MUZIKOLOŠKI ZBORNIK MUSICOLOGICAL ANNUAL X L V I / 1 ZVEZEK/VOLUME L J U B L J AN A 2 01 0 MUZIKOLOSKI ZBORNIK MUSICOLOGICAL ANNUAL X L V I / 1 ZVEZEK/VOLUME L J U B L J A N A 2 0 1 0 Izdaja • Published by Oddelek za muzikologijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani Urednik • Editor Matjaž Barbo (Ljubljana) Izvršilni urednik • Assistant Editor Jernej Weiss (Ljubljana) Uredniški odbor • Editorial Board Mikulaš Bek (Brno) Jean-Marc Chouvel (Reims) David Hiley (Regensburg) Nikša Gligo (Zagreb) Aleš Nagode (Ljubljana) Niall O'Loughlin (Loughborough) Leon Štefanija (Ljubljana) Andrej Rijavec (Ljubljana), častni urednik • honorary editor Uredništvo • Editorial Address Oddelek za muzikologijo Filozofska fakulteta Aškerčeva 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija e-mail: muzikoloski.zbornik@ff.uni-lj.si http://www.ff.uni-lj.si Prevajanje • Translation Andrej Rijavec Cena • Price 10 € / 20 € (other countries) Založila • Published by Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani Za založno • For the publisher Valentin Bucik, dekan Filozofske fakultete Tisk • Printed by Birografika Bori d.o.o., Ljubljana Naklada 500 izvodov • Printed in 500 copies Rokopise, publikacije za recenzije, korespondenco in naročila pošljite na naslov izdajatelja. Prispevki naj bodo opremljeni s kratkim povzetkom (200-300 besed), izvlečkom (do 50 besed), ključnimi besedami in kratkimi podatki o avtorju. Nenaročenih rokopisov ne vračamo. Manuscripts, publications for review, correspondence and annual subscription rates should be sent to the editorial address. Contributions should include a short summary (200-300 words), an abstract (not more than 50 words), keywords and a short biographical Note on the author. Unsolicited manuscripts are not returned. Izdajo zbornika je omogočila Javna agencija za knjigo Republike Slovenije With the support of the Slovenian Book Agency of the Republic of Slovenia © Oddelek za muzikologijo Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani Vsebina • Contents Thomas Hochradner 'B-Composers' or: How can you become a 'Kleinmeister'? Skladatelji druge kategorije ali kako lahko postaneš »Kleinmeister« 5 Nina Zakharina Works of Russian scholars of the 15th to 20th centuries in the field of notation Dela ruskih znanstvenikov od 15. do 20. stoletja na področju notacije 21 Katarina Tomaševic Stevan Stojanovic Mokranjac and the inventing of tradition: a case study of the Song 'Cvekje Cafnalo' Stevan Stojanovic Mokranjac in iznajdevanje tradicije: vzorčna študija pesmi »Cvekje cafnalo« 37 Darja Koter Glasbeno-gledališka režija na Slovenskem: od diletantizma Dramatičnega društva do poskusov profesionalizacije v Deželnem gledališču Music Theatre Directing in Slovenia: From Dilettantism of the Dramatic Society to (the Attempts of) Professionalism in the Regional Theatre 57 Tjaša Ribizel Surrealizem v ustvarjalnosti Vinka Globokarja: na primeru skladbe Zlom Surrealism in Creativness of Vinko Globokar: in the case of composition Zlom 73 Jana S. Rošker Epistemološka interpretacija Ji Kangovega eseja »V glasbi ni žalosti, ne radosti« (SM^^M) An Epistemological Interpretation of Ji Kang's Essay 'Music has in It Neither Grief nor Jo' (SMMMM) 81 Maruša Zupančič Vplivi na razvoj violinske pedagogike na Slovenskem v 19. stoletju in v prvi polovici 20. stoletja Influences on the development of violin teaching in the Slovenian Lands in the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries 97 Albinca Pesek, Branka Čagran Terapevtski vidiki glasbene vzgoje: vloga Bachovih cvetnih plesov v razvoju pozitivnih čustvenih stanj sedem- in osemletnih učencev osnovnih šol Therapeutics aspects of music education: the role of Bach flower dances in the development of positive emotional states at seven and eight year old primary-school pupils 119 Poročilo • Report 135 Magistrsko delo • M. A. Work 147 Disertacija • Dissertation 151 Imensko kazalo • Index 155 Avtorji • Contributors 160 UDK 78.071.1 Thomas Hochradner Universität Mozarteum, Salzburg Univerza Mozarteum, Salzburg 'B-Composers' or: How can you become a 'Kleinmeister'?* Skladatelji druge kategorije ali kako lahko postaneš »Kleinmeister« Prejeto: 2. marec 2010 Sprejeto: 1. maj 2010 Ključne besede: »Kleinmeister« - pojem in značilnosti, premislek o socialnem položaju skladatelja v glasbenozgodovinskih spisih, karieri Luigija Gattija in Johanna Baptista Schiedermayerja kot predstavnikov vzorčnih študij Izvleček »Polnila« med »velikimi skladatelji« - t.i. »mali mojstri« - povzročajo različne probleme pri pisanju glasbene zgodovine. Na eni prihaja do enostranskega gledanja na dela »malih mojstrov«, dokler jih obravnavamo po kriterijih, ki smo jih razvili za »vrhunske skladbe«. Na drugi strani pa pomanjkljiv vpogled v vire komplicira vrednotenje tistih skladateljev, ki niso dosegli izstopajoče pozicije v glasbenem repertoarju, pred katerim se, pa čeprav kot ozadje, profilirajo »velika« dela. Te in take metodološke in arhivske težave se prvič obravnavajo ob salzburškem okolju Wolfganga A. Mozarta in linškem Antona Brucknerja. Iz česar naj bi izšel katalog kriterijev, po katerih se določen skladatelj obravnava kot »mali mojster«, kar bo lahko rabilo kot podlaga muzikološkim študijam pri utemeljevanju njihovega pomena in priljubljenosti. Received: 2nd March 2010 Accepted: 1st May 2010 Keywords: 'Kleinmeister' - term and characteristics, the consideration of a composers' social standings in writings on music history, the careers of Luigi Gatti and Johann Baptist Schiedermayr as representative case studies Abstract Filling gaps between the 'Great Composers' so called 'Kleinmeister' cause various problems in writing about the history of music. On the one hand one-sided perspectives will be the result as long as the works of 'Kleinmeister' are to be discussed with standards of qualities that have been developed with regard to 'top compositions'. On the other hand a deficient sighting of sources often complicates the estimation of those composers, who certainly have not reached an outstanding position within the common repertory, however as a foil of contemporary artistic work allow the 'great' works of the prominent ones to stand out. Such difficulties in methodical and archival accesses will firstly be considered by examining the Salzburg surroundings of Wolfgang Amade Mozart and the Linz surroundings of Anton Bruckner. A catalogue of criteria determining a composer's being treated as a 'Kleinmeister' shall arise and make up the basis to discuss significance and liking when speaking about 'Kleinmeister' in musicological studies. This paper has first been given at the Conference "Der Künstler in seiner Welt", organized by the Anton Bruckner Institut, Linz, Brucknerhaus, September 25th-27th 2008. A German version will be published within the proceedings of this Conference. Thanks to the generosity of the Anton Bruckner Institut's presidency the printing of an English version in advance is possible. Translations of quotations have been made by Michaela Schwarzbauer and by the author. MUZIKOLOSKI ZBORNIK • MUSICOLOGICAL ANNUAL XLVI/1 I. A case study of the 18th century 'Kleinmeisterei' - frequently understood as a filler between the 'masters of music' -raised several problems for those writing about the history of music. On the one hand we are confronted with one-dimensional perspectives, as long as we meet the work of so called 'Kleinmeister' with (quality) standards developed in the description of 'masterpieces'. Then a work y a 'Kleinmeister' will rarely be the better one. On the other hand an inadequate examination of source material usually or often makes it difficult to estimate the significance of those composers whose compositions have not gained an outstanding position in the repertoire, whose work must however be considered as a necessary echo of each contemporary art, only making possible to set off great works. The problem that therefore affects both methodological as well as philological considerations will first be discussed in an exemplary way, taking up the case of Wolfgang Amade Mozart and his surroundings in Salzburg. Composers like Johann Ernst Eberlin, Anton Cajetan Adlgasser, Giuseppe Lolli and Luigi Gatti - fairly neglected in the writings on music history1 - in wide-spread opinion could not even compete with the 'Salzburger Haydn' Johann Michael as real rivals of the Mozarts. However - with the exception of Adlgasser - they all achieved a higher position at the court of the Archbishop than the Mozarts or Haydn... Shouldn't this fact make us think? The reasons for the profiles of such a musical reception must be examined. Is it the result of selective notions or standards of quality of later times? Were departures from the standardized repertoire missing, changes that caused something strange, special which could stir up the interest of future generations? Were artistic achievements retrospectively measured by later standards? Did judgements to be found in the letters of the Mozarts influence later descriptions? The correspondence elucidates in any case the fact that Leopold and his son did not renounce on a leading position and its administrative tasks because of a striving for artistic freedom. Even if such ideas were sometimes taken up: They were nothing but an inadequate transfer of Romantic ideals into the 18th century. The Mozarts did not achieve such a leading position as a consequence of futile applications and disappointed hopes. In Agnes Ziffer's study Kleinmeister zur Zeit der Wiener Klassik with the subtitle Versuch einer übersichtlichen Darstellung sogenannter „Kleinmeister" im Umkreis von Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven und Schubert zur Quellensicherung ihrer Werke2 Johann Even in the recently published Salzburger Musikgeschichte the names of Giuseppe Lolli and Luigi Gatti only appear in a cursory manner, being mentioned only twice resp. four times, without further commentary, which seems to be a backward development compared with Constantin Schneiders' Geschichte der Musik in Salzburg von der ältesten Zeit bis zur Gegenwart, Salzburg 1935. However, the fact that the the chapter 'Leopold Mozart - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - Michael Haydn' referred to has also served as a basis for a respective monography on the Mozarts' Salzburg times should have motivated this simple cue of insignificance; see Manfred Hermann Schmid: 'Leopold Mozart - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - Michael Haydn', in Salzburger Musikgeschichte. Vom Mittelalter bis ins 21. Jahrhundert, ed. by Jürg Stenzl, Ernst Hintermaier and Gerhard Walterskirchen, Verlag Anton Pustet, Salzburg - München, 2005, pp. 255-331, as well as Manfred Hermann Schmid under collaboration of Petrus Eder OSB: Mozart in Salzburg. Ein Ort für sein Talent, Verlag Anton Pustet, Salzburg, 2006. Agnes Ziffer: Kleinmeister zur Zeit der Wiener Klassik. Versuch einer übersichtlichen Darstellung sogenannter „Kleinmeister" im Umkreis von Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven und Schubert sowie Studien zur Quellensicherung ihrer Werke, Verlag Hans Schneider, Tutzing, 1984 (Publikationen des Instituts für Österreichische Musikdokumentation 10). - By the way: Ziffer gains substantial merit concerning the investigation of 'Kleinmeister' by means of studies on the notation practice in autographs of the composers discussed in her publication. Michael Haydn - surprisingly enough - is not mentioned; most probably Ziffer sees him somewhere in a grey area between the ,Klassiker' (the classics) and ,Kleinmeister'. Salzburg is however well represented in this book: with Anton Cajetan Adlgasser, Johann Ernst Eberlin, Sigismund von Neukomm and Joseph Wölfl. So as to exaggerate in my reflections I will turn my interest towards two first chapelmasters at the court of the Archbishop in Salzburg, who - according to Ziffer - not even reached the status of 'Kleinmeister': Giuseppe Francesco Lolli (Bologna ?1701 - Salzburg 1778) and Luigi Gatti (Lazise, at Lago di Garda 1740 - Salzburg 1817). The suspicion that Lolli and Gatti might have been neglected as a consequence of nationalistic thinking in music history does not work. Constantin Schneider in his Geschichte der Musik in Salzburg - a pioneering contribution in the history of regional music-history-writing in Austria published in 1935 - at least mentions both composers and writes about Giuseppe Lolli: "Beside the three main representatives of the Rococo-period [Johann Ernst Eberlin, Leopold Mozart, Anton Cajetan Adlgasser] their contemporaries are far left behind. We get well informed about the situation of the chapel-music and the quality of its members by Leopold Mozart's accounts. As chapelmaster Joseph Maria Lolli from Bologna was engaged after Eberlin's death in 1744, an insignificant composer of whom some masses and sacred music have been preserved."3 Schneider refers to the source of his assessment: Leopold Mozart's Nachricht von dem gegenwärtigen Zustande der Musik Sr. Hochfürstlichen Gnaden des Erzbischoffs zu Salzburg (an account of the situation of the chapel-music in Salzburg). Mozart dismisses Lolli's music with the words: "Apart from a few oratorios he has composed almost nothing for the chamber, and some masses and verse-psalms for the church."4 And Mozart continues with extensive descriptions of the oeuvre of the vice-chapelmaster at that time - and thus unmasks himself as the author of the anonymous article.5 Surprisingly Leopold neither here nor anywhere else refers to an event - most probably familiar to him - that shows Lolli in a bad light. The Annotatione rerum gestorum of father Otto Gutrather from St. Peter's Abbey tell that Lolli gained the position of vice-chapelmaster in 1743 because of a servile promise, i.e. not to ask for salary increase. Thus he pushed out the favourite Johann Ernst Eberlin - who later on was preferred to Lolli as chapel-master.6 Such 'discoveries' - in later times the brusque sentence of the music-loving 3 Constantin Schneider: Geschichte der Musik in Salzburg von der ältesten Zeit bis zur Gegenwart, Verlag R. Kiesel, Salzburg, 1935, p. 111. 4 [Leopold Mozart]: 'Nachricht von dem gegenwärtigen Zustande der Musik Sr. Hochfürstlichen Gnaden des Erzbischoffs zu Salzburg', in Historisch-Kritische Beyträge zur Aufnahme der Musik, ed. by Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg, vol. 3, Berlin, 1757 (Nachdruck Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim - New York, 1970), pp. 183-198: 184 5 Ibidem, pp. 184f. 6 Archive of the Arch-Abbey St. Peter in Salzburg, Ms. A 150, fol. 235, translated from the Latin original by Doris Pellegrini-Rainer and Werner Rainer: "The decree for the post of the Vice Chapel-Master had already been issued by order of the sovereign [Duke-Archbishop Leopold Anton Baron of Firmian] in favour of Mister Eberlin and the matter had been considered as settled. There his contrahent, Mister Lolli (by far inferior in musical experience) took a last chance, worshipped the sovereign and promised, that in the case he would be promoted, he would serve without salary. Lolli finally got the job from the sovereign, who always tried to reduce the costs, to the other's disadvantage and under grumbling of nearly the whole court as well as others." - Doris Pellegrini-Rainer and Werner Rainer: 'Giuseppe Lolli (1701-1778). Ein biographischer Beitrag zur Musikgeschichte Salzburgs', in Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Salzburger Landeskunde, vol. 106, 1966, pp. 281-291: 285. This essay contains a biography of Lolli based on the scarcely preserved sources, and a catalogue of his ascertainable musical works. Duke-Archbishop Hieronymus Duke Colloredo "should ever the famous Lolli decide to compose for the chosen ones in heaven" leave us with plenty of hints7 - helping to consolidate the image of a minor competent composer and to sift out the make-up of the local musical life. Schneider was unfamiliar with these sources. They would have confirmed his estimation. He ignored that Lolli was an immediate rival of Leopold Mozart for a position in the Archbishop's chapel-music. Obviously he firmly believed in the evidence of Leopold Mozart's text. Compared with this, Schneider's presentation of Gatti seems better reflected; in this case - due to missing sources - he was forced to form his own judgement. "Of the elder generation [after the death of Johann Michael Haydn] only the Italian Luigi Gatti, the last chapel-master of the episcopal court lived. [... ] As a very prolific composer he contributed music in all fields. [... ] His works reflect the stylistic change at the turn of the centuries. He started as an Italian musician of the Rococo, later turned towards classical music and developed into a Romantic composer as an old man."8 Lolli and Gatti belonged to two different generations following each other. Therefore their compositions can clearly be distinguished from a music-historical angle referring to a well-known border. Commonly the dividing line between baroque and classical music is drawn around (or with) the year 1750. Lolli at that time was about forty, Gatti only ten years old. Therefore a stylistic comparison would be inadequate. Most probably the two never got to know each other, and if they did meet after all, such an encounter must have taken place in Italy. When Gatti arrived in Salzburg in 1782, Lolli had already been dead for four years. A connection between the two can be established on the basis of their position as chapel-masters in Salzburg and by means of their points of contact with the family Mozart. As Lolli was a rival of the father and followed Eberlin as chapel-master in 1762, having been vice-chapel-master before wheras Leopold had been court-composer, Gatti at first was a rival of the son. First negotiations with the Archbishop in Salzburg, Hieronymus Duke Colloredo, go at least back to the year 1778, when Wolfgang Amade was on his journey to Paris, accompanied by his mother and at the same time looking for a job.9 When Gatti is harshly criticized later in the correspondence of the Mozarts in a letter of Wolfgang written in Vienna in autumn 1782, one should bear in mind Wolfgangs anger, looking back at his unsatisfying situation as a court musician in Salzburg with a chapel master Gatti who had been favoured above him. "that Gatti, the ass, has asked the Archbishop for permission to compose a serenade - makes him deserve his name [Italian gatto refers to a tom-cat and Wolfgang Amade Pellegrini-Rainer and Rainer (as for footnote 6), p. 287. Schneider (as for footnote 3), p. 142. On June 11th 1778 Leopold Mozart writes to his wife and son staying in Paris: "Luigi Gatti of Mantua,who has been estimated as a distinguished pianist by the Archbishop of Olmütz, whom you know, who has copied your mass in Mantua, and to whom the Archbishop of Olmütz [on instruction of Duke-Archbishop Colloredo] was obliged to write, does not want to leave Mantua, but only intends to come for about two, three months" - Mozart. Briefe und Aufzeichnungen. Gesamtausgabe, ed. by the Internationale Stiftung Mozarteum, collected and annotated by Wilhelm A. Bauer and Otto Erich Deutsch, by means of their preliminary papers annotated by Joseph Heinz Eibl, Bärenreiter Verlag, Kassel and others, 1962-75, vol. 2, nr. 452, lines 158-162. refers to the charming character of the animal]; and I suspect that it may also be applied to his musical capacities."10 We have to consider, however: Both Lolli and Gatti were chapel-masters in times of stylistic changes as well as in an obviously desolate era, politically as well as economically. Before Hieronymus Duke Colloredo took office the episcopalian Salzburg, still an autonomous territory, had got into tremendous economic difficulties due to the loss of Bohemian salt-markets. Colloredo on his part could rehabilitate the financial situation, but he could not stop the process of secularization.11 These facts have to be considered and may 'correct' a judgement entirely based on artistic expectations. However - the 'myth Mozart' opposes all these reflections and makes it impossible to form a somehow unbiased judgement. Even the national element, fairly neglected in studies on Salzburg music history, was eclipsed by this myth. The nationality of Lolli and Gatti had certainly contributed in the development of their career; Italian composers were highly estimated almost everywhere in "Heiliges Römisches Reich deutscher Nation" and especially Archbishop Colloredo appreciated their contributions. As it was Colloredo who was frequently shown in a wrong light as 'enemy' of the Mozarts12, the spiral of low regard begins to turn again, rubbing off on his chapel masters. Neither Lolli nor Gatti deserved the ignorance they received. By arranging their work on the basis of regional and temporal requests and resisting the ideal of l'art pour l'art they simply behaved correctly as far as their position at court was concerned. Also Eberlin, Adlgasser and Johann Michael Haydn did not behave differently, nor did Leopold and not even Wolfgang Amade before he finally quitted his employment in Salzburg in 1781. Lolli primarily composed church music, as this was appropriate for the chapel-master of an ecclesiastical principality. Furthermore, like elsewhere, in Salzburg a clear separation of duties had been established for the chapel-music, with chamber-music provided by specially appointed composers at court. Thus you may not wonder at the absence of Lollis contributions. His sacred compositions at any rate display solidness and hint at a change of concepts concerning instrumental music, especially within the area of the church-sonata.13 A survey of relevant sources in the archive of "Salzburger Dommusik"14 emphasizes his position as a link in the development of church-sonatas in one movement that become a habit in compositions by Wolfgang Amade Mozart.15 10 Wolfgang Amade Mozart from Vienna to his father in Salzburg, October 12th 1782. - Mozart. Briefe und Aufzeichnungen (as for footnote 9), vol. 3, nr. 702, lines 8-11. 11 Cmp. Gerhard Ammerer: 'Von Franz Anton von Harrach bis Siegmund Christoph von Schrattenbach - eine Zeit des Niedergangs'; Ludwig Hammermayer: 'Die letzte Epoche des Erzstifts Salzburg. Politik und Kirchenpolitik unter Erzbischof Graf Hieronymus Colloredo (1772-1803)', in Geschichte Salzburgs. Stadt und Land, ed. by Heinz Dopsch and Hans Spatzenegger, vol. II/1, Universitätsverlag Anton Pustet, Salzburg, 1988, pp. 245-323 resp. pp. 453-535. 12 Cmp. Thomas Hochradner: 'Kontur und Korrektur eines Feindbildes: Hieronymus Graf Colloredo', in Mozarts Kirchenmusik, Lieder und Chormusik. Das Handbuch, ed. by Thomas Hochradner and Günther Massenkeil, Laaber verlag, Laaber, 2006 (Das MozartHandbuch, vol. 4), pp. 381 -395; Thomas Hochradner: 'Colloredo kontra Mozart: Tradicia omylov v dejinäch bädania' ['Colloredo gegen Mozart. Traditionsverständnis im Fehlurteil der Forschungsgeschichte'], in Slovenska hudba, vol. 31, 2005, nr. 3/4: Tradicia, inojväcia, mojdernost' vo vyvojovychpremenach, pp. 320-329. 13 In effect his works do not offer more than solidness. Besides, as a matter of fact, Lolli did not compose very much during his tenure of office as Vice and later First Chapel Master in Salzburg. Cmp. Pellegrini-Rainer and Rainer (as for footnote 6), p. 288, as well as the catalogue of works, ibidem, pp. 288-290. 14 Nowadays kept in the archive of the Salzburg Arch-Diocese, 'Dommusikarchiv'. 15 Cmp. Thomas Hochradner: 'Im Spiegel lokaler Tradition. Zu den Kirchensonaten Wolfgang Amadeus Mozarts', in Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch, vol. 81, 1997, pp. 95-123. Sonatas composed by Giuseppe Lolli (?1701 - 1778) (all A-Sd) Shelf mark title movements A 822 Sinfonía Vivace ed allegro C 1 A 823 Sinfonía Allegro e presto C 1 A 824 Sonata Allegro e spiritoso C Amoroso C Presto assai 3/8 3 A 825 Sonata Allegro moderato ma presto C 1 A 826 Sonata Allegro ^ Adagio C Allegro 3/4 ^ C 3 A 827 Sonata - Adagio cantabile C Presto 3/8 2 A 828 - Allegro C 1 A 829 Sonata - (Adagio) cantabile C Presto 2/4 2 A 830 Sonata (Allegro) 3/4 1 A 831 Sonata (Staccato e) spiritoso 3/4 1 In a similar way Gatti's chamber-music - usually composed for the private use of Archbishop Colloredo who liked to dabble on the violin - combined different stylistic ideals. Conventions of performance-practice such as the instruction 'Ondeggiando' for string-instruments that can already be found in the sources for Lolli's church-sonatas - but they are accompanied by a kind of formal instability with a song-form overlying classical principles - foretaste of the Romantic era. The fact that virtuosity in Gatti's compositions rather served as ostentation than evoked technical problems for the players must be reflected against tendencies of the time - preferring solistic parts, like the Quatuor brillant - and also against the case that frequently Archbishop Colloredo himself played the second violin or viola.16 II. Case-study from the 19th century When the musical centres shifted from aristocratic courts towards the Salons de musique, bourgeois drawing rooms and concerts, the conditions for musicians and composers changed together with the form of job. In Upper Austria, basically determined by a music-culture cultivated in monasteries and small towns, missing a centre of social and cultural life, the contours of this development seem somehow blurred. Nevertheless the field of activity of Johann Baptist Schiedermayr (1779-1840)17 [Picture 1 ], organist in the Cathedral and the parish church in Linz and director of music at the local theatre, seems paradigmatic for a position a musician who wanted to achieve something extraordinary had to escape from. How was this paradigmatic position like? A multifunctional dimension can be observed in Schiedermayrs activities: He straight away can be described as a 'musical factotum', his obligations comprising tasks as musician, conductor and composer (Schiedermayr for example had to produce music for dancing events) and as Thomas Hochradner: 'Endstation Salzburg - über Luigi Gatti', in Musikgeschichte als Verstehensgeschichte. Festschrift für Gernot Gruber zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. byJoachim Brügge, Franz Födermayr, Wolfgang Gratzer, Thomas Hochradner and Siegfried Mauser, Verlag Hans Schneider, Tutzing, 2004, pp. 25-37, esp. pp. 34f. All the following pieces of information on life and work of Johann Baptist Schiedermayr refer to Franz Zamazal: 'Johann Baptist Schiedermayr. Ein Vorgänger Bruckners als Linzer Dom- und Stadtpfarrorganist', in Bruckner-Symposion. Musikstadt Linz -Musikland Oberösterreich [...]. Bericht, ed. by the Anton Bruckner Institut Linz and the Linzer Veranstaltungsgesellschaft mbH, Musikwissenschaftlicher Verlag, Linz, 1993, pp. 119-160. music teacher. Only could flee from this 'normal image', whoever succeeded in concentrating in his position as an artist. A borderline is formed with those that did not work as private music teachers but were employed by institutions. Schiedermayr in this context was successful: His additional salary as teacher of "Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde zu Linz" (the later "Musikverein") makes him stand out, wheras his basically baroque image as a composer for church, chamber and theatre does not. Like many others he did not specialize - whether Schiedermayr would have been able to do so or not cannot be answered; his position did not permit him to do so and deprived him of possibilities to prove himself. At that time Linz did not offer any possibilities for outstanding self-presentation. Forums for the performance of ambitious works were missing despite the fact that there were plenty of occasions to present oneself in public. Picture 1. Johann Baptist Schiedermayr (1779-1840), aus: Franz Gräflinger, Johann Baptist Schiedermayr, in: Tages-Post, Linz, April 10th 1910, "Unterhaltungsbeilage" With good luck Schiedermayr had evaded the fate of a Thumermeister (a town musician who had to blow signals from the tower and to play on various official occasions) before: To achieve such a position it proved advantageous to possess and to be able to play several instruments as well as to own copies of musical works.18 Schiedermayr came from a poor background and painfully had to work his way up, he would not have been able to compete with other rivals for the position of a Thurner in Scharding (a small town in Upper Austria) as far as necessary resources were concerned. However, he was offered despite these deficiencies thanks to his excellent musical performance in a presentation of the candidates. But getting employed would have implied his getting married to the eldest daughter of the deceased Thurnermeister. Schiedermayr resigned19, and therefore did not have to experience how the position of a Thurnermeister soon shifted in the direction of a second occupation, out of professionalism. Frequently amateurs now replaced professional musicians, who found employment only in larger towns, a clear sign of urban life as the necessary surroundings for a successful musical career. The example of Schiedermayr, who despite his modest way of living was in debt at his death20, makes it possible to show that even in a town like Linz the salary of a hardworking 'musical factotum' could not provide financial security for a family with children to be educated. All these observations would make it possible to outline the prototype of a 'Kleinmeister' in the 19th century. The circulation of Schiedermayr's church-music by means of printings but also in passing on handwritten music, that has not been restricted to one region, but spreading in the complete area of Southern Germany and Austria, in this context forms a clear contrast. His compositions were even performed in the monastery of Einsiedeln in Switzerland.21 Considering the degree of innovation of Schiedermayr's work this resonance resets in relative terms. Those expecting novelty will be disappointed, however only as long as they do not bear in mind the general development of masses with orchestra in the 19th century. These masses - into which Schiedermayr's compositions fit harmoniously - were determined by a basic plan (unchanged since classical times) concerning the structure of the movements, the division of the different parts of the text, their allocation to soli, ensemble and choir.22 Thus originality was regarded as unspecific, whereas satisfaction of needs was regarded as constitutive for a well-done composition. E.g. when filling up the vacancy of the Thumeramt in Hallein in 1784; see archive of the Salzburg Arch-Diocese, records to Hallein, 6/78/13. Zamazal (as for footnote 17), pp. 123f. referring to the necrology written by Schiedermayrs' son of having the same name Johann Baptist, published in Museal-Blatt, Linz 1840, nr. 4, pp. I6f.; nr. 6, pp. 26f. - Schiedermayr later got married to her younger sister Barbara (ibidem, p. 126). Oviously Schiedermayr had spent all his savings on the education of his six (or seven) children that reached the age of adults; see Zamazal (as for footnote 17), pp. 130, 140-145. Two elucidating examples: In the monastery of Einsiedeln in Switzerland some works by Schiedermayr were even performed at the so called 'Engelweihe', the most important local religious feast, in Hallein near the town of Salzburg Choir Master Franz Xaver Gruber disposed of a rather numerous stock of Schiedermayrs' church music; see Musik für die Engelweihe in Einsiedeln, ed. by Therese Bruggisser-Lanker, Giuliano Castellani and Gabriella Hanke Knaus, Edition Künzelmann, Adliswil, 2007 (Musik aus Schweizer Klöstern 1), Preface, p. V, as well as Thomas Hochradner: Hallein zur Zeit Franz Xaver Grubers, still to be published in the report of the Conference „Städtische Kirchenmusikgeschichte. Bestandsaufnahme und Ausblick", Leipzig 2007. Cmp. Frank Frederick Mueller: The Austrian Mass between Schubert and Bruckner, Diss. Univ. of Illinois 1973, esp. chapter III: 'The Austrian Orchestral Mass between 1800 and 1850', pp. 45-87. 1E 19 21 All these reflections result in a collection of symptomatic constellations that elucidate the discrepancy between a usual and a specific job-outline, though they do not make it possible to distinguish between master and bohemian. A comparison of this 'catalogue of criteria' with Anton Bruckner's life and work seems promising, but surprisingly was hardly ever undertaken in Bruckner-biographies. Obviously other aspects, such as religiousness, unfortunately Germanness, post-classicism, and Wagnerianism and the appearance in public shaped attempts at characterizing the composer.23 Most of these approaches find themselves expressed in an article by Guido Adler of the year 1924. Adler's almost psy-chographic reflections astonish because of his personal acquaintance with Bruckner. Of course - what cannot be done in this paper - they have to be examined as far as their validity is concerned. The following three quotations should be exemplary: "[... ] one notices his [Bruckner's] great dependence on the South German Catholic way of composing, as it had spread as a subsidiary of the Viennese classical church-music in the course of half a century, had got shallow and simplified. His luck was that he could stand on the healthy solid soil of the region where he had grown up and remained there [mentally] throughout his life."24 "One [...] could feel his [Bruckner's] character deeply rooted in a pure soul. The restrictions or rather restrictiveness - as already mentioned - were a result of exterior circumstances. Compared to the nobleness of his heart, firmly supported by family and religious instructions, the education of his mind was behind by far, and he never found the time to make up for things he had missed in his youth. Grown up he concentrated all his thoughts and his poetry on his compositions."25 "His art will in the course of time give a touching evidence, how the simple, modest assistant of a pimary school teacher of rural descent [...] could rise up to the high regions of the most noble artistic achievements."26 Similar to Adler most of the other biographers saw no reason to connect Bruckner with 'Kleinmeistertum'. Instead the Romantic ideal of an artist as an unwordly genius not understood was applied: "the modest assistant could rise up to the high regions...", Adler points out.27 Against this once widespread attitude Karl Gustav Fellerer in an article of the year 1964 set two ideas: "[Bruckners] belief in the religious obligations of all activities" and an initial broad effect of popular works Bruckner had composed for Erich Wolfgang Partsch: '„Halb Genie, halb Trottel" (Gustav Mahler). Auf der Suche nach dem „wahren" Bruckner', in Vom Ruf zum Nachruf. Künstlerschicksale in Österreich. Anton Bruckner, Catalogue of the Oberösterreichische Landesausstellung 1996, rev. by Helga Litschel, Veritas-Verlag, Linz, 1996, pp. 311-323, esp. p. 321; Manfred Wagner: 'Biographien', in Anton Bruckner. Ein Handbuch, on behalf of the Anton Bruckner Institut Linz ed. by Uwe Harten, Residenz-Verlag, Salzburg and others, 1996, pp. 96f. Guido Adler: 'Anton Bruckners Stellung in der Musikgeschichte', in In memoriam Anton Bruckner, ed. by Karl Kobald, Amalthea-Verlag, Zürich - Wien - Leipzig, 1924, pp. 7-20: 8. Ibidem, p. 11. Ibidem, p. 20. "The poor, unworldly, and naive child of nature unfit for life, misunderstood by his contemporaries, that nevertheless, unperturbed by outward inconveniencies, creates his great works, is, especially in romantic thinking, a popular view of the artist. [...] As all great masters Bruckner too has been seen in this pretended contrast of man and work." - Karl Gustav Fellerer: 'Bruckners Persönlichkeit', in Bruckner-Studien. Leopold Nowak zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. by Franz Grasberger, Musikwissenschaftlicher Verlag, Wien, 1964, pp. 21-26: 21. Also cmp. Partsch (as for footnote 23), p. 318. 23 24 25 26 the church and choral societies.28 The second argument, referring to a satisfaction of needs typical for Kleinmeister, is extended by Georg Knepler. He regards Bruckner's socialisation as the decisive obstacle in the development of his personality and also his artistic qualities.29 With this I don't want to agree. You have to consider: It is the kind of socialisation that Brucker lastingly tried to escape from. Erich Wolfgang Partsch, referring to Bruckner's "religious obligations", even hints at an at least temporary self-production of his image and explains: "Most authors did not understand that exactly in the inconsistency between outside and inside there was a niche for an extraordinarily original image of an artist that as a novelty could guarantee a really special position in the history of music. And in comments on Bruckner it seems paradoxical that the basically quite natural combination of rural descent and Catholic faith established the pronounced deviation from conventional images of artists and turned Bruckner into a composer of outstanding singularity."30 Does this combination of "rural descent" and "Catholic faith" convey a Romantic notion of the type of Kleinmeister in an exaggerated way? Could or did not Bruckner want to emerge from the cocoon of the world he had been born into in the urban surroundings of Linz and later Vienna? In contrast to speculations whether and in how far religiousness could replace an intellectual horizone the answer is close at hand: As far as the choice of the center of living, the way of realizing professional targets and the artistic distance from the satisfaction of immediate needs are constitutive for an artistic image (though by no means comprehensively), Bruckner's originality is not based upon some kind of Kleinmeistertum transferred. III. Parameters of a musical 'Kleinmeisterei' Neither in Duden nor in Kluge's Etymologischem Wörterbuch the term ,Kleinmeister' is mentioned. This surprises in so far as Grimm's dictionary contains several references for ,Kleinmeister' and 'Kleinmeisterei' and opens the range between a primarily pejorative and a sometimes also neutral usage.31 An article in the Allgemeine Encyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste from the year 1885 still reveals positive semantics in the field of art-history: "Kleinmeister: This not quite appropriate term that merely considers the external form refers to a series of copperplate-engravers of the 16th century [succeeding 28 Ibidem, p. 26 resp. p. 24. 29 "Bruckner is being wronged when he is considered to be an unconsciously creative composer, not able of thinking. Bruckner absolutely knew what he did. Furthermore it would be short-sighted to overlook the limitations and misjudgements of his thinking, or to expect that they would not be expressed in his works. Bruckner's great heart and his productive genius have been narrowed down by the view of life the dominating class imposed on him. The lack of farsightedness and universality prevented Bruckner from becoming one of the greatest." - Georg Knepler: Musikgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts, Verlag Henschel, Berlin, 21961, vol. 2, p. 703. 30 Partsch (as for footnote 23), pp. 316f., quoted from p. 316. 31 Deutsches Wörterbuch vonJacob und Wilhelm Grimm, vol. 5, Leipzig, 1873, Nachdruck Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag, München, 1984, vol. 11, col. 1118. I am indebted to Dr. Christian Neuhuber for this profitable hint. Albrecht Dürer] who in their works normally made use of a small format. In this moderate space, however, some of them succeeded in banning so rich an artistic content that they must be considered as representatives of the best of their profession. [...]"32 Often, even here, the term 'Kleinmeister' conveys a connotation somehow misty, but rather negative. This may have led to its temporary exclusion in a musicological vocabulary. In the volumes of Denkmäler der Tonkunst in Österreich presented until World War II the term is not used; in the preface of "Wiener Instrumentalmusik vor und um 1750" Guido Adler uses the expressions "Lokalkomponist" (a composer of local significance, for Georg Mathias Monn) and "Wiener Meister des Übergangs" (Viennese masters in times of transition, for all composers working in Vienna at that time), and Adler concludes: "The farther we extend our interest, the deeper we penetrate, the richer the starry sky of our art turns and also the small stars begin to shine and enchant us."33 In his article "Musik in Österreich" in Studien zur Musikwissenschaft the same author writes about the time after 1750: "At present composers in Vienna spring up like mushrooms" and continues, "then small people appear", these words referring to composers like Krommer, Eberl, Pleyel, Süßmayr, Wölfl and others.34 Also Wilhelm Fischer does not use the expression 'Kleinmeister' in Handbuch der Musikgeschichte edited by Adler but rather speaks of "kleinen Geistern", i.e. "people of limited intellect" (in this context referring to their artistic potential).35 In this way it has been avoided to make use of the term 'Kleinmeister' as a - when compared with the Viennese classical trias - common expression referring to epigones, almost insignificant composers, limited talents and composers significant for a small region. An almost logical consequence in this context is that by contrast "greatness in music" is chosen as a starting point. In Alfred Einstein's still fascinating book having the same name36, the term 'Kleinmeister' does not appear either, whereas Einstein regards it as necessary to 'trim' the ideal of "greatness" he wants to refer to. "If we want to define greatness in music we will - depending on our standards -throw light upon a more or less small number of names, behind those the more insignificant will sink into darkness. But first of all we want to eliminate the merely historical greatness and the merely regional greatness."37 Allgemeinen Encyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, ed. by J. S. Ersch and J. G. Gruber, vol. II/37, Verlag Gleditsch, Leipzig, 1885, pp. 15f.: 15. Furtheron the term ,Kleinmeister' has been explained in numerous encyclopedias and dictionaries, at all times exclusively in this art-historical connotation. Guido Adler: Preface to Wiener Instrumentalmusik vor und um 1750, ed. by Karl Horwitz and Karl Riedel, Verlag Artaria, Wien, 1908 (Denkmäler der Tonkunst in Österreich XV/2 - vol. 31), p. X resp. XII. Guido Adler: 'Musik in Österreich', in Studien zur Musikwissenschaft, vol. 16, 1929, pp. 3-31: 16f. "Besides Haydn and Mozart numerous smaller minds operated on the same fields in all culturally developed countries [...]"; "However some contemporaries surpassed him in handling the orchestra and the harmonics after Beethoven [...]. Besides numerous smaller minds [...] four striking figures exist: Ernst Theodor Amadeus Hoffmann, Ludwig Spohr, Carl Maria von Weber and Franz Schubert." - Wilhelm Fischer: 'Instrumentalmusik von 1750-1828', in Handbuch der Musikgeschichte, ed. by Guido Adler, quoted from the reprint of the second edition (Berlin-Wilmersdorf, 1930), Verlag Hans Schneider, Tutzing, 1961, reprint as a paperback Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag, München, 41981, pp. 795-833: 814 resp. 829. Alfred Einstein: Greatness in Music, Oxford University Press, London - New York, 1941, first German edition as Größe in der Musik, Pan-Verlag, Zürich - Stuttgart, 1949, 21951. Einstein (as for footnote 36), p. 37. 32 33 36 It was Einstein's intention to discover 'artistic' greatness which he finally only attributed to Johann Sebastian Bach, Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadé Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven and Franz Schubert. The music of preceeding centuries to his mind lacked actuality: "Art that does no longer appeal to us, although it has displayed its historical significance, has become stony."38 The new revival of old music had not yet begun and finally gave the lie to Einstein; however - it was maybe just the distance emphasized by Einstein and others that made it possible for composers of old music to escape the fate of 'Kleinmeister'. Who would apply this attribute to Johannes Ockeghem, based on the observation that he did not get to Italy in his lifetime? Even less significant names were met with a kind of respect that composers of the 18th and 19th century could not expect. Indeed Einstein regards any greatness in the 19th century as suspicious.39 Rating them, composers are divided into those preserving a tradition, a heritage (like Johannes Brahms) and those promoting progress (like Franz Liszt). Both categories to Einstein's mind lack greatness. Bruckner - as may now be expected - gets a very minor role; he is hardly ever mentioned. For once quotations on part of Brahms replace Einstein's personal opinion40, in another instance Einstein writes: "Schubert was sufficiently great so as to compose the 'completed Uncompleted or Unfinished' and the symphony in C major, the quartets in A and D minor or the first movement of the quartet in G major during his lifetime or about the year of death of Ludwig van Beethoven. They appear as works in which the whole Bruckner and more than Bruckner is already contained. He [Schubert] knew how to 'inherit'..."41 Einstein obviously tried to avoid a cultivation of the epigonic - this seems understandable when looking for 'greatness' - however he ignores the socialisation of an artist and starts from a selection of qualities. Besides, a concise catalogue of criteria for Einstein's ideal of greatness is missing. By chance the reader gets informed, that Einstein regards the co-existence of Apollinic and Dionysian, universality, the completeness of an suvre, the establishment of an inner world (an intellectual demand), the opposition of contemporaries and unfavourable social conditions as constitutive.42 Einstein is fully aware of the subjectivity of his approach.43 Yet if one follows his ideas in a radical way, essential insights into musical-historical contexts get lost: "Weighed and found too slight, not being suited for extensive studies" is a constellation frequently repeated in the field of musicology when discussing 19th century music. This constellation will remain the unknown component in the history of 19th century music, as long as there are no thorough investigations, broadly drawn up. Research into the life and work of the majority of the composers of the 19th century is still lacking. Reasons for this deficient situation are Ibidem, p. 16. Ibidem, p. 79. Ibidem, pp. I66f. Ibidem, pp. 201f. Ibidem, pp. 79, 15, 119, 128, 147, 205, 247f., in each case passim. "And when there should be an objective history of music once upon a time, it is to be supposed that music has died." (as for footnote 36), p. 234. • surrender in face of an abundance of source material whose incorporation would consume too much time; • an inadequate tradition in the acquisition of musical-sociographic relevant sources, as attention is basically focused on aspects concerning the history of composition, especially on novelty;44 • a concentration on specific persons, a 'canon' of prominence - you might say the continuation of heroic accounts in history writing; • the domineering, sometimes 'careeristic' impulse of presenting scientific achievements focusing on greatness in the history of music, in the zenith of the field covered by musicological studies;45 • the interest of a society of consumers (concerning management, sponsorship but also public expectations) to put conventional, nostalgic worlds of imagination, again and again on the stage. All these circumstances occur in the changeable course of reception. Also the word 'Kleinmeister' is used as an oscillating and even suspending attribute. In vain one will look for 'Kleinmeister' within the scene of contemporary composers; instead sometimes the more polite paradox 'regional greatness' or 'local greatness' will be used. From such terminological uncertainty result discrepancies in the evaluation. Thus Agnes Ziffer in her study Kleinmeister zur Zeit der Wiener Klassik refers to 184 Kleinmeister, among them Johann Christian Bach, Padre Martini, Ignaz Pleyel, Antonio Salieri, Louis Spohr and Georg Christoph Wagenseil. But a precise method for a definition, who is referred to as 'Kleinmeister' and why this term is used, is not offered by Ziffer - as neither does Einstein explain his criteria for 'greatness in music'. As we have seen, musical 'Kleinmeisterei' can be defined differently - on the basis of existing sources, referring to the amount of innovation achieved by a composer or -as with Ziffer - in relation to 'greatness'. Would this mean that the Kleinmeisters of the 19th century are even smaller than those round 1800, measured according to the classical trias? And shouldn't we then introduce the category 'Zwergmeister' (of dwarfish relevance) for those composers not mentioned in Ziffer's catalogue? All these ideas force us to reflect on the great variety of strategies used in the act of writing about music, also with regard to the speech-areas. In German spoken countries one hesitates to refer to Haydn, Mozart or Beethoven as 'Großmeister' (which would hint at the superior of an order of knighthood or an expert in international chess); however one tends to adorne them with the attribute of greatness. In analogy to Einstein's book on greatness in music a study on smallness ought to be written, not about 'Kleinmeister'. Then there would not be any terminological paradox any longer, because the addition 'Meister' (master) in the context of everyday language takes away some severity and helps to avoid an insulting tendency when speaking of a 'Kleinmeister'. At To catch the relevance of this circumstances cmp. e.g. Adolf Ehrentraud: 'Ignaz Joseph Pleyel: Weltbürger aus Niederösterreich', in Österreichische Musikzeitschrift, vol. 62, 2007, pp. 6-14. Cmp. Anselm Gerhard: '„Kanon" in der Musikgeschichtsschreibung', in Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, vol. 57, 2000, pp. 18-30. therein p. 29: "Academic teachers are by no means prevented from warning their students against a discussion of 'Great Masters' that - besides the sometimes well calculated effect for their career - only result in a confirmation of well-known historical insights. However this requires not only the willingness to dismiss learned prejudices, but also two qualities self-evident for the mental disposition of each researcher: modesty and curiosity." 44 the same time the expression 'Kleinmeister' accounts for a general reverence in front of the artist - in other words accounts for a perhaps inadequate cultivation of genius, a late tribute to Romantic ideals. In effect the expression 'Kleinmeister' refers to the majority of composers who for different reasons - because of their talent, their surroundings, but frequently also because of their present reception - have not made a decisive impact with their compositions. Why not speak about 'typical' composers? The question "What's typical with..." will arise at once and you will be forced ti start thinking it over. Because the term 'Kleinmeister' and its alternatives basically refer to a momentary position and to those that use it. In this context a revival in an amateurish usage can be observed, when 'Kleinmeister' is understood as a composer that was underestimated for some time and is discovered once again. However - whoever estimates achievements that do not display progressive composing - can venture to do without the description 'Kleinmeister'. When Lydia Goehr discusses musical works in the sense of an "imaginary Museum", this opens a new access to the matter: Whereas the traditional conception of a canon of works of art will stick to normative, unchangeable ideals, the 'musical paintings' of such a museum can be exchanged on the basis of different perspectives and circumstances.46 Why not with composers? Povzetek »Polnjenje praznine« med »velikimi skladatelji« z »malimi mojstri« postavlja zgodovinopisje pred dvoje problemov. Na eni strani se pokažejo enostranske perspektive, vse dokler se uporabljajo standardi kvalitete, ki so se razvili ob »vrhunskih« delih, na drugi strani pa pomanjkljivo obvladanje virov mnogovrstno otežuje vrednotenje tistih skladateljev, katerih dela niso izstopala v repertoarju, pa kljub temu predstavljajo nujno ozadje, pred katerim so se »velika« dela prominentnih ustvarjalcev lahko šele uveljavila. Vprašanje avtor najprej vzorčno osvetli na podlagi salzburškega okolja, ki je obkrožalo Wolfganga A. Mozarta, in linškega ob primeru Antona Bruc-knerja, pri čemer se pokažejo različna izhodišča. Pri raziskovanju glasbene zgodovine Salzburga recepcijo Mozarta in v določeni meri tudi Johanna Michaela Haydna prekriva ustvarjanje množice drugih skladateljev, še prav posebej italijanskih kapelnikov na knezoškofijskem dvoru. Dva med njimi, Giuseppe Lolli in Luigi Gatti, sta se za svojega življenja dokopala do izjemne pozicije, ker sta se odlično prilagodila danostim in zahtevam dvornega življenja. Mimo in stran od razprave o umetniški ravni njunih del pa njuna sposobnost prilagajanja kaže na specifično kvaliteto, ki sicer spodkopava splošno razširjeno »vrednostno lestvico« in je v nasprotju z utečenimi potmi vrednotenja. Z družbenimi spremembami, ki so sledila francoski revoluciji, se je bistveno spremenil položaj »malih mojstrov«. Uveljaviti se je kazalo ne na dvoru ampak v meščanski družbi. Niso bile razidence ampak urbane kulture tiste, ki so privlačile in osvajale prihajajoče skladatelje. Kariera Johanna Baptista Schiedermayrja v Linzu jasno kaže, kakšna polja obveznosti so bila postavljena zavoljo katerih so izostali finančni predpogoji, in temu ustrezni uspehi, ki bi sicer omogočali »svobodno« umetniško eksistenco. Cerkvene obveznosti, naloge v meščanskih glasbenih združenjih ter privatno poučevanje so goltale toliko ur, da je za skladatelje ostajalo le malo časa. Zagotavljanje preživetja je izoblikovalo tak umetniški profil, ki ga je »zanamski« ocenjujoči svet le redko dovolj upošteval. Anton Bruckner je, kot kaže, vraščen v linško okolje, le-temu s preselitvijo na Dunaj sicer ušel, vendar so mu njegovi poznejši biografi trdovratno očitali »image« tega in takega, grobega, podplačanega vsakdana in ga s tem družbeno uvrščali v sfero »malega mojstrstva«. 46 Lydia Goehr: The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works. An Essay in the Philosophy of Music, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992. - In her broadly discussed book Goehr however directs this idea in another direction and deals with the development of the concept of 'work' in Western history of music. Izhajajoč iz teh vzorčnih primerov avtor poizkuša izoblikovati katalog kriterijev za podrobnejše določevanje »malega mojstrstva«. Zgodovinski umestitvi pojma sledi razprava o njegovi pove-dnosti, ki pokaže, da je muzikologija opustila začetno distanco do besede »Kleinmeister« prav v času, ko je Alfred Einstein izdal temu nasprotno knjigo »Veličina v glasbi«. Tam, kjer se je Einstein zavedal lastne subjektivnosti, so mnogi (premnogi) avtorji govorili o domnevni objektivnosti. Tako je nastala pejorativna podoba »malega mojstra«, ki je obveljala v glasbeni zgodovini, pa čeprav je ob podrobnejši obravnavi nevzdržna. Možno pa je, da se nekateri, ponovno odkriti »zakotni« skladatelji pod to označbo dobro podajajo. Pa tudi v tem primeru beseda »Kleinmeister« govori bolj o tistem, ki jo uporablja. UDK 781(470):781.24(091) Nina Zakharina St. Petersburg State Museum of Theatre and Music Državni muzej za gledališče in glasbo v St. Peterburgu Works of Russian scholars of the 15th to 20th centuries in the field of notation Dela ruskih znanstvenikov od 15. do 20. stoletja na področju notacije Prejeto: 15. februar 2010 Sprejeto: 1. maj 2010 Ključne besede: nevme, razreševanje, srednjeveška muzikologija Izvleček Podoba raziskovanja notacije je v Rusiji v premem sorazmerju z zgodovino pisanja o glasbi v naši deželi. Dela o nevmatski notaciji postavljajo začetek tradicije muzikologije v Rusiji v 15. stoletje. Na samem začetku 19. stoletja so nevme raziskovali kot zgodovinski fenomen. Njihov izvor je postal osrednje vprašanje v 19. stoletju in njihovo razreševanje centralni problem raziskovanja v 20. stoletju. Na začetku 21. stoletja se raziskovalci ukvarjajo z delno notiranimi rokopisi, ki kažejo na ustno tradicijo. Received: 15th February 2010 Accepted: 1st May 2010 Keywords: neumes, deciphering, medieval musicology Abstract The picture of the investigation of notation in Russia depends directly on history of musical writing in our country. The works on neumatic notation opened the tradition of musicology in Russia in the XV c. In the very beginning of the XIX c. neumes were examined as a historical phenomenon. The origin of Russian neumes became the central question in the XIX c., a central problem in the research of the XX c. was deciphering Russian neumes. In the very beginning of the XXI c. scholars pay attention to partly notated manuscripts, which reflect an oral tradition. The research into Russian notation is closely connected with the history of musical writing in our country. In 988 Ancient Rus was baptized. It was part of the Eastern World of Christianity with Greece in its center, but the way Christianity came from Byzantium to Russia still remains an open question. According to hypothesis of Priselkov, the Chris-tianization of Rus proceeded from Okhrida (Bulgaria, now Macedonia), and later, from 11th century AD, from Constantinople1. Together with Christianity Ancient Rus received a writing and a musical writing, too. Byzantine neumes were accepted and developed by the Slavs, so Old Russian notations were born: znamenny and kondakarny. Later Russia became the only country in the Slavonic world which preserved and cultivated neumatic writing up to the very beginning of the 18th century; and among old believers it has reached our days. New kinds of neumatic notations were invented: demestvenny, putny and Kazanskoye znamia. That is why the majoriy of Russian musicologists, who work in the field of notation, study Russian neumes, some deal with notations of Greece or Western Europe and with contemporary musical writing, and a few scholars touch upon the problems of antique notation2. This article deals with Russian neumatic notation. Those were scholarly works on neumatic notation, which opened the tradition of musicology in Russia. The first musicological work is Imena Znamianiem (The names of signs) by anonymous author. At the end of the XV c. it was placed in the codex of monk Eufrosin3. The first Russian work in the field of musical theory is one page, which contains musical signs with their names. This is the first time the word znamia (sign) was used in the meaning of musical sign, sign of neumatic notation. The page has the names of neumes followed by their pictures: polkoul(ismy), povodna, pojezdna, gromn(a), osok(a), kriuk, kriuk svet(lyj), s dvema ochk(y), polna(ja) chasha, besedk(a), rozhok, kobylka, triask(a), sechka, zakry(tja), zakrytja svet(laja), zmeits(a), derbitsa, paou(k), paouk velik(ij), khamila, stat(ia), statia avey(laja), kluch, pereviazka, slozh(itja), palka, palka svet(laja), dva v che(lnou), sorochja (nozhka), mechik, kryzh, strela sve(tlaja), zdernut(aja), golou(bchik), koulisma, chelus(tka), zeln(aja), fita, stopits(a), sve(tlaja), zapiataja. The last term is written in the centre of the line, designating the very end of the text. D.S.Shabalin supposes the work to contain mistakes. But I prefer the opinion of Z.M.Guseinova, who writes that in this manuscript we can see a preliminary version of "listing". She also supposes, that it is a copy of the original text, because many terms are abbreviated. I have an objection to that as all Russian musical terms first appeared in an abbreviated form, and then - in their full form. For example, dem -demestvenny, pout - putny, Log - Loginovo etc. So, this may well be an autograph of the scholarly work. An old Russian "listing" has a direct Byzantine prototype well known among scholars. I suppose, that the first Russian musicologist knew the Byzantine theory of music and the Greek language as well. But he did not copy the Greek source, he created the Russian one, writing names of signs used by old Russian singers. The corpus of musical terminology in the first Russian musicological work demonstrates strata which shows the process of assimilation of Byzantine notation by Russian 1 M.D.Priselkov, Istoria russkogo letopisania XI-XV vv. (St.Petersburg, 1996). 2 Ars notandi: Notatsia v meniauschemsia mire: Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii, posviaschennoi tysiachelet-nemu yubileu Gvido Aretinskogo (Moskva, 1997); Rimma Pospelova Zapadnaya notatsia XI - XIV vekov: Na materiale traktatov (Moskva, 2003); Stanislav Englin, Novy metod ladofunktsionalnogo analiza antichnykh notograficheskikh pamiatnikov: Avtoref (St.Petersburg, 2005). 3 Now this codex is in the National library of Russia, department of manuscripts, fund 351 (the library of Kirillo-Belozersky monastery), N° 9/1086. It is published: Z.M.Guseinova, 'Rukovodstva po teorii znamennkgk penia XV veka: Istochniki i redaktsii' in Drevherusskaya pevcheskaya kultura i knizhnost (Leningrad, 1990), p. 28. singers. There are some terms of Byzantine origin: kulizma (to kilisma), paraklit (o paraklitos), khamila (i chamili), but the neumes under these names are not Greek. Other terms are certainly Russian. The main principle of the term formation is visual resemblance between neume and an object. For example, the neume kriuk looks like a hook, chashka like a cup, mechik is like a sword, strela resembles an arrow etc. All these objects were quite usual in people's life in the XI-XV centuries, and are still quite recognizable. They show that Russian singers used to name neumes according to their experience, and didn't trouble themselves with the Greek theory of music. The analyses of this work shows that the first Russian musicologist knew the Greek language, the Greek theory of music, probably sang in a choir, and knew Russian musical instruments. There are two signs in thise list, which remind of musical instruments: rozhok (a woodwind instrument like a horn or clarion) and kobylka (a bridge of a Russian string instrument goudok)4. The next step the theoretical work was a creation of tolkovania (explanations) under the title kako poetsia« (»how to sing«). There are two kinds of explanations: professional and sacral. In the first one the singing of each neume is explained from the point of view of the vocal tecnique. Kriuk marks the need to proclaim (vozglasiti), it is the accent in the melody, showing when the singer has to raise his voice, strela - potianut (to protract), statia - postoyati (to stand) is a close, goloubchik borzyj garknuti iz gortani (to shout from the larynx), probably means that the melody goes up from the lower register to the higer. The basic meaning of neumes is not a pitch, not a rhythm, but the intonation, the quality of singing. Each term (vozglasiti, stupiti, posyojati) explains what the singer has to do to achieve the necessary effect. In the XIth c. Guido from Arezzo wrote, that a teacher should explain the meaning of each neume to the pupil. So, the knowledge of singing was preserved in oral tradition5. Four centures later an unknown Russian musician fixed this knowledge on paper. Another kind of "explanation" is a theological interpretation of old Russian neumes that appeared in the beginning of the XVI c. The name of each neume is accompanied with a didactical phrase, the first letter of the name being the same as the first letter of the commentary. The formulas of the commentaries resemble the quotations from Nil Sorsky (it was mentioned by N.Ramazanova6). He was the head of the movement of the Russian clergy in the end of the XV c. that proclamed the purity of the monastery life and renunciation of material welfare. For example, »ot vsiakikh strastej dushetlennykh krepko sobludatisia i otbegati« by Nil Sorsky and »zmeitsa da zemnyja suetnyja slavy otbeg« in the musical theory; »delanije serdech-noe« and »stopitsa s ochkom sokrushenie serdechnoe v pokajanii o gresekh k Bogu« and »statia sramoslovija i sueslovija otbeganije«, »myslennoje bludenie« and »kriuk krotkoje uma bliudenie ot zol«. N.B.Zakharina, 'K vorosu ob otrazhenii muzykalnogo instrumentaria v drevnerusskikh teoreticheskikh rukuvodstvakh po tserkovnomu peniu' in Muzei teatra I muzyki v mezhdunarodnom prostranstve (St.Petersburg, 2008), p. 260-269. Pospelova, p. 314. N.V.Ramazanova, 'Pevcheskie rukopisnye knigi Kirillo-Belozerskogo monastyria' in Monastyrskaya traditsia v drevnerusskom pevcheskom iskusstve: K 600-letiu Kirillo-Belozerskogo monastyria, sost A.N.Kruchinina, N.B.Zakharina (Sanct-Peterburg, 2000), p. 8-15. The first copy of this theological interpretation was written by Goury Tushin, the pupil of Nil Sorsky. That is why we can surmise that this kind of musicological work was invented by Goury. The first signed theoretical work is Kliuch znamenny by Monk Khristofor, written in the 16047. In the end of the XVI c. putny neumes were invented. Putny rospev (or music style) was known in Russia from the end of the XVth c. In the early period it was written by znamenny neumes or wasn't written at all, exhisting in oral tradition. But from the end of the XVI c. many hymns and chant books appeared, written with putny neumes. Putny rospev is very closely connected with znamenny one. Comparing putny and znamenny tunes of the same literary text, we can see common place of culmination, and what we can definite as a melodical idea. It can be a melodical wave or its mirror invertion, passing from one register to another and so on. Znamenny chant is the basis of putny. Khristofor wrote several manuscripts, and there are two notated ones among them. These manuscripts have been preserved in the archives. The manuscript dated 1602 is now in the funds of the State Historical museum. It containes only putny hymns notated by putny neumes. Then, in 1604 Khristofor wrote another book, which he gave to the library of Kirillo-Belozersk monastery, now kept at the National library of Russia. This book consists of znamenny chants and contains Kliuch znamenny. Three parts of Kliuch are devoted to putny notation. It is a list of neumes, Grany which is the explanation of putny neumes with znamenny ones. The third part is soglasnik. In this part Khristofor compares 3 melodical segments (or lines) with similar text. First line is znamenny, second line is putny and 3d line is znamenny, but in this line there are no difficult or mysterious neumes (this is rozvod). It is an open question, which line, 1st or 2nd, is decifered in the 3d. Khristofor, who had created putny and znamenny manuscripts, generalized his experience in this theoretical work. The title Klutch znamenny (the key of signs) is significant for the medieval Russian culture. There is an authentic term tajnozamknenny (secret and locked). It means that the reading of neume depends on the context (or whole formula). Neumes, notation is a very mysterious thing, so we must have a key to unerstand it. Khristofor was the first person who used term Kluch in that meaning, later this term became rather usual for Old Russiam theory of music. The next stage of the investigation of the notation in Russia is works, which contain the explanation of so called kinovarnye pomety (cinnabar red marks). Red marks appeared in Russian musical manuscripts in the XVII c. Before that time there was no significations of pitch. One or, more often, two points in the picture of the sign meant that this sound or sounds are to be sung in a high register. The special Old Russian term for it is svetlyj (light). But the pitch wasn't signified exactly. Original works of red marks' inventors have not reached our days. The scholarly works contain an explanation of some marks at the minimum or explanation of the system, story about invention and names of inventors with citing of author's material 7 Khristofor. Kliuch znamenny, 1604, publ. by M.Brazhnikov i G.Nikishov, Pamiatniki drevneru sskogo pevcheskogo iskusstva, 9 (Moskva: Muzyka, 1983). at most. A contemporary scholar Vorobjev attempted to reconstruct the treatise of Ivan Shaydur on the basis of citing8. The earlier source is some words in the manuscript of National library of Russia Sol. 621/660 (30-40* y. of the XVII c., f. 162 r.)9. In the form of question and answer the writer explains the red marks used in this very manuscript. As one can conclude, each mark is the first letter of some term. The author mentions eight marks. Four of them designate the way of singing: borzo, tikho, postoi, skoro, but we don't know exactly what they mean. Later this type of marks received a name ukazatelnye. Two marks designate a register of singing: nizko (low) and vysoko (high). Two other marks remain unknown (M and rovno). There were different systems of red marks in Russia. Now scholars know about 10 texts of the XVII c., devoted to them. These works are often placed together within the same manuscript. The manuscripts are the following: State library of Russia, f. 379, N° 1, N° 2, N° 4, N° 315; f. 299, 212, National library of Russia, O XVII N° 19; Sol. 690\757. Publications by Shabalin and Guseinova10. The most popular was the system of Alexander Mezenets. The red mark is written near the neume and usually marks the highest pitch in the intonation of sign. But one can mark all the sounds in this intonation. In this case we can sing the melody without neumes; the neume signifies rhytm only. So, the red marks is an independent type of notation, a sort of letter one. As other letter notations - ancient Greek or West European, it signifies the pitch first of all.That was Alexander Mezenets who improved the red marks and brought them into all the chant manuscripts. Alexander Mezenets was a member of the State Committee for Correction of Chant Books, which was formed in 1668. Notation was the main object of its work. The results of the correction Mezenets placed in the scholary treatise Izveshchenie ezhe hotiashchim uchitisia peniju. In this outstanding work he gave a new system of classification of neumes. The quantity of sounds which each neume signifies lies in the basis of this system. Neumes are edinoglasostepennye«, which signifies one sound (stepen means a degree in Russian musical theory, glas in this case is one sound), dvoeglasnye - two sounds and so on. Neumes, which signnify more than two sounds, are divided into three groups. The first is where the melody goes gore (upstairs), the second where the melody goes dolu (downstairs) and the third - vospiatoglasnye - the melody has a turning. That was Mezenets who preserved the neumatic notation while other musicians wanted to write chrurch hymns by staff, five-line notation. But neither Mezenets, nor his opponents, have medieval way of thinking with music. It was high time to accept the staff notation. The Mezenets's system of neumes with red marks was used for thirty years. And in the very beginnng of the XVIII c. the five-line notation was accepted. In the XVII c. Russian church divided in two parts: the official church with patriarch Nykon in its head and that of old-believers. The subject of differences was the editing of 8 E.Vorobyov '"Stroki" Ivana Shaidura', in Aspirantsky sbornik, vyp. 2 (M., 2004), P. 31-56 9 Publication by I.F.Bezuglova 'Muzykalnaya deiatelnist solovetskikh inokov; Po pevcheskim rukopisiam Solovetskogo sobrania' in Istochnirovedcheskoe izuchenie pamiatnikov pismennoi kultury (Leningrad, 1990), p. 39-50 (47). 10 Pevcheskie azbuki Drevnei Rusi, publ. D.Shabalin (Kemerovo:kusbassvuzizdat, 1991); Z. M. Guseinova, "Izveschenie" Alexandra Mezentsa i teoria muzyki XVII veka (St. Petersburg, 1994). liturgical books, but the symbol of schism is a way of crossing with two or three fingers. The later (old-believers) decided to continue the medieval tradition of musical writing, so in the XVIII c. neumes were connected with old-believers, who used this type of notation with its theory. It must be noted, that old-believers copied and used the work of Mezenets, the last word in the musicology of the XVII century. While old-believers preserved neumatic notations, the majority of Russian people forgot it and were using staff notation. In the very beginning of the XIX c. the interest to neumes revived and they were examined as a historical phenomenon. The origin of Russian neumes became the central question in the XIX c. Bishop Theoktist (Mochulsky)11 and Metropolitan Eugeny (Bolkhovitinov)12 decided, that the prototype of Russian neumes was the letters of Greek or Arabic althabeths; the neumes were received from Greece. The scholars of the next generations - Razumovsky, Metallov, - supported the idea of the Byzantine origin of Russiun neumes. Metallov supposed that the neumes were the fixation of heironomic gesture. The important event was an expedition to the mount Athos in the 1906. It was organized by the Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing and Art with financial support of count Sheremetev. Smolensky, who was at the head of the expedition, took a lot of photos of Byzantine manuscripts which became a material for comparative research. Smolensky saw neumes look like Russian ones and conclused that Russian music was imported to Greece. Antonin Preobrazhensky, on the contrary, supposed that Byzantine neumes were the prototype of the Russian musical writing. Now Preobrazhensky's ideas lie in the basis of comparative research in Russia and abroad. In the 1859 Sakharov listed znamenny neumes and classified them into two groops: kriuki and letters of Greek origin13. In the beginning of the XXth c. two special works about rasian notations were published: that by Smolensky14 and by Metallov15. Smolensky, Metallov declared the stages of development of neumes. Smolensky saw the renovation of neumes in the 2nd half of the XIII c., Metallov saw it in the 2nd half of the XV c. Both were right. We can see the changes in the neumes in those periods but the detailed research hasn't been done until today. During the Soviet period there was great pause in the invesigation of church music. Only two scholars, Brazhnikov and Uspensky, kept this scientifical tradition. As to notation, it remained the object of musicology, and in the works on the history of music there are descriptions of old Russian neumes, but it is very difficult to speak about neumes without hymnography, liturgy and other attributes of church music. In 1962 a special work about notation appeared, written by V.M.Beliayev16. He reviewed scholars' statements about each kind of Old Russian notation and gave his own opinions. The most interesting hypothesis is that about relations between putnaja, Feoktist (Mochulsky), Rukuvodstvo k notnomu prostomu tserkovnomu peniu... (St.Petersburg, 1813). Istoricheskoe rassuzhdenie voobsche o drevnem khristianskom bogosluzhebnom penii... (Voronezh, 1799) I.Sakharov, 'Issledovania o russkom tserkovnom pesnopenii' in Zhurnal ministerstva narodnogo prosveschenia, 1859, 7, 8. S.Smolensky, O drevnerussrikh pevcheskikh notatsiakh, Pamiatniki drevnei pismennosti I iskusstva, 145 (St.Petersburg: OLDP, 1901) V.M.Metallov, Russkaya semiografia (Moskva, 1912). V.M.Beliayev, Drevnerusskaya muzykalnaya pismennost (Moskva: Sovietsky kompozitor, 1962). demestvennaja notations and Kazanskoje znamia. Beliaev supposed that these were different terms of the same notation used for the main voice of early Russian multipart music - strochnoie. Brazhnikov and Shindin, on the other hand, believed them to be three different ones. Following the specialists in the field of Gregorian chant, Russian scholars supposed that neumes did not have a precise meaning, they only reminded of a tune. One could not sing the unknown melody using the neumes17. Uspensky supported a very interesting hypothesis about kondakarny neumes. It is a very mysterious type. Only 5 manuscripts with this type of notation have preserved in the archives; there are also about 5 or 6 fragments in manuscripts with another type of notation. All of them have been written between the very end of the Xlth c. and the very beginning of the XV c. Nobody knows how to read this notation. There is no Greek prototype of Kondakarny neumes. It must exist, because all Russian writing is closely connected with the Greek one, but it does not exist. There is a hypothesis that the highest line of kodakarny notation is a picture of the gesture of domestic, or heironomic gesture18. The most important person in Russian musical medievistics of the 2nd half of the XX c. was M.V. Brazhnikov. He was a musicologist and a composer, and he used intonational formulas of znamenny chant in his music, especially in the concert for the piano with orchestra. He had about 10 pupils, and they had pupils too, so Brazhnikov's school has survived till nowadays. Brazhnikov offered the method of analisis of the znamenny notation of the oldest period19. He divided all the neumes into two groops: those which pass through the ages (the pivot) and neumes which live during some period and then are out of use. If a manuscript is notated with neumes of the pivot only, it has an archaic prototype. Brazhnikov examined old Russian theoretical works from the point of view of palaeography, the terminology used20. It was him who divided them into listing, explanation, kokizniki, fitniki, and defined the time of appearance of each type. Brazhnikov divided signs of znamenny notation into families. Signs are united into a family according to the way of performance. So, kriuk is to be proclaimed. The family of kriuk consists of main picture kriuk prostoi and those with supplementary elements. Other families consist of different pictures. There are signs which are to be vygnuti (bent). It means that the melody goes downstairs. They are palka, stopitsa s ochkom and podchashia. The division into families is very usful for the investigation of history of a musical text. If we compare two copies of the same hymn, we certainly see the differences, because old Russian writers didn't copy the hymn mechanically, they made corrections or mistakes. If we can see neumes of the same family under the same syllables in two copies, these are really two copies of the hymn. If we see neumes of different families - they are not copies, they are versions, or wordings. 17 See: N.D.Uspensky, Drevnerusskoe evcheskoe iskusstvo, 2nd ed. (Moskva, 1971), p. 36; V.M.Beliayev, Drevnerusskaya muzykalnaya pismennost, p. 35. 18 N.D.Uspensky, Drevnerusskoe evcheskoe iskusstvo, p. 55. 19 M.V.Brazhnikov, Russkaya pevcheskaya paleographia, red. N.S.Seriogina (StPetersburg, 2002). 20 M.V.Brazhnikov, Drevnerusskaya teoriya muzyki: Po rukopisnym materialam XV-XVIII v.(Leningrad: Muzyka, 1972). Another Brazhnikov's idea was to examine the term stroka (line). In the Old Russian »explanations« this term means the center of musical scale (other sources give other explanations: the part of musical form, the line, or any voice of choire). Some of signs defined according to stroka: kiuk, strela, zapiataja. For example: strelaprostaiapotianuti ne vyshe stroki i ne nizhe (strela prostaia to protract neither lower, nor higher than stroka). Brazhnikov placed these neumes onto virtual scale, reconstructing the pitch of each neume. We can decode melodies of the time when the term stroka was used. It is the period from the very beginning to the end of the XVI c. Already monk Khristofor did not use the term »stroka« in his Kluch znamenny. After 1960 there was not yet a work which surveyed all the kinds and periods of Russian musical writing. Each author concentrates on one problem. The central problem in the research of 1970 - 2000 was deciphering Russian neumes. Sergey Frolov and independently Dmitry Shabalin made a sort of statistical work21. They accounted how often each red mark was used with a certain neume. They wanted to reconstruct the precise pitch of each neume, but were not successful. Each neume was followed by different red marks. I think, this fact shows that the fixing of pitch was not the main task of neumatic notation. Albina Kruchinina, has introduced a very useful method of deciphering22. She collected musical formulas from the scholary works of the end of the XVII c. written with red marks and explianed by »prostoye znamya - rozvod« simple neumes. Graphic formulas of the end of the XVI c. can be read according to their reading in the end of the XVII c. In 1984 the Acadamy Capella performed Russian passions deciphered by Kruchinina and it was an outstanding event in the musical life of Saint-Petersburg. Svetlana Kravhenko made the same work with another type of musical formulas -fity, the melismatic ones23. Zivar Guseinova deals with notation of XII c.24 She divided neumes into elements. There are 6 main elements. Each neume is one element or a combination of several elements. Then Guseinova compared them with their direct Greek prototypes: the paleobyzantine coislin notation and concluded that the elements are the same, but the combinations are different. The problem of adaptation of the Byzantine neumes in Russia has been solved. Then, believing that znamennaja notation of the XII c. is monosemantic, she made an attempt to decode the musical meaning of neumes through many logical operations. Guseinova put neumes to the staff (without key) and found a place on musical scale for each neume. In the 1987 a collection of articles was published devoted to problems of deciphering of different notations25: znamennaja (articles by Kondratovich, Guseinova, Shabalin, S.V.Frolov, 'K probleme zvukovysotnosti bespometnoi notatsii' in Problemy istorii I teorii drevnerusskoq muzyki (Leningrad: Muzyka, 1979); D.S.Shabalin, Problemy deshifrovki bespometnogo znamennogo rospeva XV - serediny XVII vekov: Autoref. (Moskva, 1986). A.N.Kruchinina, 'Popevka znamennogo rospeva v russkoi muzykalnoi teorii XVII veka' in Pevcheskoe nasledie Drevnei Rusi: Istoria, teoria, estetika (St.Petersburg: Ut, 2002), p. 46-150. S.P.Kravchenko, Fbty znamennogo rospeva na materiale pevcheskoi knigi «Prazdniki»: Avtoref. dis. (Leningrad, 1981) Z.M.Guseinova, Printsypy sistematizatsii drevnerusskoi pismennosti XI-XIV vekov: K probleme deshifrovki znamennoi notatsii: Autoref. dis. (Leningrad, 1982) Problemy deshifrovki drevnerusskikh notatsij: sb.nauch.tr., ed. by S.P.Kravchenko, A.N.Kruchinina (St.Petersburg: LOLGK, 1987). 23 24 Zvereva, Kravchenko), putnaja (Bogomolova), demestvennaja (Pozhidaeva), five-line kievskaja (Kholopov). A series of articles on the topic appeared in other books: article of Shindin26 about putnaja notation, that of Yefimova27 about strannye pomety (modulating red marks), of Mosyagina28 about red marks. In the very beginning of the XXI c. Zabolotnaya29 paid attantion to partly notated manuscrripts, where neumes don't mark each syllable of text, but several, sometimes a few. A singer knew melody by heart, and the neumes pointed out the most difficult intonations. Investigation into this kind of notation expands the range of old Russian musical sources. The last work in this field is a diissertation of EE.Pletneva30, who is developing Zabolotnaya's ideas. An investigation of the notation is Russia is continuing. Now scholars know the types of notation and their origin, we can hear many hymns created in the XVI - XVII c., both one-voiced and multipart. But the Russian notation has a lot of secrets yet, and scholars have to unravel the mysteries with modern research methods: the compilation of neumes repertoire, classification, investigation into medieval theory of music. It is very important to know the main task of the neumatic notation. In this field the investigation of notation is closely connected with the history of music and with the research into the way of musical thinking. Bibliography Ars notandi: Notatsia v meniauschemsia mire: Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii, posviaschennoi tysiacheletnemu yubileu Gvido Aretinskogo (Moskva, 1997), 124 p. ISBN 5-89598-009-0 Azbuka znamennogo penia (Izveschenie o soglasneishikh pometakh) startsa Alexandra Mezentsa. S.l., Bratstvo "Vertograd", 7510 (2002), 11 f., [2], 208 p. I.V.Bakhmutova etc. 'Kolichestvennoe issledovanie polnogo varianta Oktoikha v znamennoi forme zapisi' in Kulturnoye nasledie Srednievekovoi Rusi v thaditsiiakh Uralo-Sibirskogo staroobriadchestva, (Novosibirsk, 1999), pp. 420-439. I.F.Bezuglova, 'Muzykalnaya deiatelnost solovetskikh inokov; Po pevcheskim rukopi-siam Solovetskogo sobrania' in Istochnirovedcheskoe izuchenie pamiatnikov pismennoi kultury (Leningrad, 1990), pp. 39-50. B.A.Shindin, 'Notatsia pevcheskoi rukopisi Solovetskogo sobrania N® 752/690' in Problemy istorii russkoi I sovietskoq muzyki, sb. tr. Akademii muzyki im. Gniesinykh, 34 (Moskva, 1977), p. 112-120. I.V.Yefimova, 'Pamiatniki russkogo strochnogo mnogogolosia v rukopisi sobrania P.P.Viazemskogo' in Istochnirovedcheskoe izuchenie pamiatnikov pismennoi kultury: Poetika drevnerusskogo pevcheskogo iskusstva (St.Petersburg, 1992), p.172-209. N.V.Mosiagina (Sushkievich), 'Osobennosti formirovania notirovannykh sbornikov nachala 17 v.' in Gimnologia (Moskva, 2000), p. C.319 - 325; N.V.Mosiagina, Domezentsevskie pomety v teoreticheskikh rukovodstvakh I rospevakh 17 v.' in Pevcheskoe nasledie Drevnei Rusi: Istoria, teoria, estetika (St.Petersburg: Ut, 2002), p. 159-163; N.V.Mosiagina, '»Strannye pomety» v znamennoi notatsii vtoroi oloviny 17 veka' in 16 ezhegodnaya Bogoslovskaya konferentsia Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta, T. 2 (Moskva, 2006), p. 343-348; N.V.Mosiagina, 'K probleme arkhaicheskogo intonirovania: «Kryzhevye» priznaki v znamennoi notatsii kontsa 17 veka' in Golos v kulture: Artikuliatsia I tembr (St-Petersburg, 2007), p. 78-86. I.V. Zabolotnaya Tserkovno-pevcheskie rukopisi Drevnei Rusi XI-XIV vekov: osnovnye tipy knig v istoriko-funktsionalnom aspekte (Moskva, 2001). E.V.Pletniova 'Notatsia v pesnopeniakh Oktoikhov izbornykh I Shestodnevov Sluzhebnykh' in 13 ezhegodnaya Bogoslovskaya konferentsia Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta (Moskva, 2003). 26 27 29 V.M.Beliayev, Drevnerusskaya muzykalnaya pismennost (Moskva: Sovietsky kom-pozitor, 1962). M.V.Bogomolova, 'Orepertuare grechescogo rospeva v zapisi "grecheskoi" notatsiei' in Germemevtika revnerusskoi literatury, 4, XVII - nachalo XVIII v., pp. 256-285. M.V.Brazhnikov, Drevnerusskaya teoriya muzyki: Po rukopisnym materialam XV-XVIII v. (Leningrad: Muzyka, 1972), 423 pp. M.V.Brazhnikov, Russkaya pevcheskaya paleographia, red. N.S.Seriogina (St.-Peters-burg, 2002). M.V.Brazhnikov, Statyi o drevnerusskoi muzyke (L.: Muzyka, 1975), 296, 32 p. S. Englin, Novy metod ladofunktsionalnogo analiza antichnykh notograficheskikh pamiatnikov: Avtoref (St.Petersburg, 2005), 24 pp. Feoktist (Mochulsky), Rukuvodstvo k notnomu prostomu tserkovnomu peniu... (St. Petersburg, 1813), [4], 11 pp. S.V.Frolov, 'K probleme zvukovysotnosti bespometnoi notatsii' in Problemy istorii I teorii drevnerusskoq muzyki (Leningrad: Muzyka, 1979), pp. 124-147. Z.M.Guseinova, Printsypy sistematizatsii drevnerusskoi pismennosti XI-XIV vekov: K probleme deshifrovki znamennoi notatsii: Autoref. dis. (Leningrad, 1982), 19 pp. Z.M.Guseinova, 'Rukovodstva po teorii znamennogo penia XV veka: Istochniki i redakt-sii' in Drevherusskaya pevcheskaya kultura i knizhnost (Leningrad, 1990), p. 20-46. Istoricheskoe rassuzhdenie voobsche o drevnem khristianskom bogosluzhebnom penii... (Voronezh, 1799), [4], 26 pp. Khristofor. Kliuch znamenny, 1604, publ. by M.Brazhnikov i G.Nikishov, Pamiatniki drevnerusskogo pevcheskogo iskusstva, 9 (Moskva: Muzyka, 1983), 293 pp. S.P.Kravchenko, Fity znamennogo rospeva na materiale pevcheskoi knigi »Prazdniki«: Avtoref. dis. (Leningrad, 1981), 23 pp. A.N.Kruchinina, 'Popevka znamennogo rospeva v russkoi muzykalnoi teorii XVII veka' in Pevcheskoe nasledie Drevnei Rusi: Istoria, teoria, estetika (St.Petersburg: Ut, 2002), pp. 46-150. Z.M.Guseinova, »Izveschenie« Alexandra Mezentsa i teoria muzyki XVII veka (St. Petersburg, 1994), 217 pp. V.M.Metallov, Russkaya semiografia (Moskva, 1912), [2], 118, 119 pp. N.V.Mosiagina (Sushkievich), 'Osobennosti formirovania notirovannykh sbornikov nachala 17 v.' in Gimnologia (Moskva, 2000), pp. 319 - 325. N.V.Mosiagina, Domezentsevskie pomety v teoreticheskikh rukovodstvakh I rospe-vakh 17 v.' in Pevcheskoe nasledie Drevnei Rusi: Istoria, teoria, estetika (St.Petersburg: Ut, 2002), pp. 159-63. N.V.Mosiagina, '«Strannye pomety« v znamennoi notatsii vtoroi oloviny 17 veka' in 16 ezhegodnaya Bogoslovskaya konferentsia Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta, t. 2 (Moskva, 2006), pp. 343-348. N.V.Mosiagina, 'K probleme arkhaicheskogo intonirovania: »Kryzhevye« priznaki v znamennoi notatsii kontsa 17 veka' in Golos v kulture: Artikuliatsia I tembr (St-Petersburg, 2007), pp. 78-86. Pevcheskie azbuki Drevnei Rusi, publ. D.Shabalin (Kemerovo:kusbassvuzizdat, 1991). 277 p. E.V.Pletniova ,Notatsia v pesnopeniakh Oktoikhov izbomykh i Shestodnevov Sluzhebnykh' in 13 ezhegodnaya Bogoslovskaya konferentsia Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta (Moskva, 2003), pp. 443-451. R. Pospelova, Zapadnaya notatsia XI - XIV vekov: Na materiale traktatov (Moskva, 2003), 416 pp. M.D.Priselkov, Istoria russkogo letopisania XI-XV vv. (St.Petersburg, 1996), 352 pp. Problemy deshifrovki drevnerusskikh notatsij: sb.nauch.tr., ed. by S.P.Kravchenko, A.N.Kruchinina (St.Petersburg: LOLGK, 1987), 200 pp. N.V.Ramazanova, 'Pevcheskie rukopisnye knigi Kirillo-Belozerskogo monastyria' in Monastyrskaya traditsia v drevnerusskom pevcheskom iskusstve: K 600-letiu Kirillo-Belozerskogo monastyria, sost A.N.Kruchinina, N.B.Zakharina (Sanct-Peterburg, 2000), pp. 8-15. I.P.Sakharov, 'Issledovania o russkom tserkovnom pesnopenii' in Zhurnal ministerstva narodnogo prosveschenia, 1859, N° 7, 8. D.S.Shabalin, Problemy deshifrovki bespometnogo znamennogo rospeva XV - se-rediny XVII vekov: Autoref. (Moskva, 1986), 21 pp. B.A.Shindin, ,Notatsia pevcheskoi rukopisi Solovetskogo sobrania N° 752/690' in Problemy istorii russkoi I sovietskoq muzyki, sb. tr. Akademii muzyki im. Gniesinykh, 34 (Moskva, 1977), pp. 112-120. S. V.Smolensky, O drevnerussrikh pevcheskikh notatsiakh, Pamiatniki drevnei pismen-nosti I iskusstva, 145 (St.Petersburg: OLDP, 1901), 2, 120 pp. N.D.Uspensky, Drevnerusskoe evcheskoe iskusstvo, 2nd ed. (Moskva, Sovetsky kom-pozitor, 1971), 623 pp. E.Vorobyov '"Stroki" Ivana Shaidura', in Aspirantsky sbornik, vyp. 2 (M., 2004), pp. 31-56. I.V.Yefimova, ,Pamiatniki russkogo strochnogo mnogogolosia v rukopisi sobrania P.P.Viazemskogo' in Istochnirovedcheskoe izuchenie pamiatnikov pismennoi kultury: Poetika drevnerusskogo pevcheskogo iskusstva (St.Petersburg, 1992), pp.172-209. I.V. Zabolotnaya, Tserkovno-pevcheskie rukopisi Drevnei Rusi XI-XIV vekov: os-novnye tipy knig v istoriko-funktsionalnom aspekte (Moskva, 2001), 250 pp. N.B.Zakharina, 'K voprosu ob otrazhenii muzykalnogo instrumentaria v drevnerusskikh teoreticheskikh rukuvodstvakh po tserkovnomu peniu' in Muzei teatra I muzyki v mezhdunarodnom prostranstve (St.Petersburg, 2008), pp. 260-269. EaxMyTOBa H.B. u gp. KojHHecTBeHHoe uccjegoBaHue nojHoro BapuaHTa OKTOuxa b 3HaMeHHon (JiopMe 3anucu // KyjitTypHoe Hacjegue CpegHeBeKOBon Pycu b Tpag^nax ypano-Cu6HpcKoro CTapoo6pagnecTBa. HoBocu6upcK, 1999. C. 420-439. ISBN 5-7196-0494-4. Ee3ymoBa H.®. My3HKantHaa geaTentHocTt ConoBe^ux uhokob: no nernecKUM pyKonu-cam ConoBe^oro co6paHua // HcTopHHecKoe roynehue naMATHUKoB nuctMeHHon Kyjn>TypBi. .K, 1990. C. 39-50. EenaeB B.M. ^peBHepyccKaa My3HKantHaa nuctMeHHocTt. M.: Cob. KoMno3UTop, 1962. 134 c.: 4 j. uj., hot. EoroMojoBa M.B. O penepTyape rpeHecKoro pocneBa b 3anncn «rpeHecKofi» H0Ta^ueH // repMeHeBTUKa gpeBHepyccKofi juTepaTypti / Poc. AKag. HayK; Hh-t MupoBofi juTepaTypti. M., 1992. C6. 4. XVII-Hawo XVIII bb. C. 256-285. Epa^HHKoB M.B. ,3,peBHepyccKaa Teopua My3tiKu: no pyKonuc. MaTepuajaM XV-XVIII bb. H.: My3tiKa, 1972. 423 c.: ^aKc. u hot uj. Epa^HHKoB M.B. PyccKaa neBHecKaa naneorpa^ua / HayH. peg., npuMeH., BCTyn. ct., na-jeorp. Ta6j. H.O.OeperuHofi; MuHucTepcTBo KyjLTypH Poccuhckoh ®egepa^uu; Poc. aKag. HayK; poc. uh-t ucTopuu ucKyccTB; OaHKT-neTep6yprcKaa roc. KoHcepBaTopua. Cn6.: 6.u., 2002. 296 c.; 32 c. uj. Epa^HUKoB M.B. OraTLu o gpeBHepyccKofi My3tiKe. H.: My3tiKa, 1975 Bopo6teB E. «OTpoKu» HBaHa Oangypa //AcnupaHTcKufi c6opHuK / roc. Hh-t ucKyccT-B03HaHua. M., 2004. Ban. 2. O. 31-56. TycenHoBa 3.M. «H3Be^eHue» AneKcaHgpa Me3eH^ u Teopua My3tiKu XVII BeKa. On6.: 6.u., 1994. 217 c. rycefiH0Ba 3.M. naMaTHuKu My3HKajLHo-TeopeTHHecKofi mbicju b pyKonucax Kupujjo-Eejo3epcKoro MoHacTtipa XV-XVII BeKoB // ruMHojorua / OocT. u otb. peg. H.H030Baa. M., 2000. Btm.1, kh. 1. MaTepuanti MexgyHapogHofi HayHHofi K0H^epeH^uu «naMaTu npoTo-uepea ,3,uMuTpua Pa3yMoBcKoro» (k 130-jeTuro Mockobckoh KoHcepBaTopuu) 3-8 ceHTa6pa 1996. O. 263-273. (yHeH. 3an. HayH. ^mpa pyc. gyxoBHofi My3tiKu um. npoT. ,3,uMuTpua Pa3yMoBcKoro / Mock. roc. KoHcepBaTopua um. n.H.^afiK0BcK0ro). O. 240-248. TycenHoBa 3.M. ^puH^u^H cucTeMaTU3a^uu gpeBHepyccKofi nucLMeHHocTu XI-XIV BeKoB: (K npo6jeMe gemu^ipoBKu 3HaMeHHofi H0Ta^uu): Anrope^. guc. Ha coucK. yHeH. cTen. k. uck. H., 1982. 19 c. rycenHoBa 3.M. PyKoBogcTBa no Teopuu 3HaMeHHoro neHua XV BeKa: Hctohhuku u pe-ga^uu // ^peBHepyccKaa neBHecKaa KyjiLTypa u khu^hoctl / Coct u otb. peg. H.O.OeperuHa. H.: HrHTMHK, 1990. O. 20-46. TycenHoBa 3.M. PyccKue My3HKajLHtie a36yKu 15-16 BeKoB: yne6. noco6ue. On6.: 6.u., 1999. 132 c. 3a6ojoTHaa H.B. ^pK0BH0-neBHecKHe pyKonucu ^peBHen Pycu XI-XIV BeKoB: Ochobhbk Turni KHur b ucT0puK0-4>yH^u0HajLH0M acneKTe. M., 2001. 250 c. 3axapLuHa H. E. K Bonpocy o6 oTpa^eHuu My3tiKajLHoro uHcTpyMeHTapua b gpeBHe-pyccKux TeopeTHHecKux pyKoBogcTBax no ^pK0BH0My neHuro // My3eu TeaTpa u My3tiKu b MexgyHap0gH0M npocTpaHcTBe: MaTepuanti HayHH0-npaKTHHecK0H K0H^epeH^uu 20-22 MapTa 2008 roga. On6., 2008. O. 260-269. HcTopHHecKoe paccyxgeHue Boo6^e o gpeBHeM xpucTuaHcK0M 6orocjyxe6H0M neHuu... BopoHe». 1799. [4], 26 c. KpaBHeHKo O.n. ©htbi 3HaMeHHoro pocneBa Ha MaTepuaje neBHecKon KHuru «npa3gHuKu». ABTope^. guc. Ha coucK. yHeH. cTen... KaHg. ucKyccTB0BegeHua. H., 1981. 23 c. KpaBHeHKo O.n. ©htbi 3HaMeHHoro pocneBa Ha MaTepuaje neBHecKon KHuru «npa3gHuKu». ABTope^. guc. Ha coucK. yHeH. cTen... KaHg. ucKyccTB0BegeHua. H., 1981. 23 c. KpyHuHuHa A.H. noneBKa 3HaMeHHoro pocneBa b pyccKon My3tiKajLH0H Teopuu XVII BeKa // neBHecKoe Hacjegue ^peBHen Pycu: (HcTopua, Teopua, ^cTeTUKa) / OocT. H.E.3axapLuHa, A.H.KpyHuHuHa; HayH. peg. A.H.KpyHuHuHa, H.B.PaMa3aH0Ba, T.K.XpaM^Ba. On6.: Ut, 2002. O. 46-150. ISBN 5-7443-0062-7. KpyHUHUHa A.H. noneBKa 3HaMeHHoro pocneBa b pyccKon My3HKaii>HOH Teopuu XVII BeKa // neBHecKoe Haciegue ^peBHen Pycu: (HcTopua, Teopua, ^cTeTUKa) / Coct. H.B.3axaptUHa, A.H.KpyHUHUHa; HayH. peg. A.H.KpyHUHUHa, H.B.PaMa3aHOBa, T.K.XpaM^Ba; Cn6.: Ut, 2002. C. 46-150. ISBN 5-7443-0062-7 MeTaiioB B.M. PyccKaa cuMUorpa^iua. M., 1912. [2], 118, 119 c. Mocararn (CymKeBHH) H.B. Oco6eHHocTU (JiopMupoBaHua HOTupoBaHHtx c6opHUKOB HaHa-la 17 b. (no pyKonucu PHB OCPK Q. I. 1408) // ruMHoioraa. MaTepuaiH MexgympogHon Ha-yHHon KOH^epeH^^^ «naMaTU npoToupea ^MHTpna Pa3yMOBcKoro». M., 2000 r. C.319 - 325. Mocararn H.B. ,3,0Me3eH^BcKue noMeTH b TeoperanecKux pyKoBogcTBax u pocneBax 17 b. // neBHecKoe Haciegue ^peBHen Pycu (HcTopua, Teopua, ^cTeTUKa). Cn6., 2002 r C.159-163. Mocararn H.B. «GrpaHHtie noMeTH» b 3HaMeHHOH H0Ta^uu BTopon noioBUHH 17 BeKa. // XVI ExerogHaa BorocioBcKaa KOH^epeH^^a npaBociaBHoro CBaTo-TuxoHoBcKoro ryMa-HUTapHoro yHUBepcuTeTa. MaTepuaiH. T.2. M., 2006. C.343-348. MocaruHa H.B. K npo6ieMe apxaHHecKoro UHToHupoBaHua («KptixeBtie» npu3HaKU b 3HaMeHHon H0Ta^uu koh^ 17 BeKa) // Tonoc b KyitType: apTUKy.^a^ua u TeM6p. Cn6., 2007. C.78-86. Hobukob A.B. KogeKc BiagHKU Ouio^ea KaK naMaTHUK nyTeBoro pocneBa // ^peBHepyc-cKoe necHoneHue: nyTU bo BpeMeHu: K 100-ieTuro co gHa poxgeHua M.B.BpaxHUKOBa: no MaTepuaiaM HayHHon K0H^epeH^uu «BpaxHUKOBcme HTeHua-2002» / Coct. H.B.3axaptUHa. Cn6.: H3g-Bo Cn6rny, 2004. C. 165-177. ISBN 5-7422-0659-6 neBHecKue a36yKU ^peBHen Pycu / ny6i., nep, npeguci. u KOMMeHT. ^.Oa6anuHa. Ke-MepoBo: Ky36accBy3U3gaT, 1991. 277 c. : ui., hot. ui. n^eTHeBa E.B. HoTa^ua b necHoneHuax gpeBHepyccKUx Oktouxob H36opHtx u Oec-TogHeBOB Ciyxe6Htix (XIII-XV bb.) // XIII ExerogHaa BorocioBcKaa KoH^epeH^ua npa-BocnaBHoro CBaTo-TuxoHoBcKoro BorocioBcKoro HHcTUTyTa: MaTepuaiH 2003. M., 2003. C. 443-451. nocnenoBa P. 3anagHaa H0Ta^ua XI - XIV BeKOB: Ha MaTepuaie TpaKTaTOB: Hccieg. M., 2003. 416 c., ui. npuceiKOB M.,3,. HcTopua pyccKoro ieTonucaHua XI-XV bb. Cn6., 1996. 352 c. npo6neMH gemu^poBKU gpeBHepyccKUx HOTa^u^: C6. HayH. Tp. / Coct. u otb. peg C.n.KpaBHeHKo, A.H.KpyHUHUHa. ..: H3g. .O.rK., 1987. 200 c. PaMa3aHOBa H.B. neBHecKue pyKonucHHe KHuru Kupuiio-Beio3epcKoro MOHacTHpa: (MaTepuaiH BHcTaBKU OTgeia pyKonucen PoccuncKon Ha^U0Ha^BH0^ 6u6iuoTeKu) // MoHacTHpcKaa Tpagu^ua b gpeBHepyccKOM neBHecKOM ucKyccTBe: K 600-ieTuro ocHOBaHua Kupuiio-Beio3epcKoro MOHacTHpa / Coct. H.B.3axaptUHa, A.H.KpyHUHUHa. Cn6., 2000. C. 8-15. CaxapoB H.n. HcciegoBaHua o pyccKOM ^pkobhom necHoneHUu. [Cn6., 1849]. 72, 61 c. H3 xypH. Muh. Hap. npoc. 1849. 7, 8. A36yKa 3HaMeHHoro neHua (H3Be^eHue o corjiacHenmux noMeTax) cTap^ AieKcaHgpa Me3eH^ (1668-ro roga). B.m.: BpaTcTBo «BepTorpag», 7510 (2002). 11 i. cTapociaB. ^oiu-a^uu, [2], 208 c. CMoieHcKun C.B. O gpeBHepyccKUx neBHecKux H0Ta^uax. Cn6., 1901. 2, 120 c. (HaMaT-huku gpeBHen nuctMeHHocTU u ucKyccTBa; Btm. CXLV). yCneHCKHn H.,3,. ,3,peBHepyccKoe neBHecKoe ucKyccTBo. M.: Cob. K0Mn03uT0p, 1971. 623 c. OeoKTHCT (MoHyjitcKnn). PyK0B0gcTB0 k HOTHOMy np0CT0My ^ptK0BH0My neHuro... ene., 1813. [4], 11 c. OpojoB C. B. K npo6jeMe 3ByK0Btic0TH0cTu 6ecnoMeTHon 3HaMeHH0H H0Ta^uu // npo-6jeMti ncTopnn u Teopuu gpeBHepyccKon My3tiKu. .H., 1979. C. 124-147. XpucTo^op. Knron 3HaMeHH0H, 1604/ ny6j. u nep.M.Epa^HmoBa u EHuKumoBa; npegucj., KOMMeHT., uccjeg. EHuKumoBa;. M.: My3tiKa, 1983. 293 c.: ^aKc, 4 j. ^aKc. (naMaTHUKu pyc. My3. ucKyccTBa / PegKoj.: ro.B.Kengtim u gp.; Ban. 9). Oa6anuH ,3,.C. npo6neMti gemu^ipoBKu 6ecnoMeTHoro 3HaMeHHoro pacneBa XV - ce-pegurni XVII BeKOB : Anrope^. guc. Ha coucK. yneH. cTen. KaHg. ucKyccTB0BegeHua. M., 1986. 21 c. OuHguH E.A. HoTa^ua neBHecKon pyKonucu ConoBe^oro MoHacTtipa N° 752/690 // npo6neMti ucTopuu pyccKon u coBeTcKon My3tiKu M., 1977. (C6. Tp. rMnH um. rHecumrc; Ban. 34). C. 112-120. ^H^JJUH C. E., Hobbih MeTog jago4>yH^uoHajtHoro aHanroa aHTuHHtrc HoTorpa^u-necKux naMHTHuKoB: ABTope^. guc. Ha coucK. yneH. cTen. KaHg. ucKyccTB0BegeHua. Cn6., 2005. 24 c. Ars notandi: HoTa^ua b MeHaro^eMca MHpe: MaTepuanti MexgyHapogHon HayHHon KoH^e-peH^uu, nocBA^eHon TticaHeneTHeMy ro6ujero rBugo ApeTuHcKoro. M., 1997. 124 c. (Hayn. Tp. Mock. roc. KoHcepBaTopuu um. n.H.^afiK0BcK0F0; C6. 17). ISBN 5-89598-009-0. CoKpa^eHua: Cob. -coBeTcKun .H. - ^eHuHrpag Cn6 - CaHKT-neTep6ypr C. -cTpaHu^i Hj. - uJJrocTpa^uu HoT. - H0TLi OaKc. - ^aKcuMune E.u. - 6e3 u3gaTentcTBa ABTope^. -aBTope^epaT ,fl,uc. - guccepTa^ua CoucK. - coucKaHue yneH. - yneHHn, ynema CTen. - cTeneHt KaHg. - KaHgugaT roc. - rocygapcTBeHHHH Povzetek Raziskovanje ruske notacije je tesno povezano z zgodovino pisanja o glasbi v naši deželi. Stara Rusija je prevzela nevmatsko natacijo Bizanca, tako da je Rusija postala edina slovanska dežela, ki je ohranila in gojila nevmatsko pisavo do samega začetka 18. stoletja; med starimi verniki velja celo, da sega do današnjih dni. Poznamo vrsto notacij: znamenny, kondakarny, demestvenny, putny notations in kazanskoje znamja. Prvo rusko muzikološko društvo »Znakovna imena« je iz druge polovice 15. stoletja izpod peresa neznanega avtorja. Večina srednjeveških ruskih spisov s področja glasbene teorije je posvečena nevmam. Izvor ruskih nevm je postal osrednje vprašanje v 19. stoletju. V začetku 20. stoletja pa so znanstveniki zasnovali stopnje razvoja nev-matske notacije. V drugi polovici 20. stoletja, po dolgem premoru v raziskovanju cerkvene glasbe, so se sovjetski znanstveniki lotili razreševanja ruskih nevm. Na začetku 21. stoletja se raziskovalci ukvarjajo z delno notiranimi rokopisi, ki kažejo na ustno tradicijo. UDK 78(497.11):929Mokranjac S. Katarina Tomaševic Institute of Musicology, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts Inštitut za muzikologijo, Srbska akademija znanosti in umetnosti Stevan Stojanovic Mokranjac and the inventing of tradition: a case study of the Song 'Cvekje Cafnalo'* Stevan Stojanovic Mokranjac in iznajdevanje tradicije: vzorčna študija pesmi »Cvekje cafnalo« Prejeto: 19. april 2010 Sprejeto: 1. maj 2010 Ključne besede: Stevan Stojanovic Mokranjac, Petar Konjovic, Predrag Miloševic, inventing of tradition Izvleček Glavni namen prispevka je v raziskavi vloge Steva-na Stojanovica Mokranjca v procesih iznajdevanja umetne tradicije v srbski glasbi moderne dobe. S tem ko sledim poti izbranega analitičnega primera, to je ljudski pesmi »Cvekje cafnalo« iz Mokranjčeve 12. rukoveti, mimo P. Konjovicevih del (Simfonija v c-molu, 1907 in Drugi godalni kvartet, 1937) ter Sonatine (1926) Predraga Miloševica, nameravam pokazati, na kakšen način je Mokranjčev opus rabil kot izhodiščni model za vpeljevanje zgodnjega modernizma v srbski (in jugoslovanski) glasbi v prvi polovici 20. stoletja. Received: 19th April 2010 Accepted: 1st May 2010 Keywords: Stevan Stojanovic Mokranjac, Petar Konjovic, Predrag Miloševic, iznajdevanje tradicije Abstract The main aim of this article is to examine Stevan Stojanovic Mokranjac's role in the processes of inventing the artistic tradition of Serbian music of modern times. By following the route of the chosen analytical sample, the folk song ""Cvekje cafnalo" from Mokranjac's Twelfth Garland, through Petar Konjovic's works (Symphony C-minor, 1907 and The Second String Quartet, 1937), finally to the piano Sonatina (1926) by Predrag Miloševic, I plan to show on which way Mokranjac's oeuvre served as a starting model for the initiation of early modernism in Serbian (and Yugoslav) music in the first half of the 20th century. This article is a result of the project Music at the Crossroads Serbian, Balkans and European Context, no. 147033, financial by Ministry of the Republic of Serbia. It represents amended and revised version of the report submitted at the international conference Composer and his Environment, organized by the Institute of Musicology of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and Matica srpska, held in Belgrade and Novi Sad in 2006 (November, 9-11), on the occasion of the 175th anniversary of Kornelije Stankovic and Stevan Stojanovic Mokranjac. The main idea of this article is to highlight Stevan Stojanovic Mokranjac's (1856-1914) role in the processes of inventing the artistic tradition of Serbian music of modern times. My starting hypothesis arises from the broadly accepted opinion that Mokranjac's creative interpretation of folk tunes highly inspired his followers. However, my intention is to go a step further, stating that Mokranjac's main contribution consisted in his construction of the new identity of Serbian artistic music. This "newly-born" understanding of artistic music, established in Mokranjac's oeuvre, served as the starting model for the music of his most gifted successors - the main representatives of early modernism in Serbian (and Yugoslav) music in the first half of the 20th century. Firstly I will draw readers' attention to selected facts from Mokranjac's biography, biographies of his widely known Western contemporaries and of his successors in Serbian music history. Briefly reviewing the notion of tradition, and particularly the notion of inventing tradition, in my next step I will introduce the theoretical premises for my final conclusions. Finally, by following the route of the chosen analytical sample, the folk song "Cvekje cafnalo" from Mokranjac's Twelfth Garland (Rukovet, 1906), through Petar Konjovic's (1883-1970) works (Symphony C-minor, 1907 and The Second String Quartet, 1937), finally to the piano Sonatina (1926) by Predrag Milosevic (1908-1982), I will examine the practical value of the proposed theoretical premises. Step 1. - Mokranjac and His Time Born in 1856, one century younger than Mozart, Stevan Stojanovic Mokranjac was only eight when another gifted young composer, pianist and melographer Kornelije Stankovic (1831-1865), the founder of the Romanticism movement in Serbian music, died prematurely. Kornelije was the first important "ambassador" of Serbian music abroad and the first to unveil the wealth and beauty of Serbian folklore heritage to Europe. His people respected and praised him to such an extent that even during his life his name became the universal synonym for a musician of that, so-called "Kornelian" epoch. His great successor, Stevan Mokranjac, grew up and developed his talent in the era that carefully preserved the idealized memory of Kornelije and of his work, important for establishing a foundation for the new music art tradition of western physiognomy, completely unknown before in Serbian cultural history. At the end of the 1870s Mokranjac went to study in Munich, leaving behind a young Serbian music culture, marked by the activities of numerous, mainly well-educated musicians of Czech origin.1 One biographical curiosity tells us that Mokranjac, during his studies in Munich with J. Rheihnberger (1879-1883), became quite familiar with Richard Wagner's music. Mokranjac was probably the first musician from this region to visit Bayreuth, and in 1883 he attended one of the August performances of Parsifal, 1 About the activities of Czech musicians see e.g.: Milica Gajic, "Doprinos čeških muzičara srpskoj muzičkoj sceni do Prvog svet-skog rata (...)" ["Contribution of Czech Musicians to the Serbian Musical Stage..."] in: Srpska muzička scena [Serbian Musical Stage], Muzikološki institut SANU, Beograd 1995, p.p. 114-128; Roksanda Pejovic, "Češki muzičari u srpskom muzičkom životu (1844-1918)" ["Czech Musicians in the Serbian Musical Life (1844-1918)", I and II, Novi Zvuk, 8, Novi Zvuk 9, Beograd 1996, 1997, p.p. 51-58; 65 -74; Katarina Tomaševic, "The Contribution of Czech Musicians to the Serbian Music in the 19th Century", Muzikološki Zbornik, XLII/1, Ljubljana 2006, p.p. 127-137. Wagner's last musical drama.2 Unfortunately, in that same year of 1883, Mokranjac reluctantly had to stop his Munich studies. Only a few months after conducting the last performance of Parsifal, Richard Wagner died in Venice. That same year, 1883 (when Mokranjac composed his First Garland: From my Native Land), saw the birth of Petar Konjovic, a consistent successor of Mokranjac's path, and the most important author of Serbian music drama in the 20th century.3 Also known as the author of the very first symphony (Symphony C-minor) and of the first symphonic variations (In the Country, 1915) in Serbian music, Petar Konjovic happens to be in the focus of our attention because these two works, as well as his Second String Quartet, are based on folk tunes from Mokranjac's Garlands. During the next year, 1884, when Mokranjac set out to compose The Second Garland (From my Native Land), another of his followers, a great figure of Serbian musical modernism, was born. This was Miloje Milojevic (1884-1946), one of the leading composers, music critics and ideologists of modern music nationalism in the period between the two world wars.4 A year later, in 1885, the third in the so-called "trefoil" of first Serbian modernists, Stevan Hristic, was born5; he later became internationally recognized as the author of the most famous national ballet, The Legend of Ohrid (1947). The two main leitmotifs of his ballet originated from Mokranjac's Tenth Garland (Songs from 2 See: K. P. Manojlovic, "Stevan Mokranjac o Vagneru i Parsifalu" ["Stevan Mokranjac on Wagner and Parsifal"], Zvuk, 4, Beograd 1933, p.p. 132-136; Stana Buric-Klajn, Mladi dani Stevana Mokranjca [Youthful Days of Stevan Mokranjac], Mokranjčevi dani, Negotin 1981, p.p. 30-32; Katarina Tomaševic, "Petar Konjovic Pro et Contra Wagner" in: Vagnerov spis "Opera i drama" danas [Wagner's Treatise "Opera and Drama" Today], Matica srpska, Novi Sad 2006, 120-122. Petar Konjovic (1883-1970) studied composition in Prague with K. Steker (1904-1906). After WW I he occupied the most responsible positions in the field of music (as director of the Opera House in Zagreb, professor and rector of Belgrade Academy of Music, and founder and first director of the Institute of Musicology of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts), and he was a member of the Academies of Sciences and Arts in Prague (since 1937) and Serbia (since 1946). Believing in pan-Slavic ideas, Konjovic saw the future of Serbian music in the Slavic circle of modern "national schools" of the XXth century (See e.g. Katarina Tomaševic, "Istok-Zapad u polemičkom kontekstu srpske muzike izmedu dva svetska rata" ["The East and the West in the Polemic Context of the Serbian Music between the Two World Wars"], Muzikologija, ČasopisMuzikološkog instituta Srpske akademije nauka i umetnosti [Musicology, Journal of the Institute of Musicology of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts], 5, Beograd 2005, pp. 119-129). As the most substantial contributor to modern Serbian music drama (Knez od Zete/The Prince of Zeta,, 1927) and Koštana (1931, performed in Brno/1932 and Prague/1935), Konjovic was inspired by the concept of the so-called "psychological realism", recognized in oeuvres of Mussorgsky and Janaček. About the stylistic profile of Konjovic's opus c.f. e.g. Nadežda Mosusova, "Stilska orijenatacija Petra Konjovica" ["Stylistic Orientation of Petar Konjovic"] in: Život i delo Petra Konjovica [The Life and the Work of Petar Konjovic], Muzikološki institut SANU i Odeljenje likovne i muzičke umetnosti SANU, Beograd 1989, pp. 39-44. Miloje Milojevic (1884-1946), composer, the first Serbian doctor of musicology and the leading critic of the time, had a great impact on musical life in Belgrade between the world wars. He studied composition (with Klose) and musicology at Munich University and took his doctoral degree in Prague (1925, with Zd. Nejedly). As the most influential Serbian music critic and writer, he followed the aesthetic ideas of the circle of Serbian intellectuals called "Europeans", who aimed to keep modern Serbian culture in step with European, particularly Western - French and German tendencies. On Milojevic among "Europeans" see e.g. Vlastimir Trajkovic, "Ključni opusi u stvaralaštvu Miloja Milojevica" ["The Key Compositions of Miloje Milojevic"] and Katarina Tomaševic, "Miloje Milojevic - izmedu tradicionalnog i modernog" ["Miloje Milojevic - between Tradional and Modern"] in: Kompozitorsko stvaralaštvo Miloja Milojevica [The Works of the Composer Miloje Milojevic], Muzikološki institut SANU, Beograd 1998, p.p. 18-30 and 4-16.) A great fighter for the idea of "national style" in his pieces inspired by folklore, he tried to make a new, modern stylistic synthesis based on the classical aesthetical values of the European tradition. Stevan Hristic (1885-1958), who studied composition and conducting in Leipzig (with Krehl, Hofmann and Nikisch), Rome, Moscow and Paris, occupied leading positions in the musical life of Belgrade after the First World War. He was the founder and the first director of Belgrade Opera and Philharmony and later professor and rector at the Academy of Music. Well educated, Hristic quite early showed an affinity for contemporary Italian and French music (his Resurrection, 1911, was the first oratorio Serbian music!). Evidence of impressionism influences marks Hristic's most significant works - the extremely popular national ballet Ohridska legenda [The Legend of Ohrid], based on a folk tale and with music inspired by folklore and by Mokranjac's famous songs from the Tenth Rukovet (Garland from Ohrid), and also his second stage opus - lyrical, intimate, one act music drama Twilight, which represents the composer's assimilation of the fin-de-si cle aesthetics. Ohrid, 1905), which was considered to be one of the highest creative achievements of the whole Mokranjac oeuvre. In 1885 (when Hristic was born), Stevan Mokranjac was in Rome, devotedly studying Palestrina's vocal style. At the same time, young Claude Debussy, the last winner of Prix de Rome, was also in Rome, studying Wagner, trying to find the key solution to the resistance he felt towards the impact and domination of Wagner on French music at the time. Mokranjac's rich and fruitful life ended in 1914, on the eve of the First World War, after which the geopolitical map of Europe was radically changed. By writing a specific music travelogue in his cycle of 15 choral Garlands6, Stevan Mokranjac seemed to have clearly anticipated one important event: after centuries of Turkish occupation, numerous migrations, and lives separated in two opposing civilizations (the Ottoman Empire and the Austrian), the Serbian people would once again, after WW I, be unified within a newly-established country - the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians (later the Kingdom Yugoslavia, and then the Socialistic Federative Republic of Yugoslavia). Just like elsewhere in Europe, during the first post-war years, the atmosphere in the newly born Kingdom was imbued with a general feeling that the whole world was about to enter a NEW AGE. In 1914 Serbian culture lost both Mokranjac and one of the leading literary historians and the most influential critics, Jovan Skerlic (1877-1914), but the representatives of the youngest generation of artists (primarily poets and writers, but visual artists and musicians as well) strongly believed that they were powerful enough to create a completely NEW ART, without deeper references to the past. However, in the case of Serbian music, without Mokranjac as the inventor of the new artistic music tradition, there was no way forward. This is one of the main theses of this paper. Step 2. - The Inventing of Tradition There is, of course, nothing new or "original" in the statement that Mokranjac showed the way to the next generation of Serbian composers. The list of writings devoted to Mokranjac's influence is almost endless. Moreover, several important studies deal expertly with the place of the tunes from Mokranjac's Garlands in the works of the first modernists.7 My paper should be understood primarily as an attempt to observe Ste-van Mokranjac from a possibly different angle: on one hand as a "stylogene" figure of Serbian musical Romanticism, and on the other hand as the inventor of the new music art tradition, which served as a new starting point for his successors. In their view, this new tradition established by Mokranjac had replaced the old Kornelian one, and was treated as the new, starting model for their modernistic tendencies. In justification of the mentioned thesis, I present here several relevant interpretations and definitions of the notions of tradition and invented traditions. E.g. : VII - Songs from Old Serbia and Macedonia (1894), XI - Songs from Old Serbia (1905); VIII (1896) and XII (1906) - Songs from Kosovo, IX - Songs from Montenegro (1896), X - Songs from Ohrid (1901), XIV - Songs from Bosnia (1908), Coastal Songs (1893). See e.g. Nadezda Mosusova, "Uloga Stevana Mokranjca u stvaralastvu Petra Konjovica" ["The Role of Stevan Mokranjac in the Creative Work of Petar Konjovic"] in: Mokranjcevi dani 1967, Negotin 1969, p.p. 37-47. Following the anthological example of Thomas Elliot8, most theoreticians agree that tradition is an extremely complex and dynamic phenomenon. Although many definitions lay different emphases on important features of the phenomenon, they mostly reduce it to several basic ideas, such as: "There is no tradition without continuity"; "Tradition is based on the processes of selection from the past"; "It is impossible to artificially reconstruct tradition". On the other hand: "It is possible to create it or to construct it". A quotation from the well-known suggestion of Eric Hobsbawm is useful, too: "... invented traditions ... are responses to novel situations which take the form of reference to old situations, or which establish their own past by quasi-obligatory repetition."9 Yet another important idea of his is: "The term invented tradition includes 'traditions' actually invented, constructed and formally instituted ..., establish[ed] ... with great rapidity."10 (All italics by K.T.) One of the widely-spread opinions is that tradition, by constantly making selections from a layer of novelties, accepts only those contemporary features that are adjusted to the newly-established social norms, that is, only those that are socially suitable and acceptable. Moreover, if a specific awareness of tradition is an attitude of the present to the past, each and every coming generation builds (creates, constructs) its own specific awareness of former traditions. Finally, bearing in mind that the 'content' of the notion of tradition is constantly changed in time, let's remind ourselves "a tradition does not change itself. It contains the potentiality of being changed."11 In accordance with these arguments, we can conclude that for Mokranjac's generation, the musical oeuvre of Kornelije Stankovic had the meaning and function of a starting model. For the generation that came after Mokranjac, though, that old model was obsolete and abandoned in the processes of stylistic, but also aesthetical selection, based on values. The new music art tradition, invented or constructed by Mokranjac, turned out to be the model of the greatest development potential for the later transformation of Serbian artistic music in the first half of the 20th century. Step 3. - The Establishing of a Model - Mokranjac and "Cvekje cafnalo" I will focus now on the chosen analytical sample - the artistic transpositions of the folk song "Cvekje cafnalo". This folk song found its first creative interpretation in Mokranjac's Twelfth Garland. Composed in 1906, this newest Mokranjac choral work was titled Songs from Kosovo and had its premiere in Belgrade at the traditional (old calendar) New Year's concert of the "Belgrade Singing Society", on 13th January 1907. The title of the Garland undoubtedly suggested that the song "Cvekje cafnalo", which takes the fourth, penultimate position in the sequence of five songs, originates from Kosovo. 8 I have in mind the famous Elliot's essay "Tradition and the Individual Talent" first published, in two parts, in The Egoist (1919) and later in Eliot's first book of criticism - The Sacred Wood (1920). 9 The Inventing of Tradition. Edited by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne, Sydney 1983, p. 2. 10 Ibid, 1. 11 Edward Shils, Tradition, Faber and Faber, London, Boston 1981, p. 212. A.ldantino [il.M. ^=34-92] Example 1. Mokranjac, Twelfth Garland, Songsfrom Kosovo, 4. song - "Cvekje cafnalo"12. Surprisingly, right at beginning of my research, I came across several interesting facts related to the precise origin of the song "Cvekje cafnalo". The starting premise, that Mokranjac wrote it down during his fieldwork in Kosovo (1896),13 had to be rejected: 12 Stevan St. Mokranjac, Sabrana dela [Collected Works], volume 1, Editor Vojislav Ilic, Rukoveti [Garlands], Knjazevac-Beograd 1992, p.p. 243-244. The text of the song on English is the following: The flowers have blossomed, Mother,/ In our garden../ How should I pluck them,/Mother dear?/When I'm both glad and sorry,/ To pluck them (Mokranjac, Collected Works, vol.1, p. 348.) N.B. There is also a version for male choir, which is longer. See in: Mokranjac, Collected Works, vol.1, p.p. 256-258. About Mokranjac's field work on Kosovo see: Petar Konjovic, "Stevan St. Mokranjac" in: StevanStojanovic Mokranjac. Zivoti delo [Stevan Stojanovic Mokranjac. Life and Work], Edited by Dejan Despic and Vlastimir Pericic (Stevan St. Mokranjac, Sabrana dela [Collected Works], volume 10), Beograd 1999, p.p. 28-32. Cf. also Djordje Peric, "Stevan Mokranjac i Kosovo (nova saznanja o boravku i melografskom radu Stevana Mokranjca na Kosovu)" ["Stevan Mokranjac and Kosovo (new findings about Mokranjac's visit and melographic work on Kosovo)"], Razvitak, 194/195, Zajecar 1995, p.p. 120-126. the song definitely does not belong to Mokranjac's notebooks from that time! The tune is written down in composer's Tenth notebook, written several years later. Dragoslav Devic marked the song as "Macedonian".14 Thanks to the precise investigation of Djordje Peric, another conclusion is reached: Mokranjac wrote the song down in Belgrade, either according to live singing or from the transcription of his friend, melographer Milojko Veselinovic, who at the time of Mokranjac's stay in Kosovo was serving as a vice-consul in Skopje.15 Without elaborating this fascinating story about the way "Cvekje cafnalo" travelled from its source to Mokranjac's notebook, we will uphold the supposition that Mokranjac became familiar with it in Belgrade at the turn of the century. The question: "Is the tune originally from Kosovo, or from Macedonia?"16 is still waiting for expert analysis by ethnomusicologists. However, the result of this brief research is quite important for a deeper understanding of the Mokranjac's creative processes in his selection of the material for his Garlands. Whether the song was, or was not originally from Kosovo, Mokranjac found it perfectly suitable for this Garland, which successfully evoked the musical atmosphere of the South Balkans', remaining for a long time in the focus of Mokranjac's numerous and the most successful followers. The next example introduces the original Mokranjac transcription. 306. UBEM U'HAJIO Y HAI1IA ITA^HHA Andante Wm J n LJiie - he u'