest Stroganovs' manuscripts. Both works belong to the same singing tradition.
This close connection of Isaiah Lukoshkov's creative works with the local traditions of the Usol'e land
2 In the same period, at the end of the 16th — 17th centuries, original compositions were created with the designations of chants' singsongs: "The Put' " [74, fol. 212]; "Demes-tvo" [57, fol. 488]; "Kievsky" [75, fol. 173]; "Greek" [17, fol. 188v—189; 18, fol. 128v—129; 85, fol. 34] These me-lodically independent works have no common features with the chant of the prokeimenon under researching.
3 Samples of the prokeimenon of the "Stroganov" version: [55, fol. 363; 72, fol. 188v]. Variants, different from the "Stroganov" one: [47, fol. 153v; 16, fol. 32].
can be also traced in the troparion "Да молчит всяка плоть" ("Let all mortal flesh keep silent"), which had singing variants marked in manuscripts as "Usols'e translation, chant of monk Isaiah" and "The Usol'e znamya (neume)" [29, p. 123—132].
Lukoshkov's desire of enriching the melody of the chants made him follows not only the Usol'e tradition. The brightest example of the synthesis of the Usol'e and Novgorod traditions is Lukoshkov's interpretation of the sticheron "Волсви персидстии" ("The Persian Magi"). One of the manuscripts contains the master's interpretation together with a Novgorod one [51, fol. 208; 31, p. 138], which is called "Great chant" in another manuscript [7, fol. 63—65; 22, p. 334—341]. The chant is a doxastikon of the fifth echos performed during the Lithia on Christmas. It tells about the Gospel story of the star-led Persian Magi who reached Bethlehem where Jesus Christ was born. The Magi brought him the gifts — "gold, incense and very precious ointment (myrrh)" — and expressed their adoration. The poetical text of the sticheron is characterized by great artistic value, rhythmicity and brevity. The plot of the chant — "The Adoration of the Magi" — was typical of Russian icon painting. It can also be traced in the works of the Stroganovs' icon painters.
The earliest musical samples of the sticheron "Волсви персидстии" can be found in the 12th century manuscripts. The texts of the 12th — 15th centuries reflect the common old chant of the doxastikon of the syllabic type with a definite structure of the Znamenny chant — 11-line composition. The records of this period are practically identical1. At the end of the 15th century the old Znamenny chant tradition gets out of use and gets lost. A different neumatic writing replaces it where simple signs are ousted by more complicated ones (called serpent formulae complex)2. The syllabic relationship between verbal and neumatic texts turns into melismatic one. At the same time the appearance of a new musical variant of the doxastikon did not mean the complete rejection of the tradition: there were preserved four formulae (so-named "quilismas") above one and the same words. The complicated variant also contains the fity formulae. The musical version of this doxastikon is notated with the help of brief ciphered so-named "начертания" (shapes) of neumatic formulae.
The comparison of the singing texts of the sticheron "Волсви персидстии" dated the late 15th — the early 17th century shows one typical feature — 12-line composition.
Lines Hymnographic text
1 2 Волсви персидстии цари (Volsvi persidstii tsari) Увидевоше мудро (Uvidevoshe mudro)
1 Manuscripts of 12th century: [14, fol. 71; 15, fol. 87v; 5, fol. 89v—90; 88, fol. 17]; 13th — 14th centuries: [52, fol. 86v; 48, fol. 106; 54]; 15th century: [66, fol. 56; 59, fol. 136v— 137; 34, fol. 85].
2 For example, copies of sticheron of the last quarter 15th — early 17th centuries: [60, fol. 82v—83; 61, fol. 166; 62, fol. 67—68; 78, fol. 431; 73, fol. 86; etc].
Lines Hymnographic text
3 На земли рожешагося
(Na zemli rozhechagosya)
4 Царя небесенаго (Tsarya nebesnogo)
5 От светлыя звезды (Ot svetliya zvezdy)
6 Водими предоставоша
(Vodimi predostavocha)
7 Во Вифлеоме (Vo Vifleome)
8 Дары приносяще честеныя
(Dary prinosyashe chesteniya)
9 Злато и ливано и змирну
(Zlato i livano i zmirnu)
10 И падше поклонишася
(I padshe poklonishasya)
11 Видиша бо во вертепе
(Vidicha bo vo vertepe)
12 Младенеца лежаща безлетенаго
(Mladentsa lezhasha bezletenago)
Some texts of the late 16th century contain the cinnabar sign "Э" before the words "увидевоше" ("saw") and "царЯ" ("tsar") [64, fol. 97; 68, fol. 77]3. It is well known that it is a characteristic feature of the Demesvenny, Putevoy or Great Stolpovoy Chants. In this case (as far as here there are numerous "qulismas" absent in the Demesvenny Chant) we more likely deal it with Great Stolpovoy Chant. Alongside some common features there can be found some differences characteristic for the shapes of complicated fity formulae.
It is hardly possible to judge the intonation pattern of the doxastikon by the "secret locked" (encrypted) neumatic formulae shapes. It is also difficult to answer the question whether the same type of the chant is recorded in such way or the texts contain different musical versions. Most probably each significant singing centre developed its own tradition of chanting this razvods of the most complicated formulae shapes during the 16th century. This results in the appearance of different razvods variants in the early 17th century. They disclosed to pupils the musical content of formulae, decoding them with help of the extended explanations, written by simplier neume. They reflected different chants correspondingly. Among them one can single out four variants — Lukoshkov's, Novgorod, Anonymous and Putevoy ones [29, p. 118]. The similar fragments coincide with the above-mentioned common fragments in the earlier records. The resemblance of all these chants consists in the following: common fragments in the earlier texts present brief drawings-inscriptions, whereas later variants contain extended interpretations of one and the same formulae.
Four musical versions of the sticheron "Волсви персидстии", including Lukoshkov's variant, were not completely independent compositions. They were developing in the framework of one and the same structure established in the 16th century. In the 17th century the neumatic notation lost its "secret locked" (encryption), was changed and turned into dif-
3 In the record of the Russian National Library's manuscript [79, fol. 274—275] this sign is placed before the words: увидевоше (uvidevoshe), царя (tsarya), водими (vodimi), дары (dary), злато (zlato).
N. P. Parfentiev, N. V. Parfentieva
ferent type of written record—presentation in the form of razvods-explanations by simple neumes of notation. This conclusion is especially important regarding Isaiah Lukoshkov's creative works.
The close study of the chant written books from the Stroganovs' scriptorium showed that the sticheron "Волсви персидстии" had 6 variants there: Brief Zna-menny [6, fol. 344v; 80, fol. 531]; Putevoy of Stolpovoy notation [6, fol. 340v—341); Anonymous "litsevoy" one (without razvods) [6, fol. 308v—309]; Great Znamenny [56, fol. 381v—382]; Putevoy in Putevoy notation [74, fol. 72v—73]; Special Usol'e encrypted shapes variant [70, fol. 419v]. Such an extensive collection of variants proves that the Usol'e masters and their patrons (the manufacturers Stroganovs) paid particular attention to the newest achievements of the church singing art and had a good command of all peculiarities of it.
We should single out here the unique interpretation of the sticheron found in the Stroganovs' manuscript of the turn of the 16th—17th centuries (the so-called Usol'e variant, number 6). It is of great value as it was the creation of the Usol'e masters and functioned only in the Usol'e land. This unique musical version in the Ussol'e tradition was created on the base of the anonymous variant established in the 16th century and included in the Stroganovs' chant books (variant 3). Both variants have similar structure and the same amount of formulae (22), forming the 12-line composition. The borders of both the formulae and the lines coincide, which allows analyzing both texts on parallel and assessing the degree of similarity and difference. On the whole, in comparison with the earliest one, the Usol'e variant of the sticheron "The Persian Magi" differs greatly. It can be traced in the presence of fity formulae shapes instead of litso (Rus. лицо, лицевая) formulae ones in four lines. However, the presence of similar fragments in both variants proves that the Usol'e variant is derived from this earlier prototype.
This Usol'e variant was used for creating Lukoshkov's interpretation. The comparison of both variants also shows that they belong to the same tradition. The first Usol'e variant (6) presents encrypted formulae shapes, the second Lukoshkov contains their razvods-explanations. The formulae, which were partially or completely transformed by Lukoshkov, are of great importance here. These differences in both variants allow tracing the peculiarities of the master's art.
The comparison of Isaiah Lukoshkov's variant with the Novgorod one showed that among all the formulae only three belong to the master. The rest four formulae are identical to the Novgorod variant. Thus, creating his own musical version of the sticheron "Волсви персидстии" Lukoshkov relied on the non-razvod model of the work that already existed in Usolye. The main creative task of the master was to present the chant in a new form - using simpler fractional neume. Lukoshkov, possessing deep knowledge in the field of the old-Russian music theory, brilliantly performed his task. At the same time he stuck to the tradition of his own school and his teacher Stephan Golysh from Novgorod.
The presence of Lukoshkov's and Novgorod variants in one and the same manuscript helps us to trace the influence of Novgorod tradition on the master and his art. Both chants present common formulae structure
and line composition, as well as 8 common formula razvods (words: царие, увидевоше, мудро, небесенаго, от светлыя, звезда, предоставоше, во Вифлеомо, честеныя). At the same time Lukoshkov's variant is longer than the Novgorod one. The employment of different formulae in the same fragments of the verbal text was quite unusual in the times of the canonic art. The presence of completely different five formulae and nine formulas correlated with each other at the level of intra-formula melodic variation from the above-mentioned twenty two ones allowed the Russian musicians of the early 17th century to define these chants as Lukoshkov's or the Novgorod variants.
Thus, master Lukoshkov's contribution into the centuries-old evolution of the musical sticheron "Волсви персидстии" ("The Persian Magi") was the disclosure of encrypted formulae on the base of composition of the Great Chant, already established before him in Usol'e. The master gave the razvods-explanations of these previously unreadable, but only transmitted orally by heart formulae. He wrote their musical content with fixation with simple neumes, thanks to which only it can be restored.
The fact that Isaiah Lukoshkov was not generally the author of this formulae composition can be judged by the transformation in his variant of seven formulae, of which three, most likely, were performed by him, and four ones are borrowed from the chant of the Novgorod tradition. The master knew this variant very well, as he was a pupil of the Novgorod didascalos. In canonical art the techniques of creativity applied by the master gave the basis to name this variant as Lukoshkov.
The doxastikon "О, колико блага" ("O, how many blessings") can serve an example of Lukoshkov's authorship. This chant is recorded on a separate sheet, which was kept in the music library of the tsar's singing diaki. The text is marked in the following way: "Lukoshkin's interpretation, taken September, 8, 1601" [37, fol. 1].
This doxastikon was the last one in the cycle "На господи воззвах" (Calling the Lord "Gospodi vozzvakh"), which was performed on the Sunday of the Prodigal Son. The poetical text of this chant belongs to the Byzantine hymnographer Stephan Savvait (died circa 807). It is closely connected with the corresponding Gospel Parable. Being the chant of preparatory days before the Great Lent it is included in the collection of Triodions Sticherons.
We know the earliest musical version of the dox-astikon from the 12th century manuscript. [20, fol. 7]. It consists of 15 complexes of neumes, each of which includes the fita or popevka formulae shapes. On the whole the text of the 12th century can be characterized as a syllabic and melismatic composition. The next stage in the existence of this doxastikon is the 14th — early 15th century [87, fol. 4v (performed "in verse"); 76, fol. 62v—63 (performed "Calling the Lord")]. The recorded chant is derived from the oldest variant, which shows the slightest intonation changes of the singsong of the doxastikon throughout centuries.
In the second half of the 15th century the archetype gave rise to the derivative version which serves a link between the old and the author's (Lukoshkov's) variants [61, fol. 263v]. It was widely used in different regions
Doxastikon "O, koliko blaga". "Interpretation by Lukoshkin". Recording of 1601
of the country throughout the 16th century [29, p. 119]. The comparison of this chant with the old one results in the number of similarities. At the same time there exist differences. The main difference of the author's variant consists in the following: the Lukoshkov one contains the razvods-interpretations of almost all neumatic formulae shapes. The Usol'e master used not the old but the derivative variant.
Due to the fact that till the beginning of the 17th century there were no razvods or interpretations and that all chant masters had to chant these encrypted formulae on their own, we can presume that these fragments of filled with the freed melodic movement gave rise to the creative impulse of masters. Each of them interpreted similar formulae in the framework of their own traditions. There exist documentary evidences that at this time the musical ways of chanting to the existing formulae became one of the trends in the development of the Old Russian singing art1. The differences in their interpretations were the result of purposeful creative work of local masters or the consequence of a number of other reasons: the imperfection of the encrypted neumatic notation, remoteness of musical centres. It should be noted that musicians already defined these differences in the 17th century as author's ones.
The record of the doxastikon "О, колико блага" in Lukoshkov's interpretation is dated 1601. There were found no earlier versions with razvods so far. Probably, Lukoshkov was the first who disclosed musical content of the formulae that is why the manuscripts of the early 17th century contained his variant of interpretation mainly [65, fol. 472; 71, fol. 724v—725]. Alongside these variants there existed some other ones. Interestingly enough,
1 Manuscripts of the first half of the 17th century contain the Manual of theory of music "Fity's in razvods (explanations)", which includes five Usolsky Fity formulae razvods etc. [46, fol. 626, 628; 51, fol. 123—124, 125]. In the Chant manuscript of the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts [33, fol. 20—21, 23, 27v, 90v] razvods are given of the "lines of the wise" of Lukoshkov, Krest'anin and others.
the differences can be traced only in the melismatic lines (with previously encrypted formulae). Syllabic lines are more stable and canonical. As we can see, Lukoshkov's authorship was connected with a new musical interpretation of fity shapes, though the author's unique style also is reflected in the melodic development of the recitative fragments. The Usol'e master's interpretations were preserved in other texts of the late 17th century.
The manuscript of the late 17th century is of great interest in reference to Lukoshkov's peculiar style. It contains the doxastikon in neumatic znamennaia notation with the translation into the five-line notation [35, fol. 6v—7]. This work gives a unique opportunity to decipher the chant and transform it into the modern notation. In spite of the phonetic peculiarities of the text and replacements of certain words, the musical base of the chant underwent no considerable change and is extremely similar to the Lukoshkov's interpretation. All formulae are given in brief ciphered inscription and in extend razvods- explanations of them by simple neumes and modern notes.
The work of the Usol'e master consists of 17 melodic formulae, which are united into 14-line composition.
Lines Hymnographic text Formulae
1 O (О) 1
2 Колит блага (Koliko blaga) 2
3 Окаянный себе лишихо 3
(Okayanniy sebe lishikho)
4 О хабуви (O khabuvi) Какова царествия / отопадохо 4
5 убогий азо (Kakova tsarestviya / otopadokho ubogiy azo) Богатество изгубихо / еже 5—6
6 прияхо (Bogatestvo izgubikho / ezhe priyakho) 7—8
7 Заповед преступиво 9
(Zapoved prestupivo)
Lines Hymnographic text Formulae
8 Увы моне (Uvy mone) 10
9 Окаянная душе (Okayannaya dushe) 11
10 Огневи веченому / прочее осу-жаешися (Ognevi vechenomu / prochee osuzhaeshisya) 12—13
11 Тем преже конеца (Tem prezhe konetsa) 14
12 Возопи Христу Богу (Vozopi Khristu Bogu) 15
13 Яко блуденаго приими мя сына (Yako bludenago priimi mya syna) 16
14 Боже и помилуи мя (Bozhe i pomiluy mya). 17
The study of the interaction between the neumatic and verbal texts showed that in general it is based on the principle of correspondence. The logic of the musical development of the chant emphasizes the structure of the poetical text, without breaking its shape and semantic content. The singsong significantly affects the line organization of the doxastikon.
The poetical content of the "О, колико блага" can be found in the intonation contour of the chant by means of rhyming of the endings of every complete thought. They link the phrases and speak of the high degree of musical generalization of semantic units of verbal text and deep processes of text and melody interaction. The musical language of the chant is characterized by the alteration of syllabic and melismatic lines, which differ not only by the degree of melodic development, but also by the sound range and by the functional importance in terms of revealing the sense of the text. Melismatic lines where the melody prevails over the verbal text perform the constructive as well as image-bearing, semantic and partially decorative functions. The dynamics of their singsong creates an emotional underlying message. In syllabic lines, the content of the verbal text does not dissolve into the melody, but interacts with it. These lines are the main ones in delivering the informative meaning of the doxastikon.
The doxastikon "О, колико блага" in Lukoshkov's interpretation presents the peak in the evolutionary development of the ancient chant. His mastery revealed itself in the ability to disclose the melodic significance of formulae with the introduction of the master's own manner into the formation of their razvods. Besides, Lukoshkov enriched the certain fragments of the chant. His contemporaries considered him a master who "introduced the Znamenny chant and spread it". His work is characterized by the interaction and complementarity of poetical text and melody, syllabic and melismatic lines, the old tradition and the innovation.
The creation of the chants on the base of the established traditions (the Ussol'e, Novgorod ones) put Lukoshkov in the forefront among the Russian outstanding chant masters. However, the creative works of this master are also marked by original, author's compositions.
The sticheron "Царю Небесныи утешителю" ("The Heavenly Tsar, the Comforter") was performed
Sticheron "Tsaru nebesniy". "Lukoshkov's Rospev".
The beginning of the 17th century
in the 6th echos on Trinity Sunday as a doxastikon in the Collection of Sticherons sung "at verse" (The Great Vespers) and as a sticheron after Psalm 50 (The Litiya). The oldest records are dated the 12th and 13th centuries [20, fol. 212; 86, fol. 180]. They are practically identical and reflect the Znamenny chant: it has 7 popevky and 2 fity formulae. The texts of the 15th — 16th centuries can be characterized as editions of this old chant. They have preserved the general amount of signs and the syllabic and melismatic proportion of the words and the melody. Some signs underwent changes; two popevky formulae were designed in a new way as well. Thus, the amount of formulae in the chant rose to 11. The greatest number of changes was introduced in the late 15th century. The chant, which got established till the beginning of the 16th century (its texts differ on the level of sign variability), was widely spread. All the available records of the sticheron contain this Typical variant. The records themselves have no peculiarities [50, fol. 481; 80, fol. 420v; etc.].
The sticheron, which is marked as "Lukoshkov's rospev (interpretation)" (after Psalm 50, echos 6), was first mentioned by V. I. Sreznevsky in the description of the early 17th century manuscript [4, fol. 205v; 100, p. 50]. We managed to obtain several anonymous copies of this chant. The earliest of them is dated the early 17th century, the latest — the late 17th century [13, fol. 505—506v; 49, fol. 360; 77, fol. 83; 89, fol. 315; 91, fol. 387—388v]. While comparing Lukoshkov's variant with the Typical one from the Stroganovs' manuscripts, we found out that they differ by the number of lines: the Typical (anonymous) has 11, the Lukoshkov's — 12. Popevky and fity formulae form the line composition.
Lines Anonymous (Typovoy) Variant Lukoshkov's Variant
1 Царю небесный (п) Царю (п) небесеныи (п)
Tsaru nebesniy (p) Tsaru (p) nebesniy (p)
2 Утешителю (ф) У - (л) тешите- (ф) лю (ф)
Uteshitelu (f) U- (l) teshite-® lu (f)
3 Душе истиненыи (п) Душе (л) истиненыи (ф)
Dushe istinenyi (p) Dushe (l) istinenyi (f)
4 Иже везде сыи (п) Иже (п) везде сыи (п)
Izhe vezde syi (p). Izhe (p) vezde syi (p)
5 И все совершил (п) Веся (ф)
I vse sovershil (p) Vesya (f)
6 Сокровище благое (п) Исполня сокровище благих (п)
Sokrovishe blagoe (p) Ispolnya sokrovishe blagikh (p)
7 И жизнидателю (п) И жизни (л) подателю (ф)
I zhiznidatelu (p) I zhizni (l) podatelu (f)
8 Приди и воселися во ны (п) Приди (л) и вселися в ны (л)
Pridi i voselisya vo ny (p) Pridi (l) i voselisya v ny (l)
9 И очисти ны (ф) И оцысти ны (ф)
I ochisti ny (f) I otsisti ny (f)
10 Ото всякия скверны (п) Ото всякия (л) скверны (л)
Oto vsyakiya skverny (p) Oto vsyakiya (l) skverny (l)
11 И спаси Блаже душа наша (п) И спаси Блаже (л)
I spasi Bozhe dusha nasha (p). I spasi Bozhe (l)
12 Душа (л) наша (л) Dusha (l )nasha (l).
The general amount of formulae in the anonymous chant corresponds to the number of lines — 11. The Lukoshkov variant has 21 formulae, which are given for separate words but at times one word takes two or even three formulae. The linear and formula structure of both variants—the anonymous and the Lukoshkov's ones — can be viewed in the table where popevky are "p (п)", litsa — "l (л)", fity — "f (ф)".
The renowned chant master of the Usol'e land refused to follow the canonic tradition. The neumatic signs are completely changed in his variant. The melis-matic type of verbal text and singsong proportion, in which fita and litsa razvods prevail, replaces the syllabic melismatic type. The master was not satisfied with the restrained strict sounding of the archaic chant. The poetical text of the Sticheron reflects the elevated state of anticipating of the Mystery — the Descent of the Holy Spirit. Lukoshkov was among the first (if not the first one) who dared to create an original musical composition for the text of this chant. Only a highly gifted and authoritative musician could afford it at that time in the canonic art1.
All the variants that appeared in the 17th century differ from Lukoshkov's interpretation [29, p. 109]. The only exception is the anonymous variant of the Great Chant of the second half of the 17th century. It has two fragments similar to the Lukoshkov variant: the beginning of the first line (word "царю") and the interpretation of the fita (the last syllables of the word "утешителю") [21, fol. 93]. In other respects these works differ: regarding the neumatic composition, the number of formulae and their division into lines etc. The
1 In the 17th century there were also others, but anonymous chants of the sticheron. Sometimes they are given together with the chant of the Usol'e master [13, fol. 505—507]. Following Lukoshkov's one is the Great chant with the designation "different".
variants which appeared later, in the second half of the century, can be interesting in terms of their perception of the Usol'e master's tradition.
Lukoshkov's interpretation and the anonymous one, created at the same time [13, fol. 506v—507; 29, p. 109—114), are different, original and independent compositions, which have no analogues in the past. Lukoshkov's variant is much longer in comparison with the anonymous one. The structure of lines based on the proportion of the verbal and neumatic texts is also different. The whole chant of the Usol'e master presents the sounds coming gradually and forming intonation waves with the rising and lowering movement.
The anonymous master while creating his variant extended the sound range and the borders of the melody, allowing it to rise to the highest pitch and to reach the peak expressiveness. In both variants the words "утешителю'" (comforter) and и "очисти ны" (cleanse us) are the key ones. However, the anonymous author emphasizes these words not only by means of melody razvods but also of the higher pitch of the sounds.
The Usol'e chant master was creating his variant as a sample of "ideal singing", going back to the "divine archetype". All possible means of musical expressiveness serve to turn all the musical and poetical lines into the single artistic unity. Everything is aimed at the continuous development of the musical thought. At the same time the master, working at the original chant, did not exceed the limits of the traditional intonation and composition techniques, characteristic of his epoch and resting on the canonic idea of the beautiful. Free art revealed itself not in the search of a new musical language but in the technical mastery of creating the Great Znamenny Chant. Lukoshkov shows himself as a connoisseur of fity singing. His innovative technique reveals itself in the original interpretation of complicated fity formulae. Combining popevky, litsa and fity
N. P. Parfentiev, N. V. Parfentieva
formulae into the single large-scale composition the Usol'e master adds a new sounding and exceptional melodiousness to the canonic poetical text.
The grand cycle "Ипакои воскресные на осмь гласов" (The Hypakoes Sundy in eight Echoi) in Lu-koshkov's interpretation stands in the same row with such outstanding works as "The Cross Sticherons" by Varlaam Rogov or "The Evangelical Sticherons" by Feodor Krest'anin. This cycle was found in the manuscript dated the second quarter of the 17th century [104, fol. 304—308]1. It tells how the Resurrection of Christ was announced to the world through Angels, Holy Women Myrrh-Bearers and Apostles.
The oldest texts of "The Hypakoe" sung in eight Echoi can be found in the 12th century Collections of "kondaks" (kontakions) in the corresponding "kondakar" neumatic notation [58, fol. 85—93; 92, fol. 72v—81v]. The following records of these chants can be found in the manuscripts of the Octoechos beginning from the second half of the 16th century. Usually they were included in the chants of Matins before antiphons, but at times they were presented all together as a cycle at the end of the book [53; 67; 69]. At this time the Hypakoe had several chant variants. The most wide spread one was the brief variant with the traditional composition. Later there appeared another variant with a more complicated type of the Znamenny style chant, which can be characterized as moderate or middle between brief and great. In some manuscripts it is marked as "another interpretation", "another neume" [57, fol. 113v—115v; 90, fol. 149v—150v]. Its earliest record was found in the Collection dated the middle of 1580 from the Stroganovs' book-writing workshop [12, fol. 86v, 102v, 116, 133v, 153, 170v, 188, 205v]. Part of the formulae is interpreted, that is, spelled out in the form of razvods or clarification with simple neume here. Taking into consideration that it was the period of the Usol'e singing school formation, N. V. Parfenteva presumed that Stephan Golysh from Novgorod could provide his interpretation as far as he was teaching the Stroganovs' chanters at that time. Consequently the chant itself is given in the tradition of the Novgorod singing school [30, p. 143—149]. This supposition can be partially proved by the fact that Isaiah Lukoshkov chose a different text as the source version for his interpretation.
The Great (Big) chant of the Hypakoe, widespread in the Usol'e land, became the base for Lukoshkov's interpretation. It was found in the manuscript from the Stroganovs' workshop dated 1590-s [70, fol. 42, 55v, 69, 82, 97, 111v, 124, 135v]. Its comparison with the previous variants showed that this chant (let us call it as the Usol'e variant) has no similar fragments with the Brief version but has much in common with the suppositive Novgorod variant. To be more exact, Usol'e Hypakoe chants of some Echoi are similar to the Novgorod ones, others — differ greatly from this variant [30, p. 142—149]. Thus, the Usol'e anonymous masters have not yet set the task of performing the chant of each Hypakoe in a single Great Znamenniy style. This was the first attempt to melodiously renew of the cycle.
1 The record was introduced into science by A. M. Rat'kova, the study of the cycle was carried out by N. V. Parfentieva [29, p. 114; 30, p. 142—171].
Isaiah Lukoshkov while creating his own variant of chanting mainly rested upon this Usol'e singing version of the Hypakoe, in which the majority of litsa and fity formulae are presented in the form of their brief encrypted shapes. The cycle "The Hypakoe in eight Echoi" performed by the chant master contains the most complete disclosure of the content of all the melodic formulae. Both previous variants (the Usol'e and the Novgorod ones) served the base for this work. They were spread in the Usol'e land at the time when Lukoshkov was still staying there.
The master decided to create the cycle in the style of the Great Chant with complicated melismatics. He selected those formulae, which helped solve this task, at times breaking with the traditions of his own school and applying to the traditions of his teacher's singing school of Novgorod (Hypakoe of the 5th and 6th Echoi). He also enriched the Hypakoe chants with the new litsa and fity formulae (up to 17), not used before him in cycle. It was in them that the individual, unique originality of Isaiah Lukoshkov's interpretation mastery was revealed. On the whole, the amount of formulae here (112) exceeds the Hypakoe in the Novgorod (105) and the Usol'e (107) traditions. Thus, in the conditions of the canonic art performing his task to create the Hypakoe cycle in the style of the Great Chant, the chant master was choosing the sources applying the principle of formulae-combinatorial composition [30, p. 142—154]. The creative activities of Isaiah Lukoshkov gained wide recognition among the contemporaries. His interpretation of the Hypakoe was the most widespread variant in the chant books till the end of the 17th century2.
Thus, the majority of the above-mentioned works connected with the name of Isaiah Lukoshkov present the result of his creative activities in the framework of the Usol'e school, going back to the oldest depths of the old Russian singing culture. The master's desire to search for new ways of enriching the melody of the chants made him not only follow the traditions of his singing school. He could also employ the traditions taken from his teacher — Stephan Golysh from Novgorod. At the same time the chant master created works of original structure, which can be considered as the highest achievement of the musical theoretical and artistic thought of that time. But even in this case, he remained within the framework of the canonical tradition, using already established principles of creativity, artistic techniques and singing formulae, their affiliation to some Echoi and Style. The available at present legacy of Isaiah Lukoshkov puts him in the forefront among the most outstanding masters of Old Russian church singing art.
References
1. Acty, otnosyashiesya do yuridicheskogo byta drevney Rossii [Acts related to the legal life of ancient Russia]. Published by N. Kalachev. St. Petersburg, 1857, v. 1.
2. Acty, sobranii v bibliotecakh i arkhivakh Rossiyskoy imperii Arkheograficheskoy Expeditsiey Imperatorskoy
2 The discovering of the cycle copies with cinnabar marks, indicating the pitch of the sounds, allowed N.V. Par-fentieva to decipher the artwork and reveal the features of the musical embodiment of the poetic text by the master [30, p. 154—171].
Academii Nauk [Historical Acts collected by the Archaeo-graphical Expedition of the Academy of Sciences in the Libraries and Archives of the Russian Empire]. St. Petersburg, 1836, v. 2.
3. Andreev A. I. Kratkaya opis' gramot, khranyashchikhsya v Rukopisnom otdele Rossiyskoy publichnoy biblioteki [Brief inventory of letters stored in the Manuscript Department of the Russian Public Library]. Letopis'zanyatiy Arkheograficheskoy komissii [Chronicle of the Archaeographic Commission s occupations]. Petrograd, 1923, issue 32, № 264.
4. BRAN [Library of Academy of Sciences of Russian, St. Petersburg]. Osn. 32.16.18.
5. BRAN. Osn. 34.7.6.
6. BRAN. Strogan. № 44.
7. BRAN. Tselepi. № 20.
8. Bulanin D. M. Vladimiro-Rozhdestvenskiy monastyr' kak kul'turnyy tsentr Drevney Rusi [Vladimir Rozhdestvensky Monastery as a Cultural Center of Ancient Rus]. Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoy literatury Instituta Russkoy literatury AN SSSR [Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature of the Institute of Russian Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences]. Leningrad, 1981, pp. 71—79.
9. Vvedenskiy A.A. Torgovyi dom XVI—XVII vekov. [Trading house 16th—17th centuries]. Leningrad, 1924.
10. Vkladnaya kniga vladimirskogo Rozhdestvenskogo monastyrya [Book of contributions to the Vladimir Rozh-destvensky monastery]. Izvestiya Imperatorskogo Arkheolog-icheskogo obshchestva [News ofthe Imperial Archaeological Society]. 1863, v. 4.
11. Dunaev B. Kostroma v eye proshlom i nastoyashchem po pamyatnikam iskusstva [Kostroma in its past and present on the monuments of art]. Moscow, 1913.
12. GIM [State Historical Museum, Moscow]. e^hhob. № 37.
13. GIM. Synod. № 99.
14. GIM. Synod. № 572.
15. GIM. Synod. № 589.
16. GIM. Synod. № 819 (turn of the 16th—17th centuries).
17. GIM. Synod. Pevch. № 52.
18. GIM. Synod. Pevch. № 67.
19. GIM. Synod. Pevch. № 219.
20. GIM. Uspen. № 8.
21. GIM. Schuk. № 671.
22. Zvereva S. G. Materialy k biografii i tvorcheskoy deyatel'nosti Ivana Lukoshki [Materials for Ivan Lukoshko's biography and creative activity]. Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoy literatury Instituta russkoy literatury AN SSSR [Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature of the Institute of Russian Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences]. Leningrad, 1983, pp. 334—341.
23. Karamzin N. M. Istoriya gosudarstva Rossiyskogo [History of Russian State]. St. Petersburg, 1845, v. 11.
24. Katayev I. M., Kabanov A. K. Opisaniye aktov so-braniya gr. A. S. Uvarova. Akty istoricheskiye / I. M. Kataev, A. K. Kabanov. - Moscow, 1905. [Description of the Count A.S. Uvarov's collection acts. Historical acts]. Moscow, 1905.
25. Leonid. Dukhovniki velikikh knyazey i tsarey Mosko-vskikh i vseya Rossii [Confessors of the great princes and tsars of Moscow and All Russia]. Chteniya v Obshchestve istorii i drevnostey rossiyskikh [Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities]. Moscow, 1876. Book 1. Section 5.
26. Muzykal'naya estetika Rossii XI—XVIII vv. [Musical aesthetics of Russia 11th—18th centuries]. Comp. by A. I. Rogov. Moscow, 1973.
27. Parfentiev N. P. Vydayushchiyesya russkiye muzykan-ty XVI—XVII vv.: izbrannyye nauchnyye stat'I [Outstanding Russian musicians of the 16th—17th centuries: selected scientific articles]. Introductory article by N.V. Parfentieva. Chelyabinsk, 2005, 352 p.
28. Parfentiev N. P. Usol'skaya shkola v drevnerusskom pevcheskom iskusstve XVI—XVII vv. i proizvedeniya eye masterov v pamyatnikakh pis'mennosti [Usolskaya School in Old Russian Church Singing Art of the 16th—17th centuries and the works of its masters in the monuments of writing]. Pamyatniki literatury i obshchestvennoy mysli epokhi feodal-izma [Monuments of literature and social thought of the era of feudalism]. — Novosibirsk, 1985.
29. Parfentiev N. P., Parfentieva N. V. Usol'skaya (Stroganovskaya) shkola v russkoy muzyke XVI-XVII vv. [Usolskaya (Stroganov) school in Russian music of the 16th— 17th centuries], Chelyabinsk, 1993, 347 p.
30. Parfentieva N. V. Tvorchestvo masterov drevnerussko-go pevcheskogo iskusstva XVI-XVII vv. (Na primere proiz-vedeniy vydayushchikhsya raspevshchikov) [Creativity of the masters of old Russian church singing art of the 16th— 17th centuries. (On the example of outstanding raspevshiks' (chanters) art works )]. Chelyabinsk, 1997, 338 p.
31. Razumobsky, D.V. O notnykh bezlineynykh ruko-pisyakh tserkovnogo znamennogo peniya [About note nonlinear manuscripts of the church znamenny chant]. Moscow, 1863.
32. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, Moscow]. F. 156. № 6.
33. RGADA. F. 181. № 600
34. RGADA. F. 181. № 711.
35. RGADA. F. 181. № 1574
36. RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. № 446.
37. RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. № 1589.
38. RGADA. F. 196. Inv. 1. № 273.
39. RGADA. F. 281. № 1903.
40. RGADA. F. 281. № 1906.
41. RGADA. F. 281. № 1907
42. RGADA. F. 396. Inv. 2. № 206.
43. RGADA. F. 1201. Inv. 1. № 424.
44. RGADA. F. 1209. Inv. 1. № 15039.
45. RGADA. F. 1278. Inv. 2. № 25.
46. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 37. № 93.
47. RGB. F. 37. № 100 (1594).
48. RGB. F. 113. № 3.
49. RGB. F. 178. № 766.
50. RGB. F. 209. № 665.
51. RGB. F. 210. № 1.
52. RGB. F. 218. № 740.
53. RGB. F. 228. № 35.
54. RGB. F. 256, № 420.
55. RGB. F. 272. № 318 (1584—1598).
56. RGB. F. 288. № 36.
57. RGB. F. 292. № 45 (turn of the 16th—17th centuries).
58. RGB. F. 304. № 23.
59. RGB. F. 304. № 407.
60. RGB. F. 304. № 409.
61. RGB. F. 304. № 410.
62. RGB. F. 304. № 411.
63. RGB. F. 304. № 413.
64. RGB. F. 304. № 416.
65. RGB. F. 304. № 429.
66. RGB. F. 304. № 440.
67. RGB. F. 304. № 445.
68. RGB. F. 354. № 211.
69. RGB. F. 379. № 23.
70. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Kir.-Bel. № 586/843.
71. RNB. Kir.-Bel. № 593/850.
72. RNB. Kir.-Bel. № 605/862 (early 17th century).
73. RNB. Kir.-Bel. № 616/873.
74. RNB. Kir.-Bel. № 618/875 (turn of the 16th— 17th centuries).
75. RNB. Kir.-Bel. № 628/885.
76. RNB. Kir.-Bel. № 637/894 (15th century)
77. RNB. Kir.-Bel. № 638/895.
78. RNB. Kir.-Bel. № 668/925.
79. RNB. Kir.-Bel. № 675/932.
80. RNB. Pogod. № 380.
81. RNB. Sobr. Rus. Arkheol. Obsch. № 26.
82. RNB. Solov. № 276/277.
83. RNB. Solov. № 277/283.
84. RNB. Solov. № 277/289.
85. RNB. Solov. № 621/663.
86. RNB. Sof. № 85 (13th century).
87. RNB. Sof. № 96 (14th century).
88. RNB. Sof. № 384.
89. RNB. Sof. № 480.
90. RNB. Sof. № 498.
91. RNB. 0.1.404.
92. RNB. Q.I.32.
93. RNB. Q.I.1101.
94. RNB. Q.IV.17.
95. Romodanovskaya E. K. Slavyano-russkiye rukopisi nauchnoy biblioteki Tomskogo universiteta [Slavic-Russian manuscripts of the Tomsk University scientific library]. Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoy literatury Instituta russkoy literatury AN SSSR [Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature of the Institute of Russian Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences]. Leningrad, 1971, v. 26. pp. 344.
96. Savvaitov P. I. Stroganovskiye vklady v Sol'vyche-godskiy Blagoveshchenskiy sobor [Stroganov's contributions to the Solvychegodsky Annunciation Cathedral]. Pamyatniki drevney pis'mennosti i iskusstva [Monuments ofancient writing and art]. St. Petersburg, 1886. Issue 61.
97. Sbomik Mukhanova [Mukhanov's collection]. Comp. by P. Mukhanov. St. Petersburg, 1866.
98. Skazaniya sovremennikov o Dmitrii Samozvantse [Legends of contemporaries about Dmitry the Pretender]. Comp. by N. Ustryalov. St. Petersburg, 1831. Part 1; St. Petersburg, 1832. Part 2.
99. Sobraniye gosudarstvennykh gramot i dogovorov, khranyashchikhsya v gosudarstvennoy Kollegii inostrannykh del [Collection of state letters and treaties stored in the State Collegium of Foreign Affairs]. St. Petersburg, 1813. Part 1; Moscow, 1822. Part 3.
100. Sreznevskiy V. I. Svedeniya o rukopisnykh i pe-chatnykh izdaniyakh i drugikh predmetakh, postupivshikh v rukopisnoye otdeleniye Biblioteki imp. Akademii nauk v 1902 g. [Information about handwritten and printed editions and other items incoming to the handwritten department of the Imperial Academy of Sciences Library in 1902]. St. Petersburg, 1905.
101. Smirnov A. Svyateyshiy patriarkh Filaret Nikitich Moskovskiy i vseya Rossii [His Holiness Patriarch Filaret Nikitich of Moscow and All Russia]. Moscow, 1874.
102. Stroyev P.M. Spiski iyerarkhov i nastoyateley monas-tyrey Rossiyskoy tserkvi [Lists of hierarchs and abbots of the monasteries of the Russian Church]. St. Petersburg, 1877.
103. Tikhonravov K. Vladimiro-Rozhdestvenskiy monastyr' v XII v. [Vladimir-Rozhdestvensky monastery in the 12th century]. Vladimir, 1869.
104. Natsional'nyy arkhiv respubliki Kareliya [National Archives of the Republic of Karelia]. № 38.
Received August 12, 2020
УДК 783(470.5) + 94(470.5) РСН: 10.14529/8811200410
ББК Ч611.3 + Т3(2Р36)-7 + Щ313(2)
о творческой деятельности мастера церковно-певческого искусства ивана (исайи) лукошкова
(УМ. Ок. 1621 г.)
Н. П. Парфентьев, Н. В. Парфентьева,
Южно-Уральский государственный университет, г. Челябинск, Российская Федерация
В статье обобщаются и исследуются сведения об одном из самых выдающихся представителей древнерусской музыки — Иване Трофимове сыне (в иночестве — Исайе) Лукошкове. Он был известен уже современникам как мастер Усольской (Строгановской) школы церковно-певческого искусства XVI—XVII вв. Авторами представлен обзор произведений — распевов Лукошкова, а на примере наиболее репрезентативных из них показаны творческие принципы и приемы этого распевщика. Наблюдения и выводы основаны на изучении широкого круга документальных и нарративных источников, певческих рукописей XII—XVII вв. В ходе исследования произведений древнерусской музыки применяется авторский формульно-структурный метод.
Ключевые слова: древнерусское церковно-певческое искусство, авторское творчество, Усольская (Строгановская) школа, Иван (Исайя) Лукошков.
Литература и источники
1. Акты, относящиеся до юридического быта древней России / под ред. Н. Калачева. — Т. 1. — Санкт-Петербург, 1857. — С. 235—236.
2. Акты, собранные АЭ. — Т. 2 — С. 48.
3. Андреев, А. И. Краткая опись грамот, хранящихся в Рукописном отделе Российской публичной библиотеки / А. И. Андреев // Летопись занятий Археографической комиссии. — Вып. 32. — Петроград, 1923. — № 264.
4. БРАН. Осн. 32.16.18.
5. БРАН. Осн. 34.7.6.
6. БРАН. Строган. № 44.
7. БРАН. Целепи. № 20.
8. Буланин, Д. М. Владимиро-Рождественский монастырь как культурный центр Древней Руси / Д. М. Буланин // Труды Отдела древнерусской литературы Института русской литературы АН СССР. — Ленинград : Наука, 1981. — С. 71—79.
9. Введенский, А. А. Торговый дом XVI—XVII вв. / А. А. Введенский. — Ленинград, 1924.
10. Вкладная книга владимирского Рождественского монастыря // Известия имп. Археологического общества. — Т. 4. — 1863.
11. Дунаев, Б. Кострома в ее прошлом и настоящем по памятникам искусства / Б. Дунаев. — Москва, 1913.
12. ГИМ. Единов. № 37.
13. ГИМ. Синод. № 99.
14. ГИМ. Синод. № 572.
15. ГИМ. Синод. № 589.
16. ГИМ. Синод. № 819 (рубеж вв.).
17. ГИМ. Синод. певч. № 52.
18. ГИМ. Синод. певч. № 67.
19. ГИМ. Синод. певч. № 219.
20. ГИМ. Успен. № 8.
21. ГИМ. Щук. № 671.
22. Зверева, С. Г. Материалы к биографии и творческой деятельности Ивана Лукошки / С. Г. Зверева // Труды Отдела древнерусской литературы Института русской литературы АН СССР. — Т. 37. — Ленинград : Наука, 1983. — С. 334—341.
23. Карамзин, Н. М. История государства Российского / Н. М. Карамзин. — Изд. 5-е. — Т. 11. — Санкт-Петербург, 1845. — С. 135.
24. Катаев, И. М. Описание актов собрания гр. А.С. Уварова. Акты исторические / И. М. Катаев, А. К. Кабанов. — Москва, 1905.
25. Леонид. Духовники великих князей и царей Московских и всея России / Леонид // ЧОИДР. Кн. 1. — Москва, 1876. — Отд. 5.
26. Музыкальная эстетика России XI—XVIII вв. / сост. А. И. Рогов. — Москва, 1973. — С. 71.
27. Парфентьев, Н. П. Выдающиеся русские музыканты XVI—XVII вв. : избр. науч. ст. / Н. П. Парфентьев ; вступ. ст. Н. В. Парфентьевой. — Челябинск : Изд-во ЮУрГУ, 2005. — 352 с.
28. Парфентьев, Н. П. Усольская школа в древнерусском певческом искусстве XVI—XVII вв. и произведения ее мастеров в памятниках письменности / Н. П. Парфентьев // Памятники литературы и общественной мысли эпохи феодализма. — Новосибирск : Наука, 1985.
29. Парфентьев, Н. П. Усольская (Строгановская) школа в русской музыке XVI—XVII вв. / Н. П. Парфентьев, Н. В. Парфентьева. — Челябинск, 1993. — 347 с.
30. Парфентьева, Н. В. Творчество мастеров древнерусского певческого искусства XVI—XVII вв. (на примере произведений выдающихся распевщиков). Челябинск : ЧелГУ, 1997. — 338 с.
31. Разумовский, Д. В. О нотных безлинейных рукописях церковного знаменного пения / Д. В. Разумовский. — Москва, 1863.
32. РГАДА. Ф. 156. № 6.
33. РГАДА. Ф. 181. № 600
34. РГАДА. Ф. 181. № 711.
35. РГАДА. Ф. 181. № 1574
36. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 446.
37. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1589.
38. РГАДА. Ф. 196. Оп. 1. № 273.
39. РГАДА. Ф. 281. № 1903.
40. РГАДА. Ф. 281. № 1906.
41. РГАДА. Ф. 281. № 1907
42. РГАДА. Ф. 396. Оп. 2. № 206.
43. РГАДА. Ф. 1201. Оп. 1.
44. РГАДА. Ф. 1209. Оп. 1. № 15039.
45. РГАДА. Ф. 1278. Оп. 2. № 25.
46. РГБ. Ф. 37. № 93.
47. РГБ. Ф. 37. № 100 (1594 г.).
48. РГБ. Ф. 113. № 3.
49. РГБ. Ф. 178. № 766.
50. РГБ. Ф. 209. № 665.
51. РГБ. Ф. 210. № 1.
52. РГБ. Ф. 218. № 740.
53. РГБ. Ф. 228. № 35.
54. РГБ. Ф. 256, № 420.
55. РГБ. Ф. 272. № 318 (1584—1598 гг.).
56. РГБ. Ф. 288. № 36.
57. РГБ. Ф. 292. № 45 (рубеж XVI—XVII вв.).
58. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 23.
59. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 407.
60. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 409.
61. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 410.
62. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 411.
63. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 413.
64. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 416.
65. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 429.
66. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 440.
67. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 445.
68. РГБ. Ф. 354. № 211.
69. РГБ. Ф. 379. № 23.
70. РНБ. Кир-Бел. № 586/843.
71. РНБ. Кир-Бел. № 593/850.
72. РНБ. Кир-Бел. № 605/862 (начало XVII в.).
73. РНБ. Кир-Бел. № 616/873.
74. РНБ. Кир-Бел. № 618/875 (рубеж XVI—XVII вв.).
75. РНБ. Кир-Бел. № 628/885.
76. РНБ. Кир-Бел. № 637/894 (XV в.)
77. РНБ. Кир-Бел. № 638/895.
78. РНБ. Кир-Бел. № 668/925.
79. РНБ. Кир-Бел. № 675/932.
80. РНБ. Погод. № 380.
81. РНБ. Собр. Рус. археол. об-ва. № 26.
82. РНБ. Сол. № 276/277.
83. РНБ. Сол. № 277/283.
84. РНБ. Сол. № 277/289.
85. РНБ. Сол. № 621/663.
86. РНБ. Соф. № 85 (XIII в.).
87. РНБ. Соф. № 96 (XIV в.).
88. РНБ. Соф. № 384.
89. РНБ. Соф. № 480.
90. РНБ. Соф. № 498.
91. РНБ. 0.1.404.
92. РНБ. Q.I.32.
93. РНБ. Q.I.1101.
94. РНБ. Q.IV.17.
95. Ромодановская, Е. К. Славяно-русские рукописи научной библиотеки Томского университета / Е. К. Ромода-новская // Труды Отдела древнерусской литературы Института русской литературы АН СССР. — Т. 26. — Ленинград : Наука, 1971. — С. 344.
96. Савваитов, П. И. Строгановские вклады в Сольвычегодский Благовещенский собор / П. И. Савваитов // Памятники древней письменности и искусства. — Вып. 61. — Санкт-Петербург, 1886.
97. Сборник Муханова / сост. П. Муханов. — 2-е изд. — Санкт-Петербург, 1866.
98. Сказания современников о Дмитрии Самозванце : в 2 т. / сост. Н. Устрялов. — Т. 1. — Санкт-Петербург, 1831; Т. 2. — Санкт-Петербург, 1832
99. Собрание государственных грамот и договоров, хранящихся в государственной Коллегии иностранных дел. — Т. 1. Санкт-Петербург, 1813 ; Т. 3. — Москва, 1822.
100. Срезневский, В. И. Сведения о рукописных и печатных изданиях и других предметах, поступивших в рукописное отделение Библиотеки имп. Академии наук в 1902 г. / В. И. Срезневский — Санкт-Петербург, 1905.
101. Смирнов, А. Святейший патриарх Филарет Никитич Московский и всея России / А. Смирнов. — Москва, 1874.
102. Строев, П. М. Списки иерархов и настоятелей монастырей Российской церкви / П. М. Строев. — Санкт-Петербург, 1877.
103. Тихонравов, К. Владимиро-Рождественский монастырь XII в. / К. Тихонравов. — Владимир, 1869.
104. ЦГА Карелии. № 38.
ПАрфЕнтьЕв николай Павлович, заведующий кафедрой теологии, культуры и искусства, доктор исторических наук, доктор искусствоведения, профессор, заслуженный деятель науки Российской Федерации, Южно-Уральский государственный университет (Челябинск, Российская Федерация). E-mail: [email protected]
ПАрфентьевА наталья владимировна, профессор кафедры теологии, культуры и искусства, доктор искусствоведения, профессор, заслуженный деятель искусств Российской Федерации, Южно-Уральский государственный университет (Челябинск, Российская Федерация). E-mail: [email protected]
образец цитирования
Парфентьев, Н. П. О творческой деятельности мастера церковно-певческого искусства Ивана (Исайи) Лукошкова (ум. ок. 1621 г.) / Н. П. Парфентьев, Н. В. Парфентьева // Вестник ЮУрГУ. Серия «Социально-гуманитарные науки». — 2020. — Т. 20, № 4. — С. 72—87. DOI: 10.14529/ ssh200410
Поступила в редакцию 12 августа 2020 г.
for citation
Parfentiev N. P., Parfentieva N. V. On creative activity of the master of church-singing art ivan (isaiah) lukoshkov (died circa 1621) Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Ser. Social Sciences and the ^mamties. 2020, vol. 20, no 4, pp. 72—87. (in Russ.). DOI: 10.14529/ssh200410
