from comments on the chants to comments on
the script*
ALEXEJ JAROPOLOV Saint Petersburg Conservatory
Izvleček: Razprava obravnava reformo Aleksandra Mezeneza (druga pol. 17. stol.) in se osredotoča predvsem na razmerje med poimenovanjem tonov in poudarkom. Odkrite možnosti dvodimenzionalnega predstavljanja lestvice močno večajo število možnih transkripcij, hkrati pa tudi nakazujejo stenografska načela. Notacijska znamenja so nujno večpomenska, s čimer ustrezajo spreminjajočim se potrebam prozodičnega sosledja, omogočajo pravi način izgovarjave in pomensko neokrnjenost petih besed. Prepričanje, da obstoji le ena lestvica, je prikrilo prilagodljivost petja in predstavlja resno oviro pri transkribiranju.
Ključne besede: rusko obredno petje, ruska notacija, A. Mezenez.
Abstract: The paper discusses the reform of Alexander Mezenez (second half of the 17th century) and focuses especially on the interrelation between pitch denomination and accentuation. The discovered possibilities of the two-dimensional representation of the scale increase the number of possible transcriptional variants vastly, and give several cues as for the stenographical principles. The paleographic signs are endowed with necessary polyvalence to suit changing demands of prosodic context and preserve orthoepy and semantic integrity of the intonated words. The conviction that there is only one possible scale has deprived chant of the flexibility and, in deciphering melodies, remains a serious hindrance.
Keywords: Russian chant, Russian notation, A. Mezenez.
The reformers of znamennaja notation (notation of Znamenny Chant, major style of Russian medieval liturgical singing) in the 17th century had in mind to provide clear, discernable cantillation of the liturgical texts. This demand was a reaction on the gradual transformation of Chant semivowels into full vowels, accompanied or caused by the rapid expansion of melodic formulas. The époque, characterized by this process of transformation is called "razdel'norechiye".1 It embraced several centuries. The church publicist monk Euphrosinus
* The thrust of this paper and its general approach have been inspired by the St Petersburg musicologist Felix Raudonokas, who held the seminar "Musical syntax" at the State University of St Petersburg in the academic year 2001/02. - Special thanks are due to Mrs. Elizabeth Heller (University of Zurich), who has kindly revisited the paper and improved its English.
1 Protoiyerey V. Metallov, Ocherk istorii pravoslavnogo tserkovnogo peniya v Rossii, Moscow, 1915, pp. 53-56; Azbuka znamennogo peniya startsa Alexandra Mezentsa, ed. S. Smolensky, Kazan, 1888, pp. 33-39.
protested against the faithfulness to graphical musical signs on the cost of understanding of the words: "We take care of the hooks and the sacramental speeches are corrupted."2 In these words he rather expressed the opinion of clergy than of the singers and their masters, known for the adherence to traditions: sometimes to local or individual traditions, but nevertheless to traditions of sign interpretation. Yet the efforts of clergy and part of theorists were united, because the reform was carried out under the badge of returning to the musical signs their primordial meaning, corrupted during the centuries of "razdel'norechiye". This meant the rising of interest to the theoretical foundations of the Chant.
In this paper we'll try to show the interrelation between accentuation - the main concern of clergy, and pitch system - the main concern of theorists. We start with the pitch system.
While lacking written theory proprio sensu, the scribes concentrated their attention on pragmatics of the notation: how and when this or another particular graphical musical sign (in Slavonic "znamia", wherefrom "znamennaja notation") was to be sung.
With few exceptions the whole ensemble of these signs (hereafter "znamias") dissipates into several families. Representatives of each family share the first, systematizing name and principal graphical outline and are featured with different additional signs that have a distinctive role.3 There are representatives with no additional signs. Their graphical outline is basic for the respective family.
Generally the sets of principal znamias and additional signs do not cross. Generally no subset of additional signs is bound to one family of principal znamias and vice versa - different families can use the same subset of additional signs, and the same family can be featured with different subsets of additional signs. The respective additional sign is essential for the second, qualifying name of the znamia. Underlying musical effects (in Slavonic "deystvo") upon the principal basic outline znamias, or znamias, already featured with another additional sign of the same or different subset, are different in each particular case.
It is difficult to say what the real object of the above-mentioned musical effects is and how is it to be defined. One of the reasons for that is the absence of some basic notions, such as that of scales and intervals.
Among these additional signs the most common are the dots. Their varying amount allows distinguishing between different representatives of the same family. The link between the additional sign and the qualifying name cannot be traced back up to Byzantine tradition: according to Byzantine treatises dots ("kentemata") do not belong to any special class of auxiliary neumes that would concretize pitch of principal neumes or exercise the same effect upon them.4 On the opposite, Russian manuals ascribe the dots, when applied to certain families, a qualifying force in a rather uniform sense.
Thus, the consecutive accumulation of the dots by the title family, the "hooks" (in
2	Muzykal'naya estetika RossiiXI-XVIII vekov, ed. A. I. Rogova, Moscow, 1973, pp. 69-77.
3	Z. M. Gusseynova, Russkiye Muzykal'niye azbuki, St Petersburg, 2003.
4	C. Floros mentions the problems, associated with classification of "kentema" and "dyo kentemata" according to the Byzantine treatises. His opinion is: "... völlig sicher ist indessen das folgende Ergebnis der komparativen Untersuchung: Das Sema [i.e. kentema] fungiert als Zusatzneume, die verdeutlicht, dass die Grundzeichen, denen sie beigegeben wird, einen hohen Ton schlechthin angeben." Constantin Floros, Universale Neumenkunde I, Kassel, Bärenreiter, pp. 131-132.
Slavonic "kriuki", wherefrom "kriukovaja notation" as synonym of "znamennaya notation") imply rising of pitch.5 Together with authentic verbal description of the way how to sing the hooks (= just "to exclaim"), this circumstance can suggest identification of hooks with positions (degrees) of the scale and labeling the hook as a single-tone-znamia. This suggestion has no manifest disproof. However, it was not earlier than in 17th century that the hook has been explicitly announced a single-tone-znamia.6
The verb "to exclaim", though exposing hooks as somewhat "atomary" signs, does not involve any dependence of the hook in question on pitch of preceding znamia(s). Instead of that the manuals bind the pitch of all hooks (and of some other major families of znamias as well) to the so-called "stroka" ("line", pitch-reference element, zero-level for measurements).7 It is nowhere explained whether this "stroka" should be an "instant" (and so ever-changing) level or the unmovable baseline for the whole family of hooks. In other words, accumulation of the dots may also illustrate the growing ambit of "exclaiming" interval, which is invariant in regard to the actual pitch "position". In this case one has to face following consequences:
1.	The literal iteration of the same "single-tone-znamia" means the repetition of the same absolute pitch, if we do not consider the relation to pitch of previous znamia, and means the repetition of the same interval (= same relative pitch), i.e. establishing of the equidistant scale, if such a relation is taken into consideration (see Table 1, p. 26).
It is easy to see, that the "sameness" of the first type is similar to the sameness of staffnotation: the absolute (within the same tuning) identity of pitch symbols does not depend on their circumference. The sameness of the second type can be illustrated with Byzantine notation; the relative identity (number of fixed scale steps, forming the "exclaiming" interval) does not depend on pitch of the previous znamia (including different tunings).
2.	The iteration of "single-tone-znamia" with increasing of the number of dots means repetition of the same interval (the same relative pitch), if the relation to absolute pitch
5	The amount of dots and their effect have essential reference also in Byzantian Chant: "Betrachtet man die Anwendungsart von Kentema und Dyo Kentemata vom Standpunkt des mittelbyzantischen Notationssystems aus, so mag darin Unlogik oder Inkonsequenz gesehen werden, dass der bloße Punkt eine Terz aufwärts, zwei Punkte dagegen eine Sekunde aufwärts indizieren. Denn gerade das umgekehrte Verhältnis wäre weitaus einleuchtender. Sobald jedoch die paläobyzantischen Notationsverhältnisse ins Auge gefasst werden, hellt sich der Sachverhalt auf: Das paläobyzan-tische Kentema bezeichnet als Zusatzneume einen hohen Ton, die Dyo Kentemata aber zeigen, gleichfalls in Verbindung mit den ihnen zugewiesenen Neumen, zwei hohe Töne an." C. Floros, op. cit., pp. 131-132. This "inconsequence" is especially uncomfortable exactly in znamennaya notation, where the "higher" kriuk uses two dots, and the "lower" kriuk one dot. The explanation of Floros uses the inherent ambiguity of the "tone": the relative pitch to the previous neume, or the cantillation of the syllable, both possibilities presuppose each other.
6	M. V. Brazhnikov, Drevnerusskaya teoriya muzyki, Leningrad, 1972, p. 336.
7	The term "stroka" ("the line") is essentially ambiguous. It may mean a kind of model or pattern (e.g. "heirmos stroka") or simply a part of the tune (phrase of a certain length, in analogy with "stychon" or "colon") with a characteristic ending. As pitch element "stroka" is highly controversial. This circumstance has been underlined by S. Frolov in an article presenting his interpretation of "stroka": S. Frolov, K probleme zvukovysotnosti bespometnoj znamennoj notazii [On the problem of pitch-rendering of bespometnaja znamennaja notation], Problemy istorii i teorii drevnerusskoj muzyki. Zbornik statey, ed. A. S. Belonenko, Leningrad, 1979, pp. 124-148.
Table 1
Conditions of the "Line"	Number of dots of iterated znamia	Supposed position of iterated znamia in the scale	Supposed "step" (the next obtained position) of the scale
Independent from pitch of the previous znamia	Constant	The same	0
Pitch relation to previous znamia is considered	Constant	The next	+ 1
of some fixed previous znamia is taken into consideration. This means an ever-growing ambit of relation to the previous znamia (or the same increment of the relative pitch), if the reference is always taken to pitch of another (=next-coming) previous znamia (i.e. to the same relative pitch; see Table 2).
Table 2
Conditions of the "Line"	Number	Supposed	Supposed "step"	Supposed
	of dots	position in	(the next obtained	increment of the
		the scale	position) of the	interval to the next
			equidistant scale	obtained position
				of the scale.
"Line" (identified with	0 dots	pos. 0	0	0
some absolute pitch) is	1 dot	pos.1	+1	0
fixed	2 dots	pos. 2	+1	0
	3 dots	pos.3	+1	0
"Line" is a function	0 dots	pos. 0	0	0
of current rhythmic	1 dot	pos.1	+1	+1
unit, e.g. pitch of the	2 dots	pos. 3	+2	+ 1
next-coming "previous	3 dots	pos. 6	+3	+ 1
syllable"				
The multitude of these possibilities and their combinations may be enriched by the cases, where the value of increment grows on its turn (i.e. the value of "increment-of-in-crement" remains constant), and so on.
It is clear that each added dot brings a new row to our table. This ever growing complexity would require either (i) more and more complex hypotaxis-rules (as it is the case in Byzantine notation - the natural limits of hypotaxis-complexity are set by human ability to capture and process information while singing), or (ii) the growing number (and complexity) of concurring melodic variants, "resolving" the same graphical outline (as it is usual for notation of Znamenny Chant - the natural limits of this multitude are set by human ability to memorize long melodies). It is clear, that in the cultures where the oral tradition prevails over the literal one, different melodic variants of the same graphical complex are essentially distinctive in regard to the sign.
These considerations expose the term "single-tone-znamia" as inadequate, while the supposed "link" to any previous znamia or their combination (e.g. absolute pitch, relative pitch, or their regular changes) can be either (i) just "kept in mind" in order to grasp the extended formula in retrospect, or (ii) ex-tempore (improvised or written down as additional embellishment while copying the manuscript on instructive purpose, e.g. for beginners) illustrated by the respective or appropriate melodic figure. The choice between these two possibilities (and their combinations) depends on individual skill, tastes of the singer, traditions or liturgical situation.
We return once more to the reform. The distribution of the dots by hooks does not always coincide in pre-reform and deciphered post-reform versions, intonating the same text. If the pre-reform consequence of znamias would be placed against the corresponding syllables of the deciphered version (in staff-notation), the hook with a single dot would be sometimes found in the higher position than the hook with double dot. This is troublesome for any retrospect method application. The explanation that this is a pure matter of different melodic variants, is ill-founded, since it is not clear how many "melodic variants" could be denotated with the same combination or sequence of znamias (the concept of the literal "sameness" might not have been exactly as obvious for the medieval scribes as it is for us). It seems to be more fruitful to see such collisions as a pretext to contemplations about the consistency of notation, i.e. its possibility to render pitch and rhythmical phenomena in non-contradictory manner. This involves the idea of progressive changing of a qualified segment (as low, high, etc.) from the single position within the scale up to extended melodic formulas. In fact, many musical segments of different extension (from single-tone znamia up to lizos and fitas, containing several dozens of tones) use the same qualifications: low, dark, bright, high and so on, reflected in their second names.
The discussed ambiguities were felt uncomfortable among the Russian scribes in the early 17th century. This aroused the increased usage of the so-called "cinnabar marks", a kind of litterae significativae, another generation of additional signs, concretizing pitch.8
The apologists of the transition to staff notation of the 17th century have identified in retrospect some of the cinnabar marks with the syllables of Guidonian hexachord. The invention of Alexander Mezenez, famous opponent of staff notation and the head of above-mentioned reformers of znamennaja notation, was expected to replace the cinnabar marks, and thus to avoid the transition to staff notation.9
Now we turn to some technical details of his method and look for its possible generalization. Mezenez presents the numbered set of the names of the cinnabar marks without assigning any pitch values. His next step betrays him as a smart theorist. The usual explanation of this step is the following: the scale is divided into 4 segments called soglasie (=area, literally "concordance"), each segment consisting of three degrees at regular intervals of major second with minor-second-spacing between the segments. Thus, it looks like an extended diatonic systema teleion micron. We prefer the following interpretation as more accurate and less selective: Mezenez divides the ensemble of marks into three equivalence
8	Z. M. Gusseynova, "Izveshcheniye"Aleksandra Mezentsa I teoriya muzykiXVII veka, St Petersburg, 1995, pp. 88-134.
9	M. Brazhnikov, op. cit., pp. 384-412.
classes.10 The equivalence relation we label homonymy, because of the testified practice to use sometimes one cinnabar mark instead of another one (this practice is sometimes explained as transposition), or the principal interchangeability of the cinnabar marks on the distance of perfect fourth.11
On the Figure 1 the lines of the same type (bold line, dash line, dot-dash line) show homonym degrees, the lines of different types show the heteronym degrees. Each sample of all three types without repetitions looks as multicoloured bunch. Such a sample is usually associated with above-mentioned soglasie, which is one of the basic technical terms of Znamenny Chant.12 Actually this term has a broader range of meanings: from a single tone or degree to the whole tune or way of coordination. Here we are interested only in its pitch connotations, and the soglasie will be referred to simply as "sample".
Figure 1
1 1 _______	T _____j____ . .	r ____4,_____ ____	
1	1 !	1 ! 1	—t I
1 i 1 i	! !	I !	I
II	■ i	!	I
^H^ L| m H • M D B TB fl B
In fact there is more than one sample, containing all presented types of the lines (see Figure 2 and Figure 3). Neither Mezenez nor his predecessors considered samples as something countable. Moreover, even if they were countable, the system of Mezenez
10	M. Brazhnikov, op. cit., p. 331; Z. M. Gusseynova, op. cit., p .141. - In mathematics, equivalence relation is a binary relation between two elements of a set which groups them together as being "equivalent" in some way. The equivalence class of an element a inX is the subset of all elements in X which are equivalent to a. According to Mezenez, the characterization of the znamia will be exhausted with indication of the respective equivalence class, thus making the cinnabar marks themselves unnecessary. Since the majority of znamias can be used in all three classes, there is no explicit codependence between znamias and positions of the scales. This looks like loosing any connection to primordial meaning of znamias. In practice, the class-indication of Mezenez coexisted with cinnabar marks. Surely, the classification of the cinnabar marks has been extrapolated directly onto the znamias, which has its methodological problems: the mark shall belong to the class essentially, but the znamia belongs to it accidentally.
11	M. Brazhnikov, op. cit., pp. 304-308; Z. M. Gusseynova, op. cit., pp. 120-121. This interchange-ability of the marks on the distance of the perfect fourth resembles identity of a degree with its octave replicas in the ecclesiastical modes. It resembles the famous "una nota supra la semper est canenda fa", or, what is more likely, it is directly influenced by this rule as a result of the acquaintance with Latin theory.
12	N. D. Uspenskiy, Drevnerusskoye pesennoye iskusstvo, Moscow, 1971, pp. 296-300; M. Brazhnikov, op. cit., p. 305.
would not help singer to make any choice between different samples.13 After removal of the marks, positions 1, 2, 3 are not to be distinguished from 4, 5, 6 or 4, 5, 3 in neither interpretation. To make a final judgment about the position of the znamia, one needs to consider not only the relation of belonging or non-belonging to equivalence-class, but also to the sample.
Figure 3
Mezenez does not implement such a relation.14 This abstinence correlates well with the refusal to associate explicitly the modes or individual znamias with pitch-positions
13	Professor Guseynova underlines this circumstance in her work, dedicated to the treatise of Mezenez. Z. M. Gusseynova, op. cit., p.141.
14	M. Brazhnikov, op. cit., pp. 333-334, underlines that subdivision of the scale into 4 samples with the respective qualification of each sample - e.g. dark (=low) sample, bright (=high) sample - is not authentic and such qualification is a purely research terminology. In fact, the "dark" hook remains "dark" with no "dark" sample assigned to it, which provokes immediate confusion: "dark" as belonging to a certain sample, or "dark" as being the lower degree of each sample. The situation is different from the Latin nomenclature, where the major segments of the scale (hexachords) are qualified and the degrees are "captured" with the help of solmisation syllables up a hexachord (due to the isomorphism of hexachords). The belonging to the sample vividly illustrates another aspect of "soglasie", "concordance". Different znamias belong to the same soglasie (are concordant) only if they belong to different equivalence-classes, otherwise they are "discordant" (one znamia is taken instead of another; in Slavonic "against another" or "contra another"). More frequently the
(final or recitations-tones), though the notion of pitch-position, referred to as "stepen'" ("step", or "degree"), was current by the theorists of the time. The Guidonian scale fits into the scheme of Mezenez perfectly. But is it the only one that fits?
The affinity of the so-called "obihodnyj zvukoriad" (a kind of "scala usuale") - the river-bed of Znamenny Chant and Guidonian hexachord has been revealed after the adoption of the latter and is not free from its influence.
Figure 4 shows two ways, how the scheme of Mezenez could be understood. The triplets of dots on the oblique lines on the upper part of the Figure are the samples. The homonym degrees of the same equivalence class lie horizontally. The distance between the neighbouring degrees of the same sample is the major second. The lower part shows the same pitches (up to the names), but with the other connecting lines. If the upper part is correct as basis for nomenclature, one is allowed to assume that the lines on the lower part form the progression of minor thirds, and juxtapose different samples. But let us suppose for an instant that the lines on the lower part connect not the representatives of different samples, but the neighbouring degrees within the same sample; why should they be labelled as "thirds" in this case?
Figure 4
"Secundum" means "the next" and not "the nearest", i.e. "the next obtained degree of the scale" (according to some rules). It says nothing about the acoustical value of the
term "concordance" is applied to the modes, which generalizes a particular sample to the sample, i.e. some certain choice of heteronym positions, responsible for building of equivalence-classes.
interval, neither is anything reported about the value of the "steps" of the scale in Russian authentic treatises. And the neighbourhood relation is determined only by the orientation of the picture. In this case the sample of the upper part becomes the contraposition of different samples. Marks, forming the semitone, undergo interchanging.15
Remembering the experiments with bunches of different line-types we have to accept an infinite number of realizations of Mezenez's scheme. Although it may look artificial, this approach has its merits, especially when compared with dot-counting. The disadvantages of the latter can be illustrated as follows: if the samples consist of "minor thirds" and dots are distributed within such sample, then "c" gets 3 dots (as the highest degree in F#-a-c sample), "d" gets 2 dots (as the middle in B-D-F sample) and "e" gets a single dot (as the lowest in E-G-bb sample), implying decreasing of number of the dots while "counting scale-upwards".
But we have to show that the suggested alternative is not a pure theoretical speculation. Two following examples show treatment of the same complex of znamias according to both discussed possibilities. In the first case (see Figure 5) we see the same graphical formula, having different melodic "realizations" in different modes, in the second case (see Figure 6, p. 32) there is the sequence of znamias that can be interpreted either in "direct" or in "stenographic" sense; the latter seems to imply special conventions about mutual pitch relation of participating znamias.
Figure 5
J J J J
The next illustration (see Figure 7, p. 32) helps to realize close kinship of these visually diverging variants. The scale presented is divided into 2 classes, each represented with its colour. Their trivial literal denominations are shown on the two upper lines. Two lower lines show that "dropping" of each second step in either ("second-based" or "third-based") interpretation (e.g. : G-A-b instead of G-F#-a-c-b, or B-D-F instead of B-C-D-E-F) or "filling in" of the suggested gaps (G-F#-a-c-b instead of G-a-b, or B-C-D-E-F instead of B-D-F) converts both variants into one another, and thereby each variant is subdivided into two non-crossing classes. Both procedures (dropping and filling-in) are highly characteristic for melodic formation, reflected in the melodic formulas ("popevkas"), in their very names, rendered in extenso in manuals, and some technical terms ("lomka", "fractio", "break", "drobity", "to split up", and others). The "accident-intervals" that necessarily accompany
15 This explains how the same sign can be ascendens and descendens.
Figure 6
f l V	\ f^ A /
melodic elaborations (e.g. thirds or fourths) are not to be regarded as deviations from the sequence of seconds. They are all equivalent as possible basis for numeration and respectively for any graphical marking. The subdivision into two classes finds its immediate expression in the fact that big amount of melodic formulas is used either in odd or in even modes.16
Figure 7
16 A. Kruchinina, Popevka znamennogo raspeva v russkoy muzykal 'noy teorii XVII veka. Pevcheskoye naslediye drevney Rusi (Istoriya, teoriya, estetika), St Petersburg, 2002, p. 49.
And finally: the relations "accented-unaccented" or "half-value-double-value" have to do exactly with this partition into two classes. While remaining in one of the accent-classes ("up-beat" or "down beat"), the singer cannot keep homonym degrees accented if he moves "along the scale" in the steps of the same duration in two-beat meter because of non-coincidence of two beats in the primary rhythmic measure in poetic text and three different (heteronym) degrees in the sample - primary syntactical unit of the scale. May be that is why the melody is often described as interweaving itself, winding-over ("previ-vaetsia") from one mode into another.
Conflicts between phrasal and pitch integrities and their conciliation generate a multitude of melodic figures, making thus the melodic formation very close to logical discourse, requiring skills and intuition from the singer, and rectifying the comparison of church singing with "theology in sound". Thus, the fourth-equivalence, so often underlined by the researches as the value of possible transfer of the melody (and herewith as evidence of the only possible structure of the scale) can be sometimes misleading. The same holds true for the "scale of durations": what is true for quavers may be false for crotchets. This is to be compared with the observations on the non-symmetrical rhythm of the Chant, and the "drift" (progressive shifting) of melodic-rhythmic emphasis from metrically strong to metrically weak beats, leading to dismissing of correct verbal accent or adding the vowel between two adjacent consonants.17
The accentuation is often the only way to differentiate between authentic and plagal modes. Frequently observed transfer "a fourth-up or -down", characterizing relationships of parallel modes, were not so instructive, if it would not reverse accentuation of homonym degrees. However, the technical details of melodic elaboration and implementation of the revealed ambiguities lie beyond the scope of the paper. It remains only to say that elimination or "inserting" of the syllables as a result of the vowel transformations process (mentioned in the beginning of the paper) may also have to do with the discussed "dropping" and "filling-in".
We have tried to show how unreliable is the pitch indication, abstracted from accent and duration. In our considerations we often recur to what can be called "graphical way of theorizing", which is not surprising: tables or, to follow the authentic terminology, "granei" ("facets") are highly characteristic for the musical thinking and presentation of material in Russian medieval music-theoretical compendia. The first to contemplate over the ambiguities of the two-dimensional (tabular) presentation of the scale was Juri Arnold, contemporary of the first generation of Russian paleographers, highly appreciated by the classical Russian palaeographer S. Smolenski.18
To recapitulate, we return once more to the reform. We do not know whether the pretensions of Mezenez to revise radically the notation were well enough grounded, and whether his method has been really reconstructive. The old believers who did not accept his invention, keep their singing traditions till now. But what we do know is that the supposed meaning of znamias according to investigations of C. Floros does not agree with
17	N. D. Uspensky, Drevnerusskoyepevcheskoye iskusstvo, Moscow, 1971, pp. 85-113.
18	Juri Arnold, Die alten Kirchenmodi, historisch undakustisch entwickelt, Leipzig, 1878; id., Teoriya drevnerusskogo tserkovnogo i narodnogo peniya I (Teoriya pravoslavnogo tserkovnogo peniya), Moscow, 1880.
the explanations of their meaning in the authentic Russian treatises. Giving too much trust to traditional pitch denominations, the decipherer runs the risk to make the result of his work dependent (in literal sense of the word) on the melodic undulations, which excludes any comments on them.
Brought to the new soil, the chant certainly should have undergone transformations during more than 500 years. Can they be traced back? A probable way of a researcher who is trying to conciliate comparative-prospective approach of Floros and retrospective method of Smolensky, would lead from the study of Middle-Byzantine notation to the study of Russian znamia-to-staff bilingual notation. This seems to be the securest approach, but the system of znamias looks on this way as a subject to be described, and not as a descriptive system. As anything that would not only describe but explain, it seems to be passed over in silence. If znamennaja notation has been really ever able to comment on the chant, then the complaints of Euphrosinos have not lost their actuality till now: "We take care of the hooks and the sacramental speeches are still corrupted."
OD KOMENTARJEV PETJA DO KOMENTARJEV ZAPISA Povzetek
»Pozorno upoštevamo notacijske znake, pri tem pa pačimo pomen svetih besedil,« je dejal Eufrosinus, znameniti ruski cerkveni pevec, gramatik in pisec 17. stol., ko je komentiral besedila, ki jih je petje očitno iznakazilo. Srednjeveška teorija je morala razložiti dvoje: kako pravilno uporabiti določeni znak in kako naj se izbrana melodija prilagaja besedam. Ta dva pristopa sta vodila k dvema nasprotujočima si strategijama. Medtem ko so prvi priročniki 15. stol. brez komentarja naštevali nevme, so nasprotne težnje vodile k rasti melodičnih variant, ki si jih je bilo treba zapomniti, in k iskanju novih možnosti njihovega analitičnega notiranja. Dodatni znaki, ki so bili na začetku tega procesa zelo redki, so se kasneje razvili v večji sklop nadgrajenih znakov, iz katerega je v poznem 16. stol. izšla naslednja plast nadgrajenih znakov itd. Kot dodani znaki so znaki bizantinske notacije prilagajali pomen drugih znakov, ki jih zdaj moremo razumeti kot osnovne znake, nosilce določenih funkcij; takšna možnost je bila prisotna že v bizantinski notaciji sami. Prepoznavanje hierarhije in medsebojne povezanosti notacijskih znakov rešuje mnoge metodološke probleme, povezane z njihovo pomensko dvoumnostjo.