Parresia V Utidjian Hymnal I

PARRÉSIARevue pro východní křesťanství

5(2011)

Šéfredaktoři: Pavel Milko a Michal Řoutil

Čestný předseda redakční rady: Jan Blahoslav LášekRedakční rada: Walerian Bugel, Marek Dospěl, Vojtěch Kubec, Marina

Luptáková, Jana Nováková, Monika Šlajerová, Václav Ventura, Gorazd J. Vopatrný

Výkonná redaktorka: Jana Nováková

Jazyková úprava: Michal Karas, Markéta A. Hubová

V rámci edice Pro Oriente. Dědictví křesťanského Východu vydává nakladatelství Pavel Mervart ve spolupráci s Ústavem východního křesťanství Husitské teologické fakulty Univerzity Karlovy v Praze a Orthodoxií – vzdělávacím centrem při pravoslavném katedrálním chrámu v Praze 2 (Resslova 9a)

Příspěvky procházejí recenzním řízením. Nevyžádané rukopisy se nevracejí Periodicita: ročenkaPokyny pro autory viz na http://www.parresia.cz/cz/o-nas/pro-autoryWebová prezentace (s ukázkami): www.parresia.czAdresa redakce: Michal Řoutil, Farní 1, 789 01 Zábřeh na Moravě, e-mail: [email protected]

Adresa nakladatelství: Pavel Mervart, P. O. Box 5, 549 41 Červený KostelecGrafická úprava: Jan BlažíčekNa přední straně obálky: Jiří Nosek: Chor virap (olej na plátně, 120 cm x 160 cm), foto © I. Nosková; na zadní straně obálky: hymnus sv. Kříže s neumatickým zápisem – převzato z prvního tištěného arménského Hymnáře (Amsterdam 1665). Tisk: PBtisk, s. r. o., PříbramDistribuce: Kosmas, s. r. o. (www.kosmas.cz) a nakl. Pavel Mervart (www.pavelmervart.cz)

ISBN 978-80-7465-031-4ISSN 1802-8209

47

Tntesean and the Music of the Armenian HymnalHaig Utidjian

1. introduCtion

The Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church continues to embody a living tradition of primarily monodic vocal music of exceptional richness and beauty. Hymnography is attested as having commenced in the fifth century, whilst the canonical Hymnal was definitively closed at the end of the fourteenth century. As in the case of other churches, the melodies of the Hymnal1 were associated

1 We distinguish between hymns, šarakank‘, and odes, tałk‘. The former are to be found in the canonical hymnal, and for the most part belong to the following types, named after the “preamble” or incipit which is performed immediately prior to the first stanza of the hymn:

1. Cantemus, Օրհնութիւն – Moses’ Song of Praise, Exodus 15.1: Cantemus Domino, gloriose enim magnificatus est.

2. Patrum, Հարց – Daniel 3.52: Benedictus es, Domine, Deus patrum nostrorum; et laudabilis et glorisum nomen tuum in saecula. The second part of those hymns invariably includes: Opera, Գործք – Daniel 3.57: Benedicite, omnia opera Domini, Domino; laudate et superexultate eum in saecula. (Both these citations from the Book of Daniel are from the Deuterocanonical parts of Scripture.)

3. Magnificat, Մեծացուսցէ – The Song of Mary, Luke 1.45: Magnificat anima mea Dominum, et exsultavit spiritus meus in Deo, salutari meo.

4. Miserere, Ողորմեա – Psalm 50.1: Miserere mei, Deus, secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.

5. De caelis, Տէր յերկնից – Psalm 148.1: Laudate Dominum de caelis, laudate eum in excelsis.

6. Pueri, Մանկունք – Psalm 113[112].1: Laudate, pueri, Dominum; laudate nomen Domini.

7. Midday hymn or Prandi, Ճաշու, which does not have any one appellation associated with a psalm, as its incipit is variable: it might be a Magnificat, or Dilexi, Սիրեցի զի լուիցէ – Psalm 116[114].1: Dilexi, quoniam exaudiet Dominum vocem

Parrésia 5 (2011), s. 47–175

48

Haig Utidjian

with an eight-mode system2. In contrast, some of the items in the Breviary

orationis meae;or, most frequently, Տէր թագաւորեաց – Psalm 93[92].1: Dominus regnavit, decorem indutus est; indutus est Dominus fortitudinem et praecinxit se.

8. Levavi, Համբարձի – Psalm 121[120].1: Levavi oculos meos in montes, unde veniet auxilium mihi.

The standard Portable Hymnal, and many mediaeval manuscripts, nonetheless include certain canonical hymns that do not bear any of the above designations but belong to the day’s canon – in some cases constituting the sole hymn particular to the occasion; as well as a small number of hymns which, though long since accepted by the Church, happen not to belong to the Canon of any particular day, but which strictly speaking belong to the Breviary or to the Missal, yet are generally included in the Hymnal. Most, but not all, of these hymns belong to the eight- -mode system (in many ways the analogue of the octoēchos associated with other ancient churches).

In contrast, odes are freer compositions, textually, modally, and in terms of greater melismaticity, than hymns.

2 Although Armenian modality is a complex matter, and, in any event, in addition to embodying particular scales, embraces particular melodic contours and formulae associated with beginnings, cadences and endings, here we shall endeavour to provide some basic information on the scales associated with each principal mode. For simplicity, we confine the compass of each mode to the minimum required to capture its fundamental tonal characteristics. To save space, we denote authentic by A, plagal by P (but note that these traditional appellations have no functional significance), and employ a plus sign to denote a very slight sharpening and a minus sign to denote a very slight flattening. Note that here we indicate current usage, which in some ways differs from that of Tntesean; we also gloss over questions concerning possible changes which these modes may have undergone prior to attaining their current form:

ԱՁ or IA: g, a sharp(/a/a+), b natural, c, d(/d+), eԱԿ or IP: g, a(/a sharp), b natural, c, d, e ԲՁ or IIA: a, d, e, f sharp, g, e, f, e, d, c, b natural, aԲԿ or IIP: c sharp, d, e, f, g, aԳՁ or IIIA: f sharp, g, a, b flat(/b natural), c sharp, d, e, fԳԿ or IIIP: g, a, b natural, c, d-ԴՁ or IVA: a, b natural, c(/c sharp), d, e, fԴԿ or IVP: f sharp, g, a, b natural, c, d.Microtones (denoted above as a+, d+ and d-) have largely fallen into disuse.

Also, it should be noted that certain notes, denoted above in parentheses, may sometimes be used, in preference to those immediately preceding them in the above table, depending on their position within the phrasal contour, the position of the phrase within the verse, or on local variations in traditional practice. Finally, most modes also possess a secondary or “auxiliary” version called darjuack‘, with a contrasting scale and sometimes also contrasting vocal tessitura to those of the parent mode; and in addition, certain modes (especially ԴԿ) possess rather melismatic and highly recognisable versions known as stełi.

Tntesean and the Music of the Armenian Hymnal

49

Reproduction of the dedication page of the 1934 Tntesean hymnal, bearing his son Lewon’s moving inscription: Sirec‘eal Hayrikin anmoŕac‘ yišatakin kǝ jōnē ordin –“Dedicated by the son to the unforgettable memory of his beloved Father”.

50

Haig Utidjian

and many of the odes were not necessarily restricted to any simple system of modes. In addition, odes continued to be composed well into the nineteenth century, sometimes as new melodic variants to pre-existing verbal texts. However, the melodies of a high proportion of the Armenian odes and other Breviary chants have been lost, and also there is considerable uncertainty about the antiquity of the extant melodies of both odes and canonical hymns.

1.1 Historical background

From at least the thirteenth century onwards, the melodies of hymns, odes and other church chants were recorded by means of a system of neumatic notation3. For reasons that are not well understood – one suspects a combination

For fuller details the reader is referred to the introductory treatment in SERKOYAN, Nichan, “Les huits modes de l’hymnaire arménien”, in: Essays on Armenian Music, ed. Nersessian, Vrej, London 1978, p. 52–82; the insightful research-level paper by HAKOBIAN, Levon, “The Šarakan hymn tunes and their subdivisions”, in: Revue des Études Arméniennes, 33 (2011), p. 283–315; and, above all, to Tntesean’s own Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘, published in Constantinople in 1864, and of which the examples have been reproduced in full in the present study in section 5.1 below.

3 Opinions vary on the system, or indeed layers of system, in question. Armenian neumes have been deployed in a sparsely-notated system used for ecphonetic chant (employed, for instance, in singing from the gospel); in a more sophisticated system used for the hymnal; and within a particularly densely-notated system (known as manrusumn), apparently able to capture intricate melismata transcending the eight-mode system (and found in breviary chants and para-liturgical odes). It has also been intimated by the Soviet scholar Tahmizean that the neumatic notation of the hymnal permitted, indeed relied upon, an element of improvisation (yankarcabanut‘iwn) – see, for example, ԹԱՀՄԻԶԵԱՆ, Ն. Կ., Արդի խազաբանութիւն [Modern neumatology], Pasadena, 2003, p. 6. However, one might well be justified in suspecting that this assertion betrays an underlying confusion between the manner in which nineteenth-century church musicians semi-improvised whilst looking at the already largely incomprehensible neumes, and the way in which mediaeval musicans may have employed the neumes. Furthermore, the oldest neumatically-notated extant hymnals are of roughly the same age as the oldest extant ode-books, dating as they do from the thirteenth century (a partial exception is the Yerevan Matenadaran MS hymnal No. 9838, which dates from the year 1193, but of which the usefulness is limited by its extremely abbreviated nature – to the extent that only a few words from each stanza are given, and which contains a number of considerably later interpolations); and there is no firm evidence to suggest that manrusumn is a fundamentally different system, incompatible to that used in connection with the hymnal – as opposed to being one extreme of


51

of political upheavals and geographical relocations, a misplaced secretiveness on the part of practitioners, the non-existence or possible destruction of manuals, the apparent non-existence prior to the eighteenth century of any versions recorded in Western musical notation, a growing incongruity between increasingly melismatic versions actually being sung and the simpler and more syllabic notated versions, or an evolution of sung melodies due to foreign influences combined with a conservative adherence to the original notation – by the seventeenth century the notation could generally no longer be read. It is, however, likely that some information on the metrical durations associated with particular modes, was indeed preserved. Thus, although singers claimed to sing through an accurate recollection of original melodies, there was enormous diversity, and it appears that singers may have engaged in semi-improvisation on the basis of a combination of their knowledge of the features of the given mode, sensitivity to the particular verbal text, and the desire to respect at least the metrical durations they associated with the neumes. Nevertheless, the precise manner in which melodies were created, re-created or otherwise reproduced at this time is not well understood and has not been properly studied. At any rate, by the time Hambarjum Limōnčean (1768–1839) and his co-worker, Fr. Minas Bžškean (1777–1851), invented a new system of musical notation early in the nineteenth century (redefining a handful of the symbols used in the now defunct neumatic notation, to arrive at a system broadly analogous to tonic-sol-fa in the West), there were many rival realisations of melodies for the same hymns and odes; and newer melodic versions of items that had been subjected to a process of continual re-composition over centuries might long since have supplanted more ancient versions. The primary objective of most church musicians of Tntesean’s time does not appear to have been the reconstruction of older melodies and decipherment of the neumes; the dominant preoccupation appears, rather, the desire to arrive at a more reliable system for recording the melodies currently sung, to secure its acceptance, and to demonstrate the superiority (according to certain criteria, explicit or implicit) of particular melodies over rival ones. Nor was it considered a priority to preserve and record as much of the wealth and diversity of this melodic material as possible (though this did become important a generation later). And in any case, the cataclysmic events of 1915, the decimation of historical Armenia and the destruction of the living oral tradition were not foreseen.

At present, we are faced with the irreversible loss of orally transmitted variants (and, increasingly, the gradual phasing out of the liturgical environment wherein hymns may be performed at all), as also with the loss of a high proportion of manuscript material – notated variously in neumatic, Limōnčean or European notation. Given that we are unable to decipher the neumes and

a single continuum embraced by one integral system, deployed in a fuller way or less so, depending on the practical requirements of the genre.

52

Haig Utidjian

read the music that remains “locked” in an incomprehensible notation, with a modest degree of over-simplification it can be claimed that only a very small, and not necessarily representative, fraction of the music is available to us – namely what was recorded in the Limōnčean or Western notational systems and then published or otherwise preserved. Yet even this apparently limited material has not been properly studied; moreover, further variants are being unearthed, as various manuscript collections gradually come to light. Thus, even if the currently available corpus represents but a fraction of the wealth of the past, it nevertheless constitutes a very rich and fascinating legacy; and of course modern technology permits the gathering, collation and study of material from diverse sources with greater ease than at any time in the past. So far this has been attempted to a very limited degree4, thus leaving a potentially rewarding and largely unexplored field open to fuller investigation.

Our investigation necessarily entails the use of extant musical transcriptions of items from the Armenian canonical hymnal, with a view specifically to gaining an insight into the processes whereby hymn melodies were put together in nineteenth-century Constantinople – in a hybrid procedure entailing transcription as well as reconstruction – and into the role which, amongst other factors, the mediaeval neumes, though only partially understood by that time, played in this process. The process is indeed seen to be a complex one, with the partially-understood neumes playing an important, but not exclusive, role. We shall find that much can be gained by comparing Tntesean’s own melodies as transcribed at different stages in his career, and by juxtaposing his writings with his musical realisations. Several issues that were hitherto obscure may be substantially elucidated thereby, and potentially fruitful avenues for further work (such as the completion of incompletely-notated hymns in the Tntesean hymnal) opened up – although certain important questions remain unanswered (though we tentatively propose plausible conjectural explanations, wherever appropriate). This limited objective constitutes the primary aim of the present paper.

The present study is believed to be the first devoted to the Tntesean hymnal, as well as a first attempt to expound the connections between the procedures propounded in his musicological writings on the one hand and his own musical transcriptions or realisations on the other; together they constitute a corpus that is uniquely valuable in comprising explicit descriptions of particular procedures with the melodies arrived at (at least in part) through their application. More generally, Tntesean’s numerous journal contributions (including his public

4 The single systematic comparative study available at the time of writing remains the ground-breaking work of the Paris-based, Constantinople-born musicologist and church musician Aram Kerovpyan (L’Oktoechos arménien: une méthode d’analyse modale adaptéé au répertoire des Charakan, unpublished doctoral dissertation, École pratique des hautes études, Paris 2003).


53

correspondence with his colleague and rival, T‘ašcean), his various hypotheses, and his transcriptions and realisations (undertaken initially in the 1860s and then a decade later – thus affording fertile ground for revealing comparisons) together with the minutes (newly discovered in Jerusalem by Dr. Aram Kerovpyan and awaiting publication) of the forty-eight sessions (1873–1875) of the Patriarchal Musical Committee, to which Tntesean’s hymnal manuscript was submitted, constitute a multi-dimensional resource which may fruitfully be brought to bear to shed light on Tntesean’s procedures. We also believe this study to be the first attempt at a detailed investigation as to the manner in which the mediaeval neumes were interpreted by Armenian church musicians in nineteenth-century Constantinople.

The ramifications and potential applications of the present work are to be expounded in a sequel to this paper, wherein we shall seek indirectly to demonstrate the wider relevance of Tntesean’s procedures to those of other contemporaneous Constantinople church musicians, on whose very transcriptions, as on Tntesean’s, we are now almost wholly dependent – given the disappearance of the last vestiges of an oral tradition. Moreover, from a fuller understanding of Tntesean’s work we may draw useful conclusions as to potentially promising avenues for future neumatic research, an area in which (for various reasons) little real progress has been achieved in the century and a half since the time of Tntesean. Elements of melismatic elaboration and simplification and of ecphonetic chant will be seen to be of relevance, and in some ways akin to Tntesean’s own procedures. Another important application area is the development of a preliminary framework for a critical edition of the neumatically-notated canonical hymnal (which Tntesean was one of the first to call for, as we shall see in section 2.4 below). The discussion throughout will be supported by case studies. These entail comparisons of variants of the same hymn in several neumatically-notated versions and with several extant melodic versions (the latter drawing on an unprecedentedly wide range of sources – geographically as well as chronologically – embracing as they do, in addition to Tntesean’s transcriptions, also those by Schröder, Petermann, Bianchini and Apcar, as well as those by Č‘erč‘ean, T‘aščean and Aznaworean). This naturally leads to a full discussion of the applicability of Tntesean’s ideas to modern research on neumatology and on performance practice.

1.2 Matters of notation, nomenclature, transliteration and orthography

We now turn to a number of practical preliminaries that need to be addressed before we may proceed to the main body of our discussion. There is, alas, no such thing as universal practice in many important areas in Armenian

54

Haig Utidjian

musicology and Armenian philology alike. It therefore behoves us explicitly to state the conventions and practices to which we have chosen to adhere in the present work. These concern such matters as musical nomenclature and the conversion of music from the Limōnčean system into Western musical notation, as well as verbal transliteration and orthography.

1.2.1 Accessibility to non-Armenian readersIt is our hope that the present work will be accessible to readers from a variety of nationalities, including students of Byzantine and gregorian chant and of Ottoman music, few of whom are likely to be in command of the Armenian tongue. There are indications5 that there may be potential for useful progress through the identification of parallels and analogies, in fields such as modality, ecphonetic chant, neumatic notation and others. It is therefore especially important to open the field to non-Armenian scholars and to specialists in those other traditions. Armenology as a whole, and Armenian philology in particular, have benefited greatly from the contributions of scholars of many nations, and there is no reason whatsoever why the study of Armenian church music should prove an exception. Moreover, we are aware of the growing number of potential readers of Armenian descent but unfamiliar or uncertain with the Armenian language, particularly in Northern America. Accordingly, we have done our very best to ensure that the present work may be accessible to such readers. Thus, all Armenian terms or citations of hymn texts have generally been transliterated and italicised; but in referring to specific syllables of verbal underlay which has been reproduced as part of an Armenian score, we have deemed it most useful to readers unfamiliar with Armenian to reproduce such texts in Armenian, but clearly hyphenating the syllables, so that the reader may immediately find the appropriate syllable in the score without difficulty, exploiting the topological similarity between our text and the underlay in the reproduced score. Otherwise, quotations in the original language from Armenian documents have generally been relegated to the footnotes, with partial translations or succinct paraphrases in English supplied in the main body of the text, to allow readers to follow the arguments presented without undue interruption.

Even so, it would be highly advantageous for the reader to memorise six particular Armenian letters (constituting but a sixth of the classical Armenian

5 See KINDLER, E., “Analogies in melodies of early Christian liturgical chant originating from different cultural domains” in: Recent advances in Acoustics and Music: theory and applications, Proceedings of the 10th WSEAS Int. Conf. On Acoustics and Music, Prague 2009; and KEROVPYAN A. and YILMAZ A., Klasik Osmanlı Müziği ve Ermeniler (La musique classique ottomane et les Arméniens), Istanbul, 2010.


55

alphabet – a far from onerous fraction of the whole!), so as to be able immediately to comprehend references to modes without being forced to have repeated recourse to the footnote (wherein these were first introduced – namely: the first four Armenian letters of the Armenian alphabet, representing the first four ordinals – Ա, Բ, Գ, Դ; and a mere two further letters – Ձ, standing for Jayn or “voice” (i.e.“Authentic mode”) and Կ, standing for Kołm, meaning “side” (i.e.“Plagal mode”). Nevertheless, to assist short memories, we do provide reminders from time to time, expressing the equivalents in roman numerals I, II, III, IV, and A and P (for Authentic and Plagal), respectively.

Nonetheless, it is expected that the reader who wishes to follow the argument in detail will choose to familiarise himself with two particular tables – one (drawn from the Tntesean hymnal) detailing the principles of the Limōnčean notation (in section 2.2 below), and another (following the standard Portable Hymnal) on the names and shapes of the mediaeval neumes (in section 2.3). Mastering the Limōnčean system is a highly worthwhile investment, since it immedately renders accessible all the musical examples in this and other studies, as well as a very sizeable body of musical literature. Gaining familiarity with the shapes and names of the most commonly-used neumes will also amply repay the effort.

Indeed, we have striven to be as generous as space permits with original reproductions of excerpts from original sources, given their general inaccessibility, and with a view to rendering our discussion as concrete and tangible as possible. Our aim is always to provide sufficient detail to allow the reader to check our arguments and, if appropriate, disagree with our conclusions. Equally, as a service to the research community, we have reproduced in their entirety the ten pages of musical transcriptions found in Tntesean’s Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ , in section 5.1 below. These have been neglected for far too long; though we have endeavoured to be thorough in our analysis, their potential to yield more useful information as a result of further scrutiny from a variety of perspectives has not been exhausted.

1.2.2 Musical nomenclature, transcriptions and transpositionsIn view of the familiar hazard associated with the note designated as b, which is taken to mean b natural in the English-speaking world but b flat in the Austro-Germanic tradition, we have generally made a point of using the slightly cumbersome designation b natural at all times, to guard against any possible ambiguity. All note names have been italicised, to render them distinct from the main body of the text.

We now turn to the system of translating items notated in the Limōnčean system into European notation. We have been guided by the table found at

56

Haig Utidjian

the very beginning of the Tntesean hymnal, itself reinforced by the notation employed in Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ by Tntesean himself, taught by the late Vahan Bedelian (Pētēlean), and used by most leading musicologists specialising in Armenian church music on either side of the Atlantic, not least Aram Kerovpyan and Krikor Pidedjian. We are aware that this is at variance with Soviet musicological practice and its current remnants; but it is consistent with very nearly all the Armenian hymnals published internationally in recent decades, with a century of transcription into European musical notation in Jerusalem, Constantinople and other centres, and, above all, with the practice of Tntesean himself.

The one instance where a dilemma might have arisen is in the case of hymns of the ԱՁ or IA mode, where, as we shall see, Tntesean notated melodies a tone higher than did his colleagues. But as there has not been occasion to transcribe these into Western notation in the present study, the issue has not had to be addressed. Otherwise, whenever comparing the transcriptions associated with other sources (such as the Venetian or Amy Apcar hymnals), we have effected whatever transposition is required to render direct comparisons possible at a glance, without the necessity for any mental transposition.

1.2.3 Verbal transliterationsThe issue of the transliteration of Armenian names and words remains a vexed one. We have shunned the somewhat errant system slavishly used by Czech students of Armenian in recent years, and used the unabridged Hübschmann- -Meillet system, in the form presented by Prof. Robert W. Thomson’s textbook An Introduction to Classical armenian (New York, 1975, 1989 and 1993, p. 11–12). Adherence to this system has advantages for Central European readers, in that the letters č, š and ž are familiar to them; it does have the inconvenience that the letter j has a different value here than in Czech or in English – though a satisfying parallel is maintained between j and on the one hand, and s and š, c and č and z and ž. In our view, any initial inconvenience is a small price to pay for consistency with standard international practice, and for the reversibility offered by the system, it being our intention that at all times the reader be able unambiguously to reconstruct the original word in Armenian on the basis of the transliterated version provided. Deviations from Hübschmann-Meillet (admittedly perpetrated even by the present author in earlier publications) are generally apt to entail a regrettable sacrifice of unambiguous reversibility. Consider, for instance, the use of dž (instead of the Hübschmann-Meillet ) to represent ջ. The reader may not always be certain that dž does indeed correspond to ջ, as dž might equally well correspond to the succession of the two Armenians letters դ and ժ – a juxtaposition also represented as dž in such


57

a modified system, and not all that unusual in classical Armenian – words such as դժնէաբար or դժոխային immediately come to mind. We have consequently opted for the Hübschmann-Meillet system, and transliterated as per the table below:

Nonetheless, inevitable inconsistencies are apt arise with any system. The most obvious difficulty arises due to the fact that Constantinople writers transliterated Turkish terms into Armenian in accordance with the phonetic practices of Western Armenian. Transliterating these using the Hübschmann- -Meillet system would have given misleading results. Further, certain names have become known in phonetically-transliterated versions: examples include the venerable conductor, violinst, church musician and paedagogue Վահան Պէտէլեան (1894–1990), best known in the transliteration Vahan Bedelian, instead of the Hübschmann-Meillet Pētēlean; or Լեւոն Չիլինկիրեան, internationally known in the transliteration Levon Chilingirian, the distinguished London-based violinist, himself a descendant as well as a namesake of the Constantinople musician (1862–1932) – where Hübschmann-Meillet would yield Lewon Č‘ilinkirean. Likewise, scholars wishing to locate articles by the distinguished American-based musicologist Krikor Pidedjian (Գրիգոր Փիտէճեան) in the English language would have difficulty, were they to be

58

Haig Utidjian

led to search under the transcription Grigor P‘itečean. The present writer himself may serve as an extreme example – his name, Իւթիւճեան, becomes transformed into the less than euphonious Iwt‘iwčean, quite unrecognisable as the Utidjian used by the family since the nineteenth century! However, avoidance of such grotesque versions could not be achieved by eschewing the Hübschmann-Meillet system per se in preference to some rival system, but rather, through the judicious toleration of occasional departures from the system adopted. Given that a system does need to be adopted, Hübschmann- -Meillet was deemed to be preferable to most, and we endeavoured generally to adhere to it, not least in view of its pre-eminence in international Armenian scholarship, as well as its aforementioned advantage in enabling the unequivocal reconstruction of the original Armenian – invaluable for correct identification in library searches. In citing authors, we have therefore adhered to our system of transliteration except in such instances where the original publication featured the name of the author in latinised form. Thus, we refer to Էմի Աբգար as Amy Apcar, and not as Ēmi Abgar, as her name may well be better known in the international version she herself chose to use in her publications; here, too, the main criterion has been to assist to readers wishing to undertake further research and bibliographical searches. Finally, there are instances of inconsistency in Armenian usage also: one example is Grigor Gapasaxalean, who is sometimes referred to as Gapasak‘alean in the literature; we have preferred his own spelling of the name, as evidenced by the Constantinople publications that bear his name. Not always is the choice straightforward: Aršak Č‘ōpanean is the version that does indeed correspond to the most widespread spelling, but we encounter articles where he appears to have signed as Č‘opanean; yet another instance is that of Hambarjum Limōnčean (as opposed to Limončean – Soviet Armenians spelt the name differently still, to arrive at the same phonetic result from an Eastern Armenian point of view – as “Limon yan” – with the communist-imposed replacement y for e to boot!). We have given preference to the version Limōnčean, after the historian Fr. Aristakēs Hisarlean. We have also adopted the version Č‘ērč‘ēan, in accordance with Hisarlean’s practice, as opposed to Č‘erč‘ean. Yet in the case of Tntesean’s Committee colleague, we have preferred the version Aristakēs Yovhannisean (as attested in Tntesean’s Nkaragir ergoc‘ ) instead of Hisarlean’s Yovhannēsean (although the former was the latter’s pupil).

A further minor inconvenience associated with our choice of a non-phonetic transliteration system is that the reader must be tolerant of our references from time to time to one of the commonest neumes as “a erkar”, rather than “an erkar ” – for erkar corresponds to the Armenian երկար, which is invariably read as “yerkar” or “yergar”.

As far as the verbal underlay in hymns is concerned, we have not striven to be consistent in such matters as capitalisation, the use of the “shewa” ǝ,or in choosing any one of the various Armenian versions of biblical names. Thus,


59

for instance, the old Antelias/Jerusalem breviary6, as well as the standard Portable Hymnal, commence even such words as astuac (“God”) and krist‘os (“Christ”) with lower-case letters, whilst other sources do capitalise such names. One variously encounters սիոն, Սիոն, սիովն, սիօն, with the latter two versions favoured by the Portable Hymnal and by Tntesean, respectively. The various sources are even more varied in their punctuation. We have not attempted to standardize these in any way.

1.2.4 OrthographyIn the early 1920s the Soviet authorities employed brutal force to impose a “phonetic” Armenian system of orthography, ostensibly intended to help reduce illiteracy amongst the working class, but which served to destroy the structure of the language, obscure etymology and distance the language from classical Armenian (in which the bulk of Armenian Christian literature has been written). Though the system was soon modified to a slightly less grotesque form, even the modified version entails a substantial loss of information. At the same time, pressure was brought to bear on lexicographers (such as Step‘an Malxaseanc‘ and others) to incorporate Armenian transliterations of foreign words, instead of their Armenian equivalents, into the vocabulary of Eastern Armenian. Even in the absence of violent compulsion, both practices sadly persist to a certain extent in post-Soviet Armenia due to sheer ignorance, and in other former socialist countries such as the Czech Republic (where what little Armenian culture trickled through did so through Soviet channels). Both tendencies have been unequivocally rejected by the Armenian diaspora, and increasingly, within Armenia itself, particularly by the Church and by publishers of quality; these tendencies are thus to be regarded as a reprehensible aberration and mere temporary perversion. Accordingly, we have made a point of converting all names and words to their correct forms, wherever possible.

1.3 Organisation of this paper

In section 2 below we provide a short historical account of the circumstances that led to the compilation of the Tntesean hymnal, and briefly present Limōnčean’s notational system as well as the mediaeval neumes. The section

6 ԺԱՄԱԳԻՐՔ ՀԱՅԱՍՏԱՆԵԱՅՑ ՍՈՒՐԲ ԵԿԵՂԵՑՒՈՅ [Breviary of the Holy Armenian Church], Antelias 1969.

60

Haig Utidjian

concludes with a preliminary exposition of Tntesean’s avowed principles and procedures. In section 3, we proceed to examine the Tntesean hymnal in some detail, drawing attention to features that are either unique to it, or which it shares with one or other of the roughly contemporaneous versions prepared by other Constantinople church musicians. Section 4 revisits the procedures briefly introduced in section 2; these are now documented in detail, by referring to Tntesean’s writings published at various times and collected in his Nkaragir ergoc‘ volume in 1874. Section 5 introduces and describes Tntesean’s early transcriptions into Western musical notation, published in his Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ booklet in 1864; finally, we engage in a detailed comparison of the examples found therein with their counterparts in the Tntesean hymnal, recorded in the Limōnčean system. A number of the features discussed in section 3 are considerably clarified as a result of such a comparison.

Section 6 constitutes the heart of this paper. It indicates how inconsistencies may sometimes be encountered in the application of the principles expounded in section 4 to the redactorial practices underlying the Tntesean hymnal, and seeks to establish why Tntesean was flexible in his approach. An overview is presented in section 6.3, which summarises the various combinations of neumes encountered on single syllables in ԴՁ darjuack‘ hymns and the motifs with which these syllables are associated in Tntesean’s hymnal. One combination, ubiquitous to ԴՁ darjuack‘ hymns, serves as a “primary anchor”, being invariably realised as the same musical motif and also influencing fragments of melody in its vicinity. Other characteristic combinations of neumes, common to some of the hymns but not others, are realised by Tntesean in a less consistent manner – with the corresponding motif subjected to diminution in one case or spread out over more than a single syllable in another. Moreover, the combination of neumes that serves as a primary anchor in ԴՁ darjuack‘ hymns is not interpreted in the same way when it makes an exceptional appearance in another mode, or when it forms a subset of a longer combination of neumes. The section also features case studies highlighting the diverse ways in which essentially the same sequences of neumes has been variously rendered by Tntesean in otherwise closely comparable examples. It is evident that Tntesean used the neumes as signposts at a “macro” level but did not attempt to achieve any neume-by-neume, syllable-by-syllable (“micro” level) analogy. Instead, we demonstrate that he attached considerable importance to the natural stresses associated with the verbal underlay, to this end sacrificing any exact correspondence between the disposition of the respective melodies on the same neume sequences in different examples. The broader musical context – entailing the different expectations set up by preceding phrases – is also seen to play an important role in militating against the maintenance of analogies with the neumatic notation. Instances may be encountered where any one of the principles detailed in section 4 may seen to be sacrificed in favour of some other criterion. We propose various tentative explanations for these rather


61

unexpected findings, including the influence of semi-improvisational procedures used in live performance.

Section 7 seeks to address some of the challenges associated with the gaps in the Tntesean hymnal, and to demonstrate how the work presented in sections 4, 5 and 6 may be variously applied to achieve this objective. Examples are presented to demonstrate these challenges, and also to convince the reader that the omissions or abbreviations in the 1934 publication could hardly be intentional.

Section 8 summarises our findings, emphasises the gains accrued by treating Tntesean’s various works as a coherent whole, and proposes ways in which the research described in this paper may be usefully extended – with Tntesean’s work always serving as a point of departure in various directions. These include the establishment of criteria that could ultimately lead to a critical edition of the neumatically-notated hymal, neumatological research entailing comparisons of Tntesean’s melodies with other versions and with the neumatically-notated sources, research into performance practice, and an investigation into the relations of Armenian church music to other neighbouring traditions. Much of this further work is the subject of ongoing research and is to be documented in a sequel to this paper. Finally, section 9 acknowledges the very considerable debt owed by the author to the many individuals whose assistance and inspiration has been invaluable in rendering possible the research documented in this paper.

2. the bAckground to the tnteseAn hymnAl

Its undoubted merits notwithstanding, the Tntesean hymnal remains largely unknown. In the present section we outline its chequered history, succinctly provide technical prerequisites essential for a comprehension of the material in later sections, and then proceed briefly to preview some of Tntesean’s musicological hypotheses. These informed much of his work, including the compilation of his hymnal.

62

Haig Utidjian

2.1 An outline of the history of the Tntesean hymnal

For the following account we draw primarily on the biographical information found in Fr. Aristakēs Hisarlean’s History (1911)7, T‘ēodik’s Tip u taŕ (1912)8, as well as on Tntesean’s own accounts9.

Ełia M. Tntesean was born in Constantinople in 1834, was educated locally, studying church music as well as being apprenticed with a well-known local printer’s. Throughout his life he combined the life of a church musician and teacher with that of a printer. In 1860 he was invited to collaborate with the distinguished church musician, Gabriel Eranean (1827–1862), who had notated Armenian hymns in Limōnčean notation, which Tntesean then converted ( yełašr el ) into European notation – and the result was checked by their colleague, Simōn Minēčean10. Some “two-fifths” of the Armenian hymnal were thus transcribed into Western notation, but this collaboration was interrupted when in 1862 Tntesean went away for a year to teach in the city of Ha ǝn in Cilicia. During Tntesean’s absence Eranean unexpectedly died; and upon his return to Constantinople, Tntesean found that the greater part of his transcriptions (left with Eranean) had disappeared11. After some hesitation, and stimulated

7 Տ. ՀԻՍԱՐԼԵԱՆ Ա., Պատմութիւն հայ ձայնագրութեան եւ կենսագրութիւնք երաժիշտ ազգայնոց 1768–1909 [History of Armenian musical notation and biographies of musician nationals,1768–1909], Constantinople, 1914, esp. p. 106–115.

8 ԹԷՈԴԻԿ, Տիպ ու Տառ [Press and Letter], Constantinople, 1912, p. 104–105. I thank the musicologist Aram Kerovpyan for kindly drawing my attention to this source.

9 ՏՆՏԵՍԵԱՆ, Ե. Մ., Նկարագիր երգոց Հայաստանեայց Ս. Եկեղեցւոյ [The character of the chants of the Holy Armenian Church], Constantinople, 1874, henceforth referred to in the abbreviated, transliterated form Nkaragir ergoc‘; see particularly p. 105–114.

10 Nkaragir ergoc‘ p. 8: Ուստի այս վերջին տարիներս՝ նախ քան զհրատարակութիւն Հայկական Քնարից, Պ. Գաբրիէլ Երանեան երաժիշտը ... առաջարկեց մեզ որ իւր հետ ընկերութեամբ՝ եկեղեցական երգերը եւրոպական երաժշտական խազերով գրելու փորձն ընենք. եւ որպէս զի եղանակաց կազմութեանը վերայ ճիշտ դիտողութիւններ ընելով՝ եւրոպական կանոնաց յարմարցնելը դիւրին ըլլայ, որոշեցինք որ ինքն նախ բնագիրը կը գրէր հայկական խազերով, եւ մեք ալ եւրոպականի կը յեղաշրջէինք զանոնք, մեր դիտողութիւններն ալ աւելցընելով. եւ այս օրինակները եկեղեցական երգոց հմուտ Մինէճեան Պ. Սիմօնին կողմէն ալ կը հաստատուէր [sic]: Little is known about Simōn Minēčean, other than that he studied with his namesake Yovhannēs Minēčean, who, according to Tntesean (Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 122), died in 1842 at the age of forty-seven.

11 This must have driven home the fact that any manuscripts not published were liable ultimately to perish, at a time when Constantinople was notorious for its catastrophic fires, the prevailing atmosphere of rivalry and secrecy amongst her


63

by the publication in Venice of Armenian church hymns, transcribed in European musical notation by Pietro Bianchini in 186212, Tntesean proceeded to publish his own Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ in 1864 – a twelve-page booklet13, which, following a brief introduction, provided speciments in European musical notation of whole stanzas and shorter fragments of Armenian hymns together with their incipits, associated with the eight modes and their auxiliary versions known as darjuack‘. This resulted in public polemics and a newspaper correspondence initiated by his main rival, Nikołos T‘aščean (1841–1885), which is a most useful source of information, not least as Tntesean, in responding to T‘aščean’s criticisms, was able further to clarify his own procedures. Tntesean also spent periods in Jerusalem and Eastern Armenia, taking note of local practice and hymn variants in use there. In 1873 he became chairman of the Patriarchal Musical Committee formed in Constantinople with a view to compiling and approving a musically-notated hymnal. The ideas of Aristakēs Yovhannisean (1812–1878 – one of Hambarjum Limōnčean’s former pupils) were ruled out of court, as he insisted that all hymns – including prose settings – ought to be re-arranged as verse with a regular meter. A version notated by Habarjum Č‘ērč‘ean (1828–1901), based on melodies sung by Tirac‘u Karapet Pałtatlean14 (1817–1903) and sponsored by Amira Karapet Palean, was also briefly considered, but was deemed to have purported to “correct”

Armenian church musicians, coupled with disdain amongst many families towards the profession of music, and increasingly, aggresive censorship and open hostility on the part of the Ottoman authorities towards Armenian citizens. The fortunes of the Eranean/Tntesean transcriptions are reminiscent of the fate of an earlier hymnal transcribed by Limōnčean himself, whose unfinished transcription (he is believed to have reached the Cantemus for the first day of Easter, Aysōr yareaw) had likewise mysteriously perished by Tntesean’s time (as reported in Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 123). This partly accounts for the fierce competition between Constantinople church musicians: the version to be adopted by the Patriarchal Committee and approved would be the only one likely to be published, whilst all others were doomed to perish sooner or later.

12 Whilst this publication has not been accessible to us, we have reasons to believe that its contents were included in the slightly later volume (1877) published by the Venetian Fathers, of which the first part was devoted to the Missal of the Armenian Church, with the second part reproducing the selection of hymns already published previously and commented upon by Tntesean: LES CHANTS LITURGIQUES DE L’ÉGLISE ARMÉNIENNE, Bianchini, Pietro (Ed.), Venice 1877.

13 ՏՆՏԵՍԵԱՆ, Ե. Մ., Բովանդակութիւն նուագաց Հայաստանեայց Ս. Եկեղեցւոյ [Content of the music of the Holy Armenian Church], Constantinople, 1864, republished. as appendix to 2nd ed. of Nkaragir ergoc‘, Constantinople 1933; henceforth referred to as Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘.

14 Also known as Karapet Derjakean.

64

Haig Utidjian

some traditional melodies on Turkish Ottoman models15, and likewise rejected16. It was thus Tntesean’s own manuscript that was adopted by the Committee for further examination and discussion. It also appears that Tntesean’s hymnal was the only complete version submitted to the Committee17. In 1874 he published Nkaragir ergoc‘, his collection of musicological essays, mostly reproduced from various journals and newspapers but also including more recent articles, and covering Tntesean’s research on neumatology, modality, history and performance practice (as well as reproducing part of the public correspondence between T‘aščean and himself) . Herein we may find the most detailed and illuminating description of his redactorial procedures.

Meanwhile Tntesean’s rival (and Committee colleague) T‘aščean proceeded to E miacin, informing the Committee that he had been invited to teach there. In fact he had been invited to E miacin by the Catholicos Gēorg IV (1813–1882), himself a former Constantinople Patriarch and church musician, to transcribe the melodies of the hymnal as sung by Karapet Pałtatlean – who had previously sung the hymn melodies included in Č‘ērč‘ean’s first hymnal, deemed to be excessively Ottoman-influenced by the Committee. Aristakēs Yovhannisean had been originally invited but had declined, citing his age, so the Catholicos invited the pair T‘aščean and Pałtatlean instead, asking the former to transcribe what the latter sang. T‘aščean did initially collaborate with Pałtatlean, but as

15 A criticism repeated some decades later by Archimandrite Komitas, this remains obscure – see Tntesean’s Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 100, footnote 1: միանգամայն՝ ինչպէս կը նշմարուի, ձայնագրողը քիչ թէ շատ յանդուգն փորձեր ըրած է՝ մեր եղանակները տաճկականին վերայ սրբագրելու: Komitas quoted Tntesean’s statement and added “the present writer is in agreement with this view, having seen important extracts from his notebook. These allow us … to confirm Tntesean’s view” – see KOMITAS (transl. Gulbekian), Armenian sacred and folk music, Curzon, 1998, p. 171–172 (the English translation of an article by Komitas published in the journal Ararat in E miacin in 1897, p. 221–225). Might “correction on the basis of ” Turkish or, for that matter, Greek music mean rhythmic modification, the deployment of different scales, microtones, or the adoption of actual melodic formulae?

16 A manuscript hymnal from Č‘ērč‘ean’s later years, dated 1885, is now extant, but may well be a different work. It is this manuscript that is usually referred to as “the Č‘ērč‘ean hymnal”.

17 Tntesean never cites this as the reason why his version was adopted by the Committee, but his son Lewon mentions the fact in his preface (zekuc‘um) to the posthumously published hymnal of his father: Նոյն Յանձնաժողովը երկար վիճաբանութիւններէ վերջ, կ‘որոշէ՝ արդէն իսկ պատրաստ գտնուող ձայնագրեալ ձեռագիրները սրբագրել եւ զանոնք վաւերացնել. քանի որ ներկայացուած ձեռագիրներուն մէջ միակ ամբողջական եւ կատարեալ աշխատութիւնը Եղիա Տնտեսեանի ձայնագրածն էր, հետեւաբար Յանձնաժողովը իւրացնելով այդ ձեռագիրը կը լծուի աշխատութեան...


65

the latter soon left in anger, upon discovering that T‘aščean did not notate what he sung precisely (apparently giving precedence to melodies sung by the Catholicos himself), the work had to continue with Bishop Vahram Mankuni singing instead of Pałtatlean18. T‘aščean, assisted by the young Makar Ekmalian19 and closely supervised by the Catholicos, thus transcribed, unbeknownst to the Constantinople Patriarchal Musical Committee, a version of the Hymnal different from the Tntesean version adopted by the Committee as its working version. The Catholicos, having apparently been misinformed that the Constantinople Musical Committee had long since been disbanded, proceeded to publish this hymnal in Vałaršapat in 187520; this was soon followed by a musically-notated Breviary21 (1877) and Missal22 (1878). The wishes and indeed orders of the Catholicos notwithstanding, these versions never gained acceptance by Constantinople musicians.

In 1877 Tntesean was also appointed choirmaster of the Constantinople churches of Kadǝköy and Galatia, whilst continuing his activities as printer and publisher. The second and final blow was Tntesean’s arrest for treason under the Sultan’s censorship regulations in early 1881, on the grounds that he had published an Armenian song-book in the previous year, allegedly containing items with excessively patriotic texts. He died in prison on 23 April 1881 in a dark cell, leaving the manuscript of his hymnal unpublished.

The manuscript (presumably in a fair copy incorporating the corrections made by the Committee, as well as further corrections made by Tntesean himself in the same spirit23) was safely kept by his son Lewon, who also

18 Hisarlean, op. cit. p. 77.19 Makar Ekmalian (1856–1905) later achieved very considerable distinction as

a musician, composer and teacher. His harmonisation of the Armenian Divine Liturgy is still that in use in most Armenian churches throughout the globe.

20 ՁԱՅՆԱԳՐԵԱԼ ՇԱՐԱԿԱՆ ՀՈԳԵՒՈՐ ԵՐԳՈՑ [Notated Hymnal of Spiritual Chants], T‘aščean, N. (Ed.), Vałaršapat, 1875; referred to henceforth as the T‘aščean hymnal.

21 ԵՐԳՔ ՁԱՅՆԱԳՐԵԱԼՔ Ի ԺԱՄԱԳՐՈՑ ՀԱՅԱՍՏԱՆԵԱՅՑ Ս. ԵԿԵՂԵՑՒՈՅ [Notated chants from the Breviary of the Holy Armenian Church], Vałaršapat, 1877; referred to henceforth as the Vałaršapat breviary.

22 ՁԱՅՆԱԳՐԵԱԼ ԵՐԳԵՑՈՂՈՒԹԻՒՆՔ ՍՐԲՈՅ ՊԱՏԱՐԱԳԻ [Notated chants of the Divine Liturgy], Vałaršapat, second impression, 1878; referred to henceforth as the Vałaršapat missal.

23 Lewon Tntesean continues in his preface to his father’s hymnal: ...հետեւաբար Յանձնաժողովը իւրացնելով այդ ձեռագիրը կը լծուի իրական աշխատութեան եւ 48 նիստի մէջ (որ կը տեւէ երկու տարի, 22 Ապրիլ 1873–25 Ապրիլ 1875) զայն հատուած առ հատուած կը քննէ, կը բաղդատէ եւ կը սրբագրէ գրեթէ Շարականի ամբողջութեան մեծագոյն մասը, իսկ մնացեալ մասին համար նոյն հիմերուն վրայ Տնտեսեան կը շարունակէ գործին աւարտական աշխատութիւնը:

66

Haig Utidjian

preserved the minutes of the forty-eight sessions of the Patriarchal Musical Committee24. The latter were later taken to Jerusalem, at the request of the Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem, Archbishop T‘orgom Gušakean25, and were recently discovered by the musicologist Aram Kerovpyan, who is currently preparing them for publication. The hymnal was published in 1934 by Tntesean’s son Lewon in Constantinople26, as a tribute to his late father on the occasion of the one hundredth anniversary of his birth. In 1933 Lewon also published a new edition of Nkaragir ergoc‘ – a republication of the 1874 edition with minor orthographic modifications, and incorporating, as an appendix, the whole of the 1864 booklet, Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ – as well as his father’s hitherto unpublished textbook of music, Tarerk‘ eražštut‘ean27.

Lewon, not a musician himself, had recourse to Fr. Psak Step‘anean to prepare his late father’s manuscript for publication. The exact nature and extent of Fr. Psak’s editorial role are not clear. Be that as it may, Lewon and Fr. Psak have done musicology an inestimable service for preserving the hymnal from oblivion. Even so, unlike the T‘aščean hymnal, the Tntesean hymnal, which had to wait for sixty years for publication, was not accessible either to Archimandrite Komitas – one of the leading Armenian musicologists of modern times, active during the turn of the century – or to the public, and was all but ignored by Soviet-era musicologists, over whom the T‘aščean hymnal appears to have maintained a well-nigh inexplicable stranglehold.

There are many reasons why the Tntesean hymnal deserves better. Certainly more is known about the procedures of the original editor of this hymnal than of any other – Tntesean was alone in supplying a detailed and honest account of the principles in accordance with which his melodies were transcribed or otherwise realised and recorded28. His hymnal does record more than its fair share of particularly beautiful melodic variants associated with the Armenian hymnal, including examples that are highly affecting in their stark simplicity.

24 Lewon Tntesean, op. cit.: Սոյն 48 նիստերուն ատենագրութիւնները ամբողջութեամբ պահուած են իմ քով:

25 I am grateful to Dr. Aram Kerovpyan for sharing this information with me.26 ՇԱՐԱԿԱՆ ՁԱՅՆԱԳՐԵԱԼ [Notated Hymnal], աշխ. Եղիա Մ. Տնտեսեան,

Constantinople, 1934, referred to henceforth as the Tntesean hymnal.27 ՏՆՏԵՍԵԱՆ, Ե. Մ., Տարերք Երաժշտութեան [Elements of Music], Constantinople,

1933.28 Now there may well be grounds for suspecting that the other main Constantinople-

-based hymnals were constructed by their respective editors using essentially the same, or similar, techniques and procedures, albeit without any open acknowledgement of the fact. If this is so, it would follow that oral transmission and memory may have played a more limited role than hitherto assumed, and thus these variants ought not to be considered sacrosanct for the purposes of neumatological research. This by no means straightforward issue will be addressed in the sequel to the present paper.


67

In addition to capturing much of what went on in churches in Constantinople in the mid- to late-nineteenth century, it embodies the benefits of Tntesean’s travels, both in Armenia proper and to Jerusalem, and of his consequent exposure to variants other than those associated with the dominant, Constantinople tradition (though we cannot readily judge the extent to which Tntesean may have opted for variants from these locations29). It is clear from his own statements that he did have access to a substantial array of variants from which to choose, and we do know that Tntesean presented alternative versions to the Patriarchal Musical Committee30; and although we may regret that only rarely does the eventual 1934 publication give alternative variants31, we may nonetheless appreciate that, in a sense, it constitutes the distillation of a far more voluminous wealth of material and the culmination of years of fieldwork. Finally, the Tntesean hymnal is venerable due to its sheer antiquity, and might, conceivably, be the oldest version extant. It was compiled in the years 1869–1871, and then examined and modified by the Patriarchal Musical Committee during its forty-eight sessions 22 April 1873 – 25 April 1875.

29 In this connection, a useful, though partial, indication may be gained by comparing Tntesean’s hymnal item-for-item with those of T‘aščean and Č‘ērč‘ean, and noting specific instances where Tntesean’s versions are radically different from theirs.

30 See, for example, Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 108: ... եւ այս դրութեան վերայ մեր ձայնագրած ամբողջ շարականը յանձնաժողովոյն ուշադրութեանը յանձնեցինք, որուն մէջ իբր ծանօթութիւն նշանակուած էին երգերու մէջ գտնուած այլ եւ ա՛յլ ձեւերը որչափ որ կրցած էինք հաւաքել:

31 Examples are the ԴՁ Magnificat, Mayr lusoy Mariam, p. 569, where an alternative is provided to the opening and ending of the first stanza; the ԲԿ hymn I galǝstean, p. 707, where, interestingly, an alternative is provided to the first half of the first stanza and labelled «ըստ նորոց» (“according to the new [generation of singers]”), as opposed to the traditional version, labelled «ըստ հնոց» (“according to the old”); the ԴՁ/ԴՁ darjuack‘ De caelis hymn Kananc‘n kanxelov (p. 368–369), where two alternative endings to the first stanza are provided (over the word meržeal ), separated by the word kam (“ossia”) – the first associated with the main mode, the second leaning towards the darjuack‘ version of the mode; one patker (grouping of usually three stanzas, forming a self-contained unit), starting on the words Tēr ǝzlur k‘o lǝway, p. 473–474) from the ԳՁ Awag Ōrhnut‘iwn (Principal Cantemus), first given in the main version of the mode and then repeated in its darjuack‘ variant under the heading Երգս այս երգի եւ որպէս վերնախաղ. զոր օրինակ.; and the ԲԿ midday hymn Ōrhnut‘iwn i barjuns (p. 340–341), where two versions are given, respectively labelled «բուն եղանակ» (“fundamental melody”) and «Այժմեան եղանակ» (“current melody”). It is interesting to note that Tntesean here differs from T‘aščean, who generally provides alternatives when these vary in degree of melismaticity.

68

Haig Utidjian

Thus, provided that Tntesean’s hymnal was faithfully printed in the posthumous publication, it may even be the oldest version to have survived32.

32 We know of three versions that might lay claim to being older, but it would seem that all were incomplete, and that none may have survived:

The first is the Limōnčean version referred to above, which remained incomplete upon his death, and which was already reported in the nineteenth century as being lost. Only two other versions of any comparable antiquity are known to have existed.

The second is by Aristakēs Yovhannisean, who claimed that all hymns were based on poems possessing regular meter, and which was rejected by the Patriarchal Musical Committee; it is not know what became of it, or indeed if it was ever complete or whether merely speciments were prepared. The latter is particularly likely – Hisarlean, himself a student of Yovhannisean, mentions that his master had annotated a hymnal (thus, probably, a printed, neumatically-notated volume) with various dots and signs to indicate metrical durations, and it is apparently this version that was brought to a session of the Committee (Hisarlean, op. cit. p. 74–75): այդ գաղափարին վրայ ա՛յնչափ հաստատ համոզում գոյացուցած էր՝ որ կէտադրութիւններով սահմանաւորած էր Շարականներու գրեթէ երեք չորրորդ մասը, երբեմն յապաւելով եւ մերթ երկարելով, որպէս զի կարենայ միօրինակութեամբ ոտանաւոր չափերու վերածել ամբողջ պատկերի մը բոլոր տուները, թէեւ անոնցմէ ոմանք բաւական տարբեր էին իրարմէ: ... վերջապէս որոշուեցաւ Երաժշտական Յանձնաժողով մը կազմել, քննութեան առնելու համար Արիստակէս Յովհաննէսեանի՝ [sic] ոտանաւոր չափերու վերածած այդ Շարականը: Equally, Hisarlean refers to particular hymns which were indeed notated into Limōnčean notation, and which Yovhannisean taught his students and of which he directed performances in a liturgical environment, to great effect (Hisarlean, op. cit. p. 80–81): Եւ արդարեւ իրմէ մեզ աւանդուած Շարականներուն մէջ արժանի է յիշատակել Ս. Յակոբայ օրհնութիւնը «Յաղթող եւ Սուրբ Հայրապետ»ը, որուն բոլոր տուներն ալ մէկ չափի վրայ ձայնագրեալ՝ երգել կուտար մեծ ամբողջ պարբերութիւններովն ...: ... նոյն օրուան ամբողջ Շարականները, ... ձայնագրեալ տետրակներ ի ձեռին կ‘երգէինք 30 տղայոց ձայնակցութեամբ ի մեծ գոհունակութեան ժողովրդեան, որ հոծ բազմութեամբ կուգար ունկնդրել՝ այդ տօնին յատուկ Շարականներու իրարմէ գերազանց եղանակները:

The third version is known to have been transcribed by the musician Hambarjum Č‘ērč’ean (as already seen) as sung by Karapet Pałtatlean (or Derjakean), and rejected – by the Patriarchal Musical Committee and Tntesean and, decades later, by Archimandrite Komitas – as displaying a tendency to “correct” the Armenian melodies “on the basis of Turkish” melodies. As this version of the hymnal was sponsored by the Amira Karapet Palean, who died in 1866, it is reasonable to assume that it was compiled on or before that date. However, given that in the Tntesean Hymnal preface Lewon Tntesean explains that his father’s version was adopted by the Patriarchal Musical Committee as it was the only complete hymnal to have been submitted, it would appear that this third version too was incomplete.


69

2.2. The Limōnčean system of musical notation

Nikołayos A. T‘aščean33, Fr. Eznik Erznkeanc‘34 and, more recently, Aram Kerovpyan35 have all published textbooks for those wishing to learn the Limōnčean system. However, the reader can readily master the system by mere inspection of the table below (reproduced from the Tntesean hymnal). The crucial aspect is that, though the symbols have been drawn from the ancient neumes, each symbol corresponds to a particular note, much as in the case of the “tonic sol-fa” notation, and the system is thus not neumatic. Higher octaves are indicated by dint of adding small tails to the notes, whilst lower octaves are denoted by underlining each symbol. All symbols may be raised by half a degree by means of a small, oblique wavy line being added over the symbol; f sharp alone has a distinct symbol reserved for it. There is no symbol for flattening a note; instead, the note immediately below is sharpened; thus, for example, b flat is indicated by putting a sharp over the sign for an a. Rhythm and durations are indicated by means of a system of dots, commas and other marks, and constitute a slightly later refinement of the system, introduced by Hambarjum’s pupil, Aristakēs Yovhannisean, assisted by Yovhannēs Miwhēntisean (1810–1891). It is also noteworthy that, in certain cases, more

Caution is nonetheless needed here, given that there does exist a considerably later hymnal associated with Č‘ērč‘ean, from a later period in his life, when he taught church music at the Constantinople Patriarchate’s Armaš seminary. A copy of this version has been preserved (with fairly small portions lost), dated 1885, but there is no evidence to suggest that it is the same version as that transcribed decades earlier by Č‘ērč‘ean (pace Astłik Mušełean – see ՄՈՒՇԵՂԵԱՆ, Աստղիկ, “Հ. Չէրչեանի ձայնագրած «Շարակնոցը» եւ Արմաշի դպրեվանքի երաժշտական աւանդոյթները [The Hymnal notated by H. Č‘ērč‘ean and the musical traditions of the Armaš seminary]”, in: Մանրուսում, հոգեւոր երաժշտութեան պատմութեան, տեսութեան եւ գեղագիտութեան հարցեր, Միջազգային երաժշտագիտական տարեգիրք, Հատոր Ա, Yerevan 2002, p. 219–233). Elucidation of this matter requires careful examination of archival material, with a view to tracing the history of the extant Č‘ērč‘ean version or versions. I am grateful to Dr. Aram Kerovpyan for kindly making available to me his copy of this hymnal, as also for drawing my attention to the Mušełean paper; and am grateful to Mrs. Mušełean for kindly presenting me with a copy of her book: ՄՈՒՐԱՏԵԱՆ, Պարոյր and ՄՈՒՇԵՂԵԱՆ, Աստղիկ, Արմաշի դպրեվանքը [The Armaš Seminary], Ganjasar, 1998.

33 ԹԱՇՃԵԱՆՑ, Ն. Ա., Դասագիրք եկեղեցական ձայնագրութեան Հայոց[Textbook of Armenian Church Musical Notation], Vałaršapat, 1874.

34 ԵՐԶՆԿԵԱՆՑ, Եզնիկ Քհնյ., Դասագիրք Հայկական ձայնագրութեան [Textbook of Armenian Musical Notation], 1880, Vałaršapat.

35 KEROVPYAN, A., Manuel de Notation musicale arménienne moderne, Musica Mediævalis Europæ Orientalis, No. 2, Tützing, 2001.

70

Haig Utidjian


71

than one symbol corresponds to the same equivalent note in the European system of notation (we shall discuss the reasons for this later). A full discussion of the historical circumstances and manner in which the system was devised may be found in Kerovpyan’s preface to Bžškean’s 1803 monograph36.

2.3 Standard list of neumes

We have tabulated herewith the list of neumes as it appears at the end of the 1936 Jerusalem/1997 Antelias Portable Hymnal37. More comprehensive lists do exist, such as those published by Tntesean himself in Nkaragir ergoc‘, Kiwrełean38, At‘ayean39 and T‘ahmizean40; but for our present purposes the present table will suffice. The reader will need to refer back to it frequently throughout the analyses in the present paper. Here we merely note that sources also differ in the appellations of the same neumes. Thus, for example, Tntesean41 and many others refer to the neume as menkorč, instead of the neume so referred to in the Portable Hymnal table:

36 ԲԺՇԿԵԱՆ, Հայր Մինաս, Երաժշտութիւն [Music] (Venice 1815), աշխ. Արամ Քերովբեան, Yerevan 1997.

37 ՇԱՐԱԿԱՆ ՁԵՌԱՑ [Portable Hymnal], Antelias 1997 (republication of Jerusalem version of 1936 with added alphabetical index), referred to henceforth as the Portable Hymnal.

38 ԿԱՐԳԱՒՈՐՈՒԹԻՒՆ ՀԱՍԱՐԱԿԱՑ ԱՂՕԹԻՑ ՀԱՅԱՍՏԱՆԵԱՅՑ ԵԿԵՂԵՑՒՈՅ [The Order of Common Prayer of the Armenian Church], Կիւրեղեան, Հ. Իգնատիոս Վ. (Ed.), Venice, 1898.

39 ԱԹԱՅԵԱՆ, Ռ., Հայկական խազային նօտագրութիւնը (ուսումնասիրութեան եւ վերծանութեան հարցեր)[The Armenian neumatic notation (issues of study and decipherment)], Yerevan, 1959.

40 ԹԱՀՄԻԶԵԱՆ, Ն. Կ., Արդի խազաբանութիւն [Modern neumatology], Pasadena, 2003.

41 See Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 19.

72

Haig Utidjian

2.4 A preview of Tntesean’s theoretical work

Though we shall have occasion to consider Tntesean’s procedures in considerable detail later on (in section 4 below), we shall now briefly summarise the principal points of his theoretical principles and of the procedures that informed his work on his hymnal42, as detailed in Nkaragir ergoc‘.

42 That Tntesean endeavoured to bring his theoretical findings to bear when compiling his hymnal is both a strength but also a potential weakness of the hymnal, since it is likely that some of the melodies are a hybrid, combining what he heard, learnt and transcribed on the one hand, with what he devised, manipulated and constructed on the other, and thus need not necessarily faithfully document what was sung in a particular time and place. To what extent did Tntesean accurately record melodies that he heard sung, and just to what extent did he “manufacture” melodies to suit his theories? Did he use his theories as criteria to filter and select


73

Tntesean strove to gather several versions of the same hymn, and, through various “simplifications”, to arrive at a common version, whenever possible. In particular, he sometimes adopted (or derived) less melismatic versions of certain hymns than was usual, being convinced that the density and nature of the neumes so warranted. Indeed, it was Tntesean who first observed and systematised contemporary (mid-nineteenth-century) practice regarding the metrical durations associated with particular neumes, as well as providing convincing (if not quite “watertight”) theoretical justification. He concluded that syllables bearing certain neumes (“short” neumes), or not bearing any neumes at all, correspond to a single beat’s duration, whilst other neumes (“long” neumes) correspond to two beats’ duration. Thus, though unable otherwise to “read” the neumes, he generally sought consistency as far as the metrical durations of such syllables were concerned.

It was also Tntesean who first systematically studied and demonstrated that characteristic sequences and combinations of neumes could be associated with particular modes. He believed that in certain cases one might be able to tell whether a hymn melody was intended to be in the main version of a mode or in its “auxiliary”, or darjuack‘, version by inspecting the neumatic notation and taking heed of the presence of characteristic sequences of neumes on successive syllables, or of combinations (or agglomerations) of neumes on a single syllable. In some cases he went further still, and was able to apply this method to identify particular “families” or “types” of melodies within a given mode. In his hymnal realisations he often appears to have associated these with particular melodies or turns of phrase current in mid-nineteenth-century Constantinople church singing.

Tntesean was also convinced that the successive stanzas of a given hymn ought to be sung essentially to the same melody. He claimed that this was borne out by the neumatic notation; where it was not, he strongly suspected that the neumatic notation might itself be spurious, and called for the publication of a “corrected” neumatically-notated hymnal, in addition to a hymnal notated in the Limōnčean system43. And wheresoever the number of syllables of

between variants that he heard, or did he go so far as to devise melodies artificially? And would “devising” melodies in such a manner be inimical to the usual semi- -improvisatory practices of church musicians of the day? In the present paper we shall endeavour, with due caution, to make use of “internal” evidence with a view to reaching certain tentative conclusions on such issues, as far as possible.

43 See Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 43: ... պարզ Ձայնքաղը տպուելու ատեն խազերուն սրբագրուիլը առաջարկած եմք ... Ուստի հա՛րկ է որ շարականի խազերն ալ սրբագրուին, եւ ձայնագրութեան առնուելու շարականը ըստ կարելւոյն անոր վերայ հիմնուի, որով այս երկուքը համաձայն դրութեան մէջ մտնեն: Ահա՛ մեր կարծիքը: Moreover, the Patriarchal Musical Committee appears to have been in agreement with Tntesean in this, and when it heard rumours (Nkaragir

74

Haig Utidjian

successive stanzas was not identical, he was convinced that the “slack” associated with the presence of “extra” syllables ought to be taken up at the opening of the hymn or of the musical phrase in question. He proceeded to extend this to apply to hymns belonging to the same “family” of melodies within a given mode, “working out” the melody of one hymn on the basis of another that served as a model.

However, it has to be stressed that the above criteria were not the sole ones, and we shall come to see that they were applied judiciously; and, anyone seeking evidence of their simple-minded and inflexible application in the Tntesean hymnal will be disappointed. Indeed, we shall seek to make educated guesses for the reasons for such departures, indentifying implicit criteria that may sometimes have taken precedence over the application of his theoretical ideas.

The Tntesean version of the hymnal therefore warrants study not only for its very considerable virtues and unique features (as also its inevitable shortcomings), but also in the context of Tntesean’s own research on Armenian neumatology and modality.

3. CharaCtEristiC fEaturEs of tntEsEan’s hymnal

For anyone familiar with the currently widespread versions of the Armenian hymnal, Tntesean’s hymnal presents various surprising features – involving matters of notation, details of endings of stanzas, unusual tonal features, and other peculiarities. We shall deal with each of these in turn.

ergoc‘, p. 108–109) that a new printing of the neumatically-notated Jaynk‘ał hymnal was being contemplated in Jerusalem, it contacted the Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem, asking for a postponement to allow the Committee to edit it, at least to the extent of correcting known errors (though in the event the rumour turned out to have been unfounded): Հարկ է աստէն յիշել թէ երաժշտական յանձնաժողովը նկատելով որ եկեղեցւոյ ամենօրեայ պաշտամանց եւ խորհրդոց մատակարարութեանց ժամանակ խազերու վաղեմի դրութեամբ տպագրեալ շարականներն ալ անհրաժեշտ պէտք են, կը բաղձար որ անոնց խազերն ալ սխալներէ ազատ ըլլան ըստ կարելւոյն. ուստի լսելով ի համբաւոյ թէ ի Ս. Երուսաղէմի վանքը ըստ հին դրութեան շարական պիտի տպուի, խնդրեցինք ի մասնաւորի յԱմենապատիւ սրբազան Պատրիարքէն Ս. Երուսաղիմայ, որ եթէ ստոյգ է նոյն լուրը՝ բարեհաճի քիչ մը եւս յետաձգել նոյն տպագրութիւնը որպէս զի անոր խազերն ալ երաժշտական յանձնաժողովոյն երգերու մասին ընելիք որոշման համեմատ ուղղուին, որն որ ուրիշ բան չպիտի ըլլար, եթէ ոչ՝ արդէն զգալի եղած սխալներուն ուղղութիւնը: In a sense, Tntesean may be considered to be the first to have called for a critical edition of the neumatically-notated hymnal; in this, his vision remains unfulfilled.


75

3.1 Notational issues

In the Tntesean hymnal ԲՁ darjuack‘ hymns would, at first sight, seem to suffer from the anomaly of being notated in the same tonality as ԳՁ hymns (that is, in a sort of harmonic D minor with a sharpened third), and, apparently, in a manner that would render the notation of these hymns inconsistent with the fact that the sksuack‘ or incipit associated with these hymns commences in a quasi-melodic A minor, much as in the case of ordinary ԲՁ hymns, and subsequently modulates to the darjuack‘ mode. Moreover, this would, at first sight, seem inconsistent with Tntesean’s conviction, expressed on p. 37 of Nkaragir ergoc‘, that a particular tonality should be consistently associated with each mode as far as possible, to facilitate immediate recognition of each mode by performers and to assist them in reading the hymns44. However, Gprslean in his hymnal also notated (albeit in European notation) in ԲՁ darjuack‘ hymns D, and so does Petrosean in his 1947 Antelias volume, where the same issue arises in connection with two ԲՁ darjuack‘ Midday (čašu) hymns. From a practical point of view, Tntesean is partly justified, in that his notation is perhaps easier to read for singers accustomed to ԳՁ hymns, which share the same tonal features as the very much rarer ԲՁ darjuack‘ examples. In fact, as we shall see in section 5 below, Tntesean’s 1864 transcriptions in the booklet Bowandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ do serve to elucidate the situation here. The inclusion of alternative versions there renders it clear that the aforementioned apparent anomaly in the hymnal is not due to any oversight on Tntesean’s part, but rather a consequence of the lack of uniformity in the practice of the time, which, judging from Bovandakut’iwn nuagac‘, evidently allowed two alternative ways of modulating in the concluding part of the incipit (sksuack‘ ), each resulting in a different tonal relationship between the sksuack‘ and the ensuing body of the darjuack‘ hymn. One of the alternatives came to feature also in T‘aščean’s hymnal (see, for example, p. 94 and p. 745 therein – both notated in a modified A minor, and the latter version provided with an incipit) and is in general use today, whilst the use of the other is implied by Tntesean’s notation whenever ԲՁ darjuack‘ hymns are transcribed (and, incidentally, is subscribed to by Č‘ērč‘ean in his hymnal also45); but both were explicitly documented by Tntesean in his Bowandakut‘iwn.

44 ... ուստի պէտք է որ միեւնոյն եղանակէ ամեն [sic] երգ միեւնոյն Ձայնաստիճանի վերայ գրուի... եւ երբ այսպէս հաստատ դրութիւն մը ըլլայ... ձայնագրութիւն կարդացողն ալ արդէն աչքի վարժութիւն ունենալովը՝ նորանոր փորձեր ընելու պէտք չունենար:

45 This is exemplified by the manner in which the incipit (sksuack‘ ) is connected to the ensuing first stanza of the hymn Ant‘aŕam całik in the Č‘ērč‘ean hymnal – see Vol. 8, p. 32.

76

Haig Utidjian

Tntesean notated all ԱՁ hymns with the two principal tonal axes as being a , and c sharp, , as opposed to T‘aščean’s practice – also current practice in most hymnals, including those of Gprslean46 and Aznaworean47 – whereby the tonality is chosen such that the principal tonal axes fall respectively ong, and b natural, . Tntesean might have made his choice as a means of furthering the distance – at least graphically – between ԱՁ hymns and ԱԿ hymns (which he notates around the axes of and ); it seems that the Musical Committee was concerned about current confusion between the melody types associated with those modes, and according to the posthumous editor of the Tntesean hymnal, Fr. Psak Step‘anean, it was also the Committee that made the “extremely reasonable” or “rational” (xist banawor) “arrangement” whereby in the case of ԱԿ hymns, precedence was to be given to their “upper” versions48; Fr. Psak cites the following example in his introductory note

46 Manuscript hymnal (incomplete, untitled) copied by Deacon Gprslean (in Jerusalem 1954 from MSS by Archimandrite Haykazun Abrahamean (Vols. 1 and 2) and L. M. Č‘ilinkirean (Chilingirian) (Vol. 3)), in European notation; kindly made available to the present author by the late Archbishop Zareh Aznaworean in the early 1980s. Henceforth referred to as the Gprslean hymnal.

47 From the late 1970s, Archbishop Zareh Aznaworean and Archimandrite Ōšakan Č‘ōloyean embarked on a momumental project (interrupted by the former’s premature passing in 2004) to publish the whole of the Armenian hymnal in convenient volumes in European musical notation, in versions corresponding to practice at the Cathedral of the Holy See of the Great House of Cilicia in Antelias. The following three volumes have been published so far:

ՁԱՅՆԱԳՐԵԱԼ ՇԱՐԱԿԱՆ ՀԱՅԱՍՏԱՆԵԱՅՑ ԵԿԵՂԵՑՒՈՅ [Notated Hymnal of the Armenian Church],Ա. հատոր Մեծ Պահոց Կիրակիներ [Lenten Sundays], Antelias 1981,

Բ. հատոր Աւագ Շաբաթ Antelias [Holy Week], 1984, Գ. հատոր Աւագ Օրհնութիւններ [Principal Canticles], Antelias 1985, in addition to the companion volumes: ՄԵՂԵԴԻՆԵՐ, ՏԱՂԵՐ ԵՒ ԳԱՆՁԵՐ [Mełedies, Odes and Treasures], աշխ.

Զարեհ Եպս. Ազնաւորեան, Antelias 1990,ՍՈՒՐԲ ՊՍԱԿԻ ԵՐԳԵՑՈՂՈՒԹԻՒՆ [Hymns of Holy Matrimony],աշխ.

Զարեհ Եպս. Ազնաւորեան, Antelias 1980.We shall henceforth refer to the above volumes as the Aznaworean, or the

Antelias, hymnal.Finally, there is a further volume, edited by Archimandrite Ōšakan Č‘ōloyean;

though its contents are associated with the Breviary rather than the Canonical Hymnal, some of the hymns therein may be found in the Portable Hymnal:

ԱՐԵՒԱԳԱԼԻ ԵՒ ՀՍԿՈՒՄԻ ԵՐԳԵՐ [Chants for the Sunrise Hours, the Peace Hours and Compline], աշխ. Օշական Վրդ. Չօլոյեան, Antelias 1979.

48 նոյն ատենուան Յանձնաժողովը խիստ բանաւոր կարգադրութեամբ մը, բոլորովին հեռի պահելու համար (ակ.) եղանակը (աձ.) եղանակի ազդեցութենէն, որոշած է (ակ.) եղանակին առաջին ձեւն ընդունիլ:


77

(Canōt‘ut‘iwn): the first of the two versions represents the “upper” version, and was indeed given precendence in the Tntesean hymnal over the second:

This would also be consistent with Tntesean’s avowed principle of reserving, as far as possible, a different “key” for each mode – as professed on p. 37 of Nkaragir ergoc‘ (in a passage quoted above) where he makes a plea for fixed tonalities to be used in a consistent way when transcribing hymns of different modes. However, Tntesean is not entirely unique in his choice of notation here – Č‘ērč‘ean too has notated all ԱՁ and ԱՁ darjuack‘ hymns a tone higher in his 1885 hymnal, consistently with Tntesean. There may thus exist another possible reason, conceivably related to the inequalities and nuances related to the Ottoman music scales; Ottoman music theory was either employed, or at least paid lip service to, when the Limōnčean notational system was devised. We shall return to this point in some detail below.

Now there is one interesting consequence associated with Tntesean’s decision to notate ԱՁ hymns around the tonal axes of a and c sharp, whatever his motivation may have been. In all hymns of the ԱՁ darjuack‘ (see e.g. the Levavi hymn on p. 85–86, I k‘ēn hayc‘emk‘ )and ԱԿ darjuack‘ (see e.g. the De caelis hymn on p. 296, Sk‘anč‘eli hreštakn teaŕn) modes, we find that Tntesean uses the symbol for b sharp or , instead of b natural, . Yet it is self-evident49 that what is to be sung is indeed likely to be (or a pitch very close to it), as opposed to the “real” occuring in ԱՁ, where it is indeed interpreted as b sharp. This may well be a matter of convention, a sort of “trademark” indicating the appearance of the darjuack‘ mode50. However, there are instances of “mixed” hymns, that is ones where the main mode is in alternation with its darjuack‘, where this notation can cause confusion, particularly when the singer is reading at sight. Thus, he may be in some doubt as to exactly from which point onwards it is necessary to cease taking at face value and sing instead. One such instance

49 This conclusion will be further reinforced when in section 5 below we come to examine Tntesean’s transcriptions in European musical notation, found in his Bovandakut’iwn nuagac‘.

50 Even if this were to be a matter of mere convention, some relevant information might be gleaned from the notation favoured by such a convention. Our best efforts notwithstanding, however, this remains an open problem.

78

Haig Utidjian

of potential confusion and of the genuine ambiguity so arising, may be found as one commences the third stanza of the ԱՁ De caelis hymn, Ǝnd kanayk‘n iwłabersn (pages 277–278) of the Tntesean hymnal. The ԱՁ darjuack‘ hymn Aysōr golov (p. 213) is another example where there is real ambiguity as to the meaning of the Limončean : the symbol does genuinely refer to a b sharp all of a sudden, as Tntesean returns to the main (non-darjuack‘ ) version of the mode in the second patker (starting at the fourth stanza, Kendanut‘eanc‘ pašxoł ). Interestingly enough, Č‘ērč‘ean is again consistent with Tntesean in deploying instead of in the darjuack‘ stanzas here, and precisely the same confusion arises in his own hymnal at the same point (see Vol. 4, p. 65–66).

In the case of ԱԿ darjuack‘ hymns also, Tntesean uses instead of , and again Č‘ērč‘ean is consistent with Tntesean in this. But whereas Tntesean and Č‘ērč‘ean use b sharp, instead of b natural, almost certainly51 intending it to be sung as b natural, , in contrast, T‘aščean in his hymnal uses instead of c, , and almost certainly intends c to be sung.

Likewise, for reasons that are again unclear to us, in ԳԿ52 and in ԴԿ hymns Tntesean further sharpens the Limōnčean symbol for f sharp, into what would thus appear to be an f double-sharp, but which in practice can only mean f sharp. In both cases, we are convinced that in practice the symbol is almost certainly intended to be sung as an f sharp (or, at most, a pitch approximating to an f sharp), and is possibly deployed instead of a for reasons of convention53. Curiously enough, Č‘ērč‘ean and T‘aščean are consistent with Tntesean in his deployment of in the case of ԴԿ hymns, but not when it comes to ԳԿ or ԳԿ darjuack‘ hymns, where they both consistently adhere to the use of , eschewing the use of .54

51 Again, both from the musical context, and upon comparing Tntesean’s notation here with his own transcriptions in European musical notation, found in Bovandakut’iwn nuagac‘.

52 Tntesean uses the Limōnčean symbol for f double-sharp in the main ԳԿ mode as well as in the darjuack‘ version, but the practice is more obvious in the case of latter, since in the case of the main mode, only rarely does the melody descend lower than a g. But an instance may indeed be encountered in the opening of the hymn Yareaw tēr (on p. 357 of the Tntesean hymnal), within the melisma on the word tēr, which is decidedly still in the main version of the mode (although the hymn subsequently modulates to the darjuack‘ version of the mode).

53 Again, we shall find that this view is supported by the transcriptions in European musical notation made by Tntesean in his Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘. But the reasons for the present notation remain obscure.

54 Incidentally, these two symbols (albeit modified to indicate the higher octave) are also employed in a manner rather different from that of Tntesean, in the 1877 Vałaršapat breviary, p. 19, where, judging from the musical context of a ԳԿ-like, quasi-ecphonetic litany (albeit one that is notated around a transposed tonal axis),


79

Finally, Tntesean, in common with T‘aščean, Č‘ērč‘ean and others, invariably writes the symbol (c sharp) for the fourth degree of ԳԿ hymns. This is, however, hardly ever sung as c sharp in practice – indeed, nor even as d flat (although in some transcriptions, such as Gprslean’s, it has been rendered into European notation as d flat ). It is sung either as an ordinary d 55, or as very slightly flattened d 56. Nonetheless, in the Tntesean hymnal, as also in the hymnals by T’aščean, Č‘ērč‘ean and others, is used in ԳԿ hymns as a matter of course, and thus Tntesean is not at all unique in this.

A momentary ambiguity somewhat similar to that encountered with the altered apparent significance of the symbol as we move from ԱՁ to ԱՁ darjuack‘, occasionally arises also in connection with the symbol in hymns entailing alternations between ԳԿ and ԳԿ darjuack‘: in ԳԿ the symbol refers to a d (possibly very slightly flattened), but in ԳԿ darjuack‘ it genuinely means a c sharp.

We may succinctly summarise the situation with the three major Constantinople hymnals as follows:

1. Tntesean: ԱՁ hymns notated in a, in ԱՁ darjuack‘ deployed in lieu of , likewise in ԱԿ darjuack‘ ; ԳԿ employs , and also uses in lieu of , as does ԴԿ.

it appears that the f sharp sign might signify an f, and the f double-sharp might signify a somewhat flattened g.

55 And indeed, as we shall see in due course, in his Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ Tntesean is content to employ d natural in his transcriptions of ԳԿ hymns.

56 Archimandrite (later Archbishop) Zareh Aznaworean’s 1979 introduction to his volume of Hymns of Holy Matrimony (ՍՈՒՐԲ ՊՍԱԿԻ ԵՐԳԵՑՈՂՈՒԹԻՒՆ [Hymns of Holy Matrimony],աշխ. Զարեհ Եպս. Ազնաւորեան, Antelias 1980) strongly suggests that, if anything, the fourth degree ought to be flattened very slightly, with the resultant effect certainly being closer to d natural, rather than to d flat (p. 3): Բաւական մտածել տուաւ նաեւ ԳԿ ձայնեղանակներու (Նայեա ի մեզ եւ Թագ պարծանաց) չորրորդ աստիճանը, որ ձայնագրութեանց մէջ կիսվարով կը ներկայանայ, մինչ գործնականին մէջ կ‘երգուի բնիկով, ինչ որ աւելի համապատասխան է ԳԿ-ի «վառ ձայն» կոչումին (իրականութեան մէջ այս չորրորդ աստիճանը միայն քառորդով մը ցած է բնական աստիճանէն, ինչ որ դարձեալ աւելի մօտ է բնիկին կան կիսվարով երգուածին): Tayean’s interpretation is also of considerable interest. In his Hymnal (which is written in European notation), it is not the fourth degree that is slightly lowered in the case of ԳԿ hymns, but instead the third degree that is slightly sharpened (see ՇԱՐԱԿԱՆ ՀԱՅԱՍՏԱՆԵԱՅՑ ԵԿԵՂԵՑՒՈՅ [Hymnal of the Armenian Church],աշխ. Հ. Ղեւոնդ Տայեան, vols. II–VIII, Venice, 1954–1976, henceforth referred to as the Tayean hymnal). Howbeit, the author has heard the fourth degree being flattened by a semitone, in Constantinople (during the opening of the hymn Luys zuart‘ as performed by Atrušan Halačean in the Church of the Vardanian Saints).

80

Haig Utidjian

2. Č‘ērč‘ean: ԱՁ hymns notated in a, in ԱՁ darjuack‘ deployed in lieu of , likewise in ԱԿ darjuack‘; ԳԿ employs ; ԴԿ uses in lieu of , but ԳԿ does not.

3. T‘aščean: ԱՁ hymns notated in g, no notational peculiarities in ԱՁ darjuack‘; ԱԿ darjuack‘ does employ but in lieu of and not of ; ԳԿ employs ; ԴԿ uses in lieu of , but ԳԿ does not.

It thus appears that almost all of the features described are common to the Tntesean and Č‘ērč‘ean hymnals; the latter may thus be deemed to occupy a position very much closer to the Tntesean hymnal than to the T‘aščean hymnal in this respect.

The musicologist Aram Kerovpyan (who possesses expertise in classical Ottoman, as well as Armenian, music) has endeavoured to put forward an ingenious hypothesis, suggesting that particular pitches indicated through some of the appropriately modified Limōnčean symbols may indeed be related to the rather rich system of Ottoman scales, captured through a rather complex theory entailing microtones called šuri, entailing substantial departures from western scales57. Yet his hypothesis cannot account for the rather different use of the b sharp symbol encountered in ԱԿ darjuack’ hymns, deployed by Tntesean and Č‘ērč‘ean apparently to stand for a b natural and, in contrast, by T’aščean to mean (at least approximately) c. And to date, it is not clearly known to what extent quarter tones, or to be more precise, slight departures from western “natural” temperament, were practised in Armenian church music at various times, and whether they were ever used on a systematic basis. Nor is it known to what extent, if at all, any such nuances were the result of Ottoman influence, or were common to various middle-eastern musics; for the situation in Ottoman, Arabic and Persian musics remains chaotic and not well understood (as is amply apparent from the discussion in Kerovpyan).

As an indication as to how this confusion has been reflected in the Limōnčean system in different hands and at various phases in its development, we shall now consider four diagrams drawn from Constantinople sources spanning an entire century.

The first diagram (Աղիւսակ ձայնաստիճանաց, “Table of tones”) is taken from Tntesean’s Nkaragir ergoc‘ (1874), p. 45, whilst the second (Բաղդատական ցուցակ արեւելեան եւ արեւմտեան սքալաներու, “Comparative table of eastern and western scales”) is from his posthumously-published textbook

57 We shall have occasion to review this work (found both in Kerovpyan’s extensive discussion in Chapter 8 of his thesis, as also in his valuable introduction and annotations to his edition of Bžškean’s volume, both referred to above) in a second sequel to the present study, devoted to issues of performance practice and the international context in which it evolved in the decades preceding and succeeding Tntesean’s life.


81

82

Haig Utidjian

Tarerk‘ eražštut‘ean (c. 1873, published in 1933)58. These two diagrams are at least mutually consistent, and consistent with the table from the preface to the Tntesean hymnal reproduced earlier in this paper (section 2.2 above). They indicate that the Limōnčean notation entails a sign for f sharp, and then a further symbol, consisting of the last symbol with a “sharpening” sign added on it: ; and that both of these are to be represented by an f sharp on a “Western”, naturally-tempered scale. (This is indeed borne out in Tntesean’s transcriptions in European notation found in his Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ , as we shall see.) The symbol for g comes later, and is higher in pitch than the “sharpened” f sharp. Likewise, after the symbol for b natural there is a further symbol, , consisting of that for a b natural but raised in pitch by means of an added “sharpening” sign on it. Both this and the previous symbol are to be represented by a “Western” b natural. (This is again corroborated by Tntesean’s transcriptions in Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ .) The ensuing symbol for c represents a higher note – or, to be more precise, the sharpened b natural is deemed to be lower than a c.

Yet, even if we now restrict consideration to Tntesean’s writings and notations, we are still faced with the inconsistency associated with the fact that, whereas in the main ԱՁ mode the symbol is rendered as a Western b sharp, in the ԱՁ darjuack‘ mode is rendered as a Western b natural. Likewise, in the main ԳԿ mode the is rendered as a Western d natural, but in the case of the ԳԿ darjuack‘ mode the same symbol does indeed represent a Western c sharp! Thus, it is difficult to imagine Tntesean’s diagrams being truly observed in practice.59

We next consider a diagram found in Bžškean’s monograph (1815) – p. 157 in Kerovpyan’s 1997 edition. Here Bžškean drew the traditional Ottoman string instrument (Tambur) with its system of mobile frets, and strove to associate the newly-invented, primitive version of the Limōnčean notation with positions on the instrument and with traditional Ottoman tone names. The system that results is strikingly different from that presented by Tntesean. Each symbol of the scale in the Limōnčean system is now succeeded first by a version of it that has a tiny xunč-like sign below it – indicating a slight sharpening, and then succeeded by a version of it that has the xunč-like sign over it – indicating

58 It appears on the final page of the volume (following p. 43, the last numbered page). I thank Dr. Aram Kerovpyan for this information.

59 Moreover, in a further article in Nkaragir ergoc‘, succinctly entitled “Scales” (Elewē k‘ ), Tntesean makes a direct comparison between Ottoman modes and European scales in a detailed manner – considering “Rasd” (believed to be the Ottoman equivalent of the Armenian ԴԿ darjuack‘ mode) to be close to the Western major scale. A full analysis of the information presented there falls outside the scope of the present study (but of great importance to investigations of nineteenth-century performance practice).


83

84

Haig Utidjian

a further rise in pitch. Only then do we find the next symbol, corresponding to the higher note. And this threefold subdivision is applied indiscriminately to all the notes represented by the Limōnčean symbols for d, e, f sharp, g, a, b natural, and c.

Finally, the table by Hisarlean (1914), p. 66, presents yet a third arrangement – but one that is, arguably, partly consistent with that of Bžškean. Here too, we have apparent divisions between the same notes as in the Bžškean system, but there is only one division between the intervals formed by the notes. We thus have a resultant scale consisting of d, its sharpened version, e, its sharpened version, f sharp, its sharpened version, g, its sharpened version, a, its sharpened version, b natural, its sharpened version, and c, and its sharpened version.60

If in addition one recollects the fact that T‘aščean and Tntesean use the Limōnčean symbol for b sharp to indicate radically different pitches (in the case of ԱԿ darjuack‘ hymns, as we saw), one is strongly tempted to conclude that the theoretical and notational systems in vogue at the time were several and not necessarily well understood even then, and that possibly the attempts to rationalise actual practice may have even gone too far: various theoretical systems may have been devised that were not necessarily consistent with practice – not to mention the fact that there may also have been considerable local variations as well as changes over time.

60 Some of Hisarlean’s comments suggest that he may be in some confusion as to the structure of scales in Western music. Thus, he cites Miwhēntisean as saying “neither Greek nor European systems can capture the authentic Armenian church melodies”, and then in a footnote of his own suggests the “simple” explanation for this, in a rather obscure and ambiguous statement: “whereas in natural scales, there is rather less than a semitone between an e and an f and between a b natural and a c, the interval does at least contain a quarter tone, the lack of which is extremely perceptible in our church singing, whereas the European scale does not have it [sic] at all”. The Armenian original reads (Hisarlean, op. cit. p. 54.): ո՛չ Յունականի եւ ո՛չ ալ Եւրոպականի միջոցաւ կրնան մեր եկեղեցական եղանակները իսկականին յար եւ նման ձայնագրուիլ Here Hisarlean provides an explanation as a footnote Ասոր պատճառը շա՛տ պարզ է, վասն զի թէեւ բնական ձայնի ելեւէջներու մէջ Մի էն Ֆա եւ սի էն տօ կէս ձայն չկայ ամբողջութեամբ, բայց գոնէ քառորդ ձայն (շուրի) մը կը պարունակէ իր մէջ, որոյ պակասը խիստ զգալի կ‘ըլլայ մեր եկեղեցական երգեցողութեանց մէջ, մինչդեռ Եւրոպականը բնաւ չունի: Yet despite his assertion in 1914 that Western musical notation was unable to do justice to Armenian church music, by 1931 we find Hisarlean happily serving on the editorial board responsible for the publication of a volume of hymns of which the contents are presented on facing pages in Western musical notation and Limōnčean’s notation: ՏՕՆԱԿԱՐԳ ՀԱՅԱՍՏԱՆԵԱՅՑ Ս. ԵԿԵՂԵՑՒՈՅ [The Order of the Feasts of the Holy Armenian Chuch], Vol. 1, Constantinople, 1931.


85

86

Haig Utidjian

A final point of interest arises in the case of ԱՁ hymns: Tntesean always has the second degree sharpened, and expressed thus: (i.e. b sharp instead of b natural ); whereas T‘aščean sometimes sharpens the second degree (in the case of his notation, the note a, into a sharp) and sometimes not.61

3.2 The endings of hymn stanzas in Tntesean’s Hymnal

In comparison to most versions of the hymnal, Tntesean’s endings of stanzas exhibit metrical diminution, for hymns of all modes and their darjuack‘s; and they also eschew the customary sharpening of the notes serving as “leading notes” allowing modulation to the subdominant through characteristic ending motifs – encountered in hymns belonging to the ԱԿ darjuack‘, ԲԿ, and ԴՁ modes. Finally, the endings of the last stanzas in the Tntesean hymnal are similar to those of previous stanzas, and do not deploy the standard “final endings” traditional in oral practice and found in certain other hymnals. Let us consider each of those elements in turn.

3.2.1 The endings of hymn stanzas – metrical considerationsTntesean takes pains to ensure that in his hymnal each stanza of every hymn ends in a manner that ensures that the very last syllable occupies no more than two beats – the duration normally associated with the erkar neume in the course of a stanza. This contrasts with the usual custom of doubling the duration of a erkar found on the last syllable of each stanza – which, for instance, the musicologist P‘itečean (Pidedjian) considers a rule.62

61 In general, there would seem to be a consistent pattern, with “answering phrases” apt to deploy a natural, but there are numerous errors or inconsistencies – even between closely analogous passages in succeeding stanzas (see, for instance, T‘aščean’s version of Or zanarat bazuks k‘o, p. 763). As we shall come to see below, sometimes sharpenings may similarly be found in the closing motifs of hymn stanzas in particular modes, and there is no uniformity across different traditions. It has also been suggested (as will be seen shortly) that in the past microtones may have been deployed, but in time they went into abeyance and were replaced by semitone sharpenings in some places but not in others, resulting in divergent practices, themselves compounded by local variation.

62 ՓԻՏԷՃԵԱՆ, Գ., «Անձինք նուիրեալք» շարականը [The hymn “Anjink‘ nuirealk‘”], New York, 2003. On p. 105 of his book on the hymn Anjink‘ nuirealk‘, Pidedjian states that the “long” neume erkar, when it occurs on the last syllable of a stanza, assumes the durational value of a krknerkar: «Երկար» խազը շարականի տան


87

For this reason, the melodic formulae with which Tntesean draws each stanza to a close are, in comparison to those of other versions of the hymnal, ganerally twice as fast. This sometimes results in semiquaver movement at this point, notwithstanding the fact that there may have been nothing faster than quaver movement throughout the rest of the stanza. It is clear that this was a deliberate modification – or at the very least, the result of an active decision on Tntesean’s part – consistent with his statement, made in Nkaragir ergoc‘, albeit in connection with some of his editorial decisions made in connection with his very first foray into the transcription of hymns, undertaken in collaboration with Gabriēl Eranean. Here he mentions that he deviated from Eranean’s transcriptions in this regard, and cites the appropriateness, not merely when K‘ałuack‘, but also when slow – canr – hymns are being sung, of an effective “chaining” or dovetailing between the end of one stanza and the beginning of the next, for which he considers it a precondition that the final syllables of each stanza not be unduly extended (p. 35).63 He proceeds to assert that the same principles governed his choices also when he came to prepare his Bovandakutiwn nuagac‘ (p. 36).64

This feature obtains across the board in his hymnal also, in connection with the endings of all eight modes and of their darjuack’s, and, to our knowledge, Tntesean is unique in adhering to this principle in a systematic way. In looking for similar practice elsewhere, we could cite the case of K‘ałuack‘ versions65 of some hymns, and also of the Awag Ōrhnut‘iwn hymns66: in such cases it is the present custom for the singers on the same side of the chancel (dasakołm) to

վերջին վանկին վրայ գործածուելու պարագային կը ստանայ «կրկներկարի» տեւողական արժէք, այսինքն «երկար» խազին կրկնակի տեւողութիւնը.

63 ... երկրորդ՝ թէ՛ Ծանր եւ թէ՛ Քաղուած երգուած հատուածներուն չափերու համեմատութիւնը, որք թէ՛ զատ զատ եւ թէ՛ անընդհատ երգուած ատեննին՝ իրենց մէկ հատուածին վերջը միւսոյն սկզբնաւորութեանը հետ իբր շղթայ համաձայնի՝ մինչեւ անգամ զանազան երգերէ այլեւայլ հատուածներ իբր Քաղուած իրարու միացած ատեն.

64 Իսկ երբ Նուագաց Բովանդակութիւնը հրատարակեցինք, փորձառութենէ ուսած մասնաւոր փոփոխութիւններէ զատ՝ վերոյիշեալ սկզբունքներէն չշեղեցանք...

65 That is, when those hymns are not intrinsic to the canon of the day, and are performed additionally, interpolated before the last two stanzas of the Cantemus that belongs to the canon of the day, and sung in a rapid and syllabic manner – a practice of relatively recent centuries (hence the name Jaynk‘ał for large hymnals for use on a lectern by several singers, including also the optional k‘ałuack‘ items).

66 Awag Ōrhnut‘iwns (“Principal Canticles”) are particular Cantemus hymns, sung mainly on ordinary Sundays (dedicated to the Feast of the Holy Resurrection). They are believed to be of greater antiquity than many other Cantemus hymns, and possess a special, substantially extended structure consisting of several patkers (groups of stanzas) sung in succession.

88

Haig Utidjian

sing all three stanzas of a given patker 67 in rapid succession, and the last syllable of the first and second stanzas within a given patker is indeed not prolonged to four beats, but confined to the two beats normally associated with the erkar neume (which the final syllable of each stanza almost invariably bears). However, there are reasons why recent practice in connection with the Awag Ōrhnut‘iwn hymns68 and with K‘ałuack‘ hymns69 cannot be held as indicative of older practice in this regard70. Instead, Tntesean’s thesis may be lent indirect support by other

67 The term patker refers to a grouping of usually three stanzas, forming a self-contained unit. Many hymns consist of merely a single patker, whilst others have two or more.

68 However, a complication here is that the practice itself of singing some patkers (generally, all patkers other than the first and last patker) in a faster and more syllabic tempo, is in itself likely to be a relatively recent one – as pointed out by Bishop Zareh Aznaworean and Archimandrite Ošakan Č‘ōloyean in their preface to the Antelias Awag ōrhnut‘iwns volume (ՁԱՅՆԱԳՐԵԱԼ ՇԱՐԱԿԱՆ ՀԱՅԱՍՏԱՆԵԱՅՑ ԵԿԵՂԵՑՒՈՅ [Notated Hymnal of the Armenian Church], Գ. Հատոր, Աւագ Օրհնութիւններ [Principal Canticles], Antelias 1985, p. 5: Ներկայիս մենք Միջին արագութեամբ կ‘երգենք 2–9 պատկերները, հանդիսաւորութիւնը տալով միայն առաջին ու վերջին պատկերներուն. մինչ թերեւս հինին մէջ բոլոր պատկերներն ալ կ‘երգուէին նոյն Չափաւոր արագութեամբ: Again, Tntesean, striving to remain faithful to the older practice as evinced by the neumes (the distribution of neumes is not appreciably different in the “inner” patkers from the “outer”), uses the same tempo and degree of melismaticity for all the patkers in his Awag ōrhnut‘iwns – unlike, for example, Aznaworean and T‘aščean in their hymnals.

69 It should, however, be noted that the practice of interpolating k‘ałuack‘ hymns within the canonical stanzas of the Cantemus of the day (that is, incorporating selected stanzas from hymns proper to other feasts – such as those of the Holy Cross or of the Pentecost, for example) is a relatively recent one. See, for example, Bishop Aznaworean’s and Archimandrite Ošakan’s preface to the Antelias Lenten Sundays volume, ՁԱՅՆԱԳՐԵԱԼ ՇԱՐԱԿԱՆ ՀԱՅԱՍՏԱՆԵԱՅՑ ԵԿԵՂԵՑՒՈՅ [Notated Hymnal of the Armenian Church],Ա. Հատոր, Մեծ Պահոց Կիրակիներ [Lenten Sundays], Antelias 1981, p. 6: Բոլոր կանոններէն դուրս ձգած ենք Ձայնքաղ շարականներու Օրհնութիւններուն մէջ ներմուծուած քաղուածքները, նկատի ունենալով որ անոնք օրուան կանոնին չեն պատկանիր եւ աւելի ուշ ժամանակներու յաւելումներ են: This view is confirmed by Kiwrełean in his preface (Kiwrełean, op. cit. p. Լ = xxx): Ըստ յիշատակարանացս ինչ ԺԲ եւ ԺԳ դարուց՝ ոչ քոյին քաղուածք օրհնութեան առ նախնեօք.

70 The Requiem (Hangstean)hymn-book (Šarakan hangstean, Jerusalem 1947), as well as particular instances in the Jaynk‘ał, muddy the waters somewhat further, in that we find that the final syllables of some verses do not bear the “long” neume erkar but the short (or at best ambiguous) neume, but‘. The conclusion they suggest is indeed rather ambiguous. One deduction might be that, at least from the point of


89

isolated instances of attested stanza endings devoid (as it were) of augmentation. Consider, for instance, the more syllabic versions adopted and adapted by Komitas71 and by Ekmalian72 in their versions of the Divine Liturgy of the hymn Xorhurd xorin – in particular, the melody over the words տեղի բերկրանաց, which end the second verse of the hymn. Komitas has a, d, c, b natural, c, d, e, d, c sharp, d, whilst Ekmalian’s version is in accordance with Tntesean’s thesis a, b natural, b natural, c, d. In both cases the final d is a minim, but the final syllable -նաց, whilst in the Komitas version it has four beats: e, d, c sharp, d, it has only two in the Ekamalean version: d – which corresponds to the two beats ordinarily associated with the neume erkar.73 Similarly, the Christmas Day Čašu (Midday) ԳՁ hymn, Surp zAstuacacinn ōrhnut‘eamb mecac‘uc‘anemk‘ in Komitas’ version of the Divine Liturgy, has short endings at the ends of the first two stanzas and the subsequent doxology, with the final notes, being of a mere crotchet’s duration, not even corresponding to a single long neume, let alone a krknerkar.74 Further examples may also be found – such as the čašu (Midday) ԲԿ hymn for the Holy Resurrection, Ōrhnut‘iwn i barjuns (see

view of the editors of these volumes, the sort of non-doubling of the value of the erkar found at the end of each stanza, advocated by Tntesean to achieve a dovetailing between one stanza and the next, was indicated in this way whenever it was thought desirable, and that in other instances the final erkar, wherever present, ought indeed to be doubled in length. But the same evidence might just as well suggest that final syllables bearing a but‘ ought to be of a mere single beat’s duration – shorter still than a erkar devoid of the customary doubling in duration. Yet another possibility is that Tntesean was right, but in relatively recent times the custom emerged of doubling the final erkars, and as a corrective against such misuse and a means of ensuring that two beats, and no more, were spent on these syllables, the editors replaced the erkar neume by a but‘ in such positions.

71 ԿՈՄԻՏԱՍ ՎԱՐԴԱՊԵՏ, Երգեցողութիւնք Սրբոյ Պատարագի [Chants of the Divine Liturgy] (republication of Դաշնաւորեալ Սուրբ Պատարագ [Harmonised Divine Liturgy], Paris, 1933), Antelias 1974.

72 ԵԿՄԱԼԵԱՆ Մ., Երգեցողութիւնք Սրբոյ Պատարագի [Chants of the Divine Liturgy] (incomplete republication of Die Gesänge der heiligen Messe der armenisch-apostolischen Kirche, Leipzig–Wien, 1896), Antelias, 1974.

73 This hymn, being outside the canon and more properly belonging to the Book of Hours, and excluded from the printed Jaynk‘ał hymnal – albeit included in the printed Portable Hymnal – is unfortunately not included in the Tntesean hymnal. However, its medium (mi ak) and slow (canr) versions found in the Vałaršapat Missal edition are consistent in eschewing any augmentation on the final syllables of stanzas – see p. 51 and 9, respectively of ՁԱՅՆԱԳՐԵԱԼ ԵՐԳԵՑՈՂՈՒԹԻՒՆՔ ՍՐԲՈՅ ՊԱՏԱՐԱԳԻ [Notated chants of the Divine Liturgy], Vałaršapat, 1878 (corrected version of first edition of 1874).

74 Of course some caution is needed, in that Komitas for artistic reasons sometimes manipulated time durations in his version of the Divine Liturgy – for instance, in the case of Xorhurd xorin he purposely artificially lengthened the note values in

90

Haig Utidjian

p. 292–294 of the MS volume in Western notation, copied in Antelias by K. Petrosian in 194775, or p. 528 of the T‘aščean hymnal), where each stanza is smoothly dovetailed with the next, with the final syllable of each stanza being given the duration of only two beats – that is, in a manner consistent with Tntesean’s practice.

Though relatively minor examples, these may indeed suggest that Tntesean’s practice of adhering to the normal two beats associated with the erkar for stanza endings might well be no artificial imposition, and it is possible that it may well have been corroborated by more ancient practice, of which the above examples could be surviving remnants. From our present perspective it is, of course, impossible to make a stronger statement than that, and there is little to be gained by adopting any dogmatic position on the matter.

3.2.2 The endings of hymn stanzas – pitch-related considerationsBut there is yet another feature, concerning principally the endings of stanzas, and which applies in the case of the ԱԿ darjuack‘ 76, ԲԿ and ԴՁ modes. In most versions (though here again, the endings of the first two stanzas within a given ԱԿ darjuack‘ or ԴՁ patker in the respective Awag Ōrhnut‘iwns constitute an exception – as may be seen in the relevant volume of the late Archbishop Zareh Aznaworean’s version of the Hymnal), a sharpening of the c to c sharp occurs towards the end of each stanza, thereby signifying something akin to a temporary modulation of sorts to the subdominant in the case of ԱԿ darjuack’ and ԴՁ hymns, and a reinforcement of the tonic axis in the case of ԲԿ hymns; but Tntesean very nearly never sharpens these notes. Exceptions are very rare indeed.77 Thus, for example, he typically concludes the stanzas of ԲԿ hymns in the following manner:

the final syllable of the last word, խա-ղա-ղու-թեան, in the uppermost (melody) part, with a view to allowing an imitation in the bass part.

75 Mełedik‘ – music of the Breviary and Missal, copied by K. Petrosean in Antelias in 1947.

76 At this point it should be noted that practice is not universal in designating this mode as ԱԿ darjuack‘, with some hymnals – such as that of Aznaworean – reversing the designations between ԱԿ and ԱԿ darjuack‘ – the lack of uniformity in this regard itself being acknowledged in Tntesean’s Nkaragir ergoc‘ itself (p. 71): Շատերը այս երկրորդ ձեւը իբր բուն եղանակ կը համարին, եւ առաջին ձեւը իբր դարձուածք. But T‘aščean is consistent with Tntesean in this respect.

77 One is the ԲԿ Levavi hymn Errordut‘iwn anbažaneli (p. 416–417), where we do encounter the use of c sharp (see, for example, the second syllable of the word եր-գով on p. 417); another is the hymn Xač‘i k‘o K‘ristos (p.540, with the c sharp occurring on the final syllable of the word աշ-խար-հի).


91

And in the case of ԴՁ, unless the hymn is slow and melismatic (canr), he eschews the downwards movement – usual in the ԴՁ transcriptions of T‘aščean, Č‘ērč‘ean, Gprslean and Aznaworean – from d to c sharp and back to d, and merely allows the line to settle on a minim d.

Bishop Zareh Aznaworean and Archimandrite Ōšakan Č‘ōloyean suggest that the c/c sharp alternation in ԱԿ darjuack‘ 78, ԲԿ and ԴՁ hymns, as also the a/a sharp alternation in ԱՁ hymns encountered earlier (Tntesean, as we have seen, whose ԱՁ transcriptions are a tone higher, has the equivalent note sharpened throughout, resulting in a b sharp), may bespeak of an earlier practice whereby only a very slight sharpening occurred, but did so throughout the hymn; and that in time, this microtonal practice was eroded and replaced by an alternation of a semitone sharpening with no sharpening at all79 (although, as

78 Although, according the the nomenclature they employ this is considered the main version of the ԱԿ mode.

79 See their preface to the Lenten Sundays volume, ՁԱՅՆԱԳՐԵԱԼ ՇԱՐԱԿԱՆ ՀԱՅԱՍՏԱՆԵԱՅՑ ԵԿԵՂԵՑՒՈՅ [Notated Hymnal of the Armenian Church],Ա. Հատոր, Մեծ Պահոց Կիրակիներ [Lenten Sundays], Antelias 1981, p. 6: Հայ եկեղեցական երաժշտութիւնը պատկանելով արեւելեան երաժշտական աշխարհին, բնականաբար ունի նաեւ քառորդ ձայներու դրութիւնը եւ տակաւին անոր հետքերը կը զգանք բերանացի մեր երգեցողութեանց մէջ: Այս դրութիւնը ընդունելով եւ ճանչնալով հանդերձ զանց առած ենք անոր մատնանշումը երաժշտական յատուկ նշաններով: Օրինակ, ԱՁ եւ ԱԿ Ձայներուն մէջ գտնուող լա կիսվերը (տիէզ) խորքին մէջ պէտք է ըլլայ միայն քառորդ ձայն վեր, փոխանակ կէսի. Այդ պատճառով ալ յաճախ լա-ն բնիկ կը նշանակուի, փոխանակ կիսվերի: Նոյն պարագան կը ներկայանայ նաեւ ԳԿ Ձայնին մէջ, ուր րէ-ն փոխանակ կիսվարի (պէմոլ) պէտք է ըլլայ քառորդ կիսվար, այսինքն միայն քառորդ մը վար րէ-էն: Եւ որովհետեւ գործնական երգեցողութեան մէջ շատ յաճախ ուղիղ րէ կ‘երգուի, առանց կիսվարի, հետեւաբար րէ նշանակուած է: Սակայն պարզապէս յիշեցում կատարելու համար, բանալիին առջեւ աւելցուցած ենք րէ կիսվարը, փակագծի մէջ առնելով զայն: Այլ պարագաներ ալ կան, ինչպէս ԲԿ հիմնաձայնին տօ-ն, եւայլն: In addition, Bishop Zareh Aznaworean (in a discussion with the author held in the early 1980s), mentioned his conviction that the fifth degree in hymns belonging to the ԱՁ mode – usually notated as a d (although f sharp in the Tntesean hymnal, where all ԱՁ hymns are notated in a rather than in the usual g, as we have seen), ought to be sung very slightly sharp – the discussion having been provoked by the author’s noticing that His Grace had pitched that note slightly higher in cassette recordings the he had made available to the author for instructional purposes. And we have already mentioned Tayean’s interesting notation in ԳԿ, whereby he raises the third degree instead of lowering the fourth.

92

Haig Utidjian

we have pointed out, in his hymnal Tntesean sharpens throughout in ԱՁ, and not at all80 in ԱԿ darjuack‘, ԲԿ and ԴՁ ).

Against this hypothesis the argument may be put forward that, though in his hymnal Tntesean, as we have seen, eschews sharpenings of the third degree (c sharp) and thus its function as a leading note in modulatory cadences to the subdominant (d ) in ԲԿ and ԴՁ hymns, nonetheless in most other extant hymnal transcriptions – including those published in Antelias – there are very consistent patterns whereby such sharpenings occur in very particular situations: notably, precisely during such cadences (usually at the ends of stanzas and of incipits), and entailing a stepwise approach from above. Even in the case of ԱՁ hymns, we can find examples in the T‘aščean, Pētēlean and Gprslean hymnals where, despite numerous errors and inconsistencies, a specific pattern may be observed: the second degree (on the note a) is usually sharpened in the opening phrase (the equivalent in Tntesean is a b sharp, since Tntesean notates ԱՁ hymns a tone higher than the others, as we saw above), but a natural is deployed in the answering phrase that follows – as already discussed at the end of section 3.1 above. It is thus difficult to say whether or not such instances of the selective deployment of sharpened notes may indeed constitute a later compromise, in the face of the gradual loss of earlier microtonal practice entailing the slight sharpening of specific degrees throughout a hymn. Finally, it is just possible that in such respects there was no uniformity of practice for the last two centuries, or even longer.

3.2.3 The endings of final stanzasIn his hymnal Tntesean appears completely to eschew the traditional formulae for ending hymns – that is, for the conclusion of the final stanzas of hymns – known as “final endings”. Some hymnals indicate that such standard endings are to be deployed, by dint of discontinuing the musical notation and leaving merely the verbal underlay, assuming that the singer is familiar with those endings and able to fit them onto the final two or three syllables of the hymn (Gprslean being a case in point); others (such as Aznaworean) notate these ending formulae fully, for greater security and uniformity in performance and for the convenience of those ignorant of the formulae. However, we suspect Tntesean’s practice of notating the endings of final stanzas indentically to the endings of previous stanzas, to be the result of a positive decision, motivated by the fact that in virtually all neumatically-notated versions of the canonical hymnal, the endings of the final stanzas do not differ from those of previous

80 However, interestingly enough, in his earlier Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ Tntesean does sharpen the c to c sharp in cadences at the ends of stanzas and of incipits, as we shall see in section 5 in due course.


93

stanzas. Thus, in this, as also in eschewing metrical augmentation associated with the final syllable of each stanza, as we have already seen, Tntesean may perhaps have been seeking to reinstate what he must have considered to be ancient practice attested by the neumatic notation, contrary to what was the practice current in his time (and continues to be in ours). However, we cannot be certain81.

3.3 Unusual tonal variants

Interesting tonal details and peculiarities abound, and are rather intriguing, in that it is clear that these are not mere errors (they appear consistently in all the stanzas of a given hymn), yet consistency is lacking in the sense that they do not necessarily occur in other, comparable hymns or in other versions of the hymnal. For instance, we find that in the Levavi ԴՁ darjuack‘ hymn Nor Siōn cneal (p. 580 of the Tntesean hymnal), the usual f sharp is lacking on the syllable Աս- of Աստուծոյ, as also in other analogous locations:

This is in contrast to Gprslean and Aznaworean (see, for example, p. 627 of the Antelias 1988 Maštoc‘ 82), who deploy an f sharp crotchet in that and all analogous positions, instead of Tntesean’s g, f quavers , continuing with the subsequent quavers e, d – as in Tntesean’s case. Interestingly, here T‘aščean (on p. 42 of his hymnal) too employs an f sharp, but differs from the other redactors in employing an e flat instead of an e over the second syllable of

81 Against such a hypothesis, it would behove us to point out that (1) nowhere in Nkaragir ergoc‘ does he discuss this matter, and (2) in his earlier Bovandakutiwn nuagac‘ his examples do provide these final endings. It is thus possible that in practical performace Tntesean would have expected singers to effect the appropriate modification to achieve the traditional final endings themselves, and thus did not feel it necessary to write them out himself . He thus saved space: the usual ending associated with earlier stanzas is considerably shorter – even more so in the case of hymns with a refrain, where a “dal segno” sign, referring the singer back to a refrain repeated at the end of each stanza, is all that is given – which is even more economical.

82 ՄԱՇՏՈՑ [Euchologion], Antelias 1988; contains an addendum by Archbishop Zareh Aznaworean providing all the hymns in the volume in European notation.

94

Haig Utidjian

հոգ-ւովն and the first syllable of Աս-տու-ծոյ, only to return to e natural immediately afterwards, on the second syllable of Աս-տու-ծոյ:

A further example is the ԴԿ Miserere hymn associated with the Holy Resurrection, Vasǝn meroy p‘rkut‘ean (p. 395). It would seem to belong to the family of ԴԿ darjuack‘ hymns: but (i) instead of b natural, we find b flat, ; yet (ii) instead of e flat, we have e natural, ; and, most unusually of all, (iii) the melody descends to a low c!

An equally interesting example is the set of ԱԿ hymns (p. 100–113) in the Canon for the Second Sunday of Lent, including the Patrum hymn Or yaŕa.k‘an zyawiteans, (p. 110), the Miserere hymn Or ǝzkeank‘ anmaharar and the De caelis hymn Or anmarmnoc‘ hogełinac‘. What is noteworthy here is the consistent use of e flat, instead of the usual e, generally encountered in ԱԿ hymns elsewhere in the Tntesean hymnal, and in ԱԿ hymns in the T‘aščean hymnal (see p. 209–213 for the precise counterparts of the above examples therein) and the Č‘ēřč‘ean hymnal (Vol. 3, p. 40–45). Perhaps even more remarkably, the ԱԿ Patrum hymn (p. 286 of the Tntesean hymnal), Or xonarhec‘ar ančaŕ p‘arac‘, as also the ensuing Miserere (Or verstin norogec‘er, p. 287) and De caelis (Aysōr nor žołovurtk‘, p. 288) hymns within the same canon, are all “mixed”, with each of them employing both and , and in close proximity at that.

There are also surprises in hymns in other modes. We find an extremely rare example of the deployment of g sharp, instead of g in the slow and melismatic (canr) ԳԿ Patrum hymns Ančaŕeli bnut‘iwn (p. 355) and Aysōr patuakan xač‘i k‘o (p. 536) – in both cases, on both syllables of the last word of the refrain, մե-րոց. We are not aware of any parallel in any of the other known Constantinople hymnal; in the equivalent passages, neither T‘aščean (p. 544) nor Č‘ērč‘ean (Vol. 5, p. 88–89) deploy any g sharps, nor are we aware of the practice in connection with any other ԳԿ hymn. However, as we shall see in section 5.2 below, a g sharp similarly features in the “final ending” of the ԳԿ example provided by Tntesean in his Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘. Thus, it is possible that, far from being spurious, the presence of a g sharp in these instances may be a remnant of some earlier practice that was already on the verge of disappearance in Tntesean’s own time.

Finally, the Tntesean hymnal includes a remarkable instance of a ԳԿ darjuack‘ hymn where the customary modality appears to have been adjusted such that instead of the usual b flat we find b natural throughout – resulting in a strangely touching, bitter-sweet effect (the Cantemus hymn for St. Stephen, Nahatak bari, p. 65–66). We have not been able to locate any comparable example in either the T‘aščean or Č‘ērč‘ean hymnals.


95

3.4 Verbal underlay

Tntesean appears to have expended unusual care on the quality of the verbal underlay. In the absence (continuing to the present day) of a critical edition of the verbal text of the Armenian Hymnal, he appears to have had recourse to the work of the distinguished Venetian Father, Gabriēl Awetik‘ean, Bac‘atrut‘iwn šarakanac‘ 83. A telling, but by no means unique, example is the ԴՁ Miserere hymn Or załałak kǝno n aylazgwoy (p. 191 of the Tntesean hymnal), where we find that Tntesean has used the word առընկալեալ (put forward by Awetik‘ean, on p. 189 of his Bac‘atrut‘iwn šarakanac‘ , as being the reading found in all the MS sources at his disposal84), instead of the usual reading առընկալար found in virtually all printed editions of neumatically-notated hymnals – including the Jerusalem/Antelias Portable Hymnal (p. 256) – and reproduced in most musical transcriptions (including the version in T‘aščean, p. 313).

Moreover, the verbal underlay of the Tntesean hymnal is remarkably error-free, with precious few, and very minor, exceptions (one of which will be discussed later, when we come to compare his Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ transcriptions with their counterparts in his hymnal). From a typographical

83 ԱՒԵՏԻՔԵԱՆ, Հայր Գաբրիէլ, Բացատրութիւն շարականաց [Explanation of Hymns], Venice 1814.

84 And, incidentally, also attested by the Matenadaran MS No. 1576 (p. 89b) – copied in Drazark, almost certainly in the year 1328. There is admittedly some uncertainty over the correct date, as, although the colophon mentions the Armenian year չհէ, which does indeed correspond to 1328 AD, the hymnal includs the hymn Arewelk‘ gerarp‘in. The final stanza of the hymn is an acrostic forming the words Kirakos Vardapet (Archimandrite Kirakos), but it is not entirely clear who the Kirakos in question might be. The hymn has been attributed by many – including Tntesean himself in his Nkaragir ergoc‘ (p. 113) – to Kirakos Erznkac‘i, whom Tntesean (as well as others) believed to have lived in the fifteenth century. Thus, one possibility might be that the scribe erroneously wrote չհէ when he meant ջհէ, which would correspond to the year 1528 AD. However, there are also authorities who place the same Kirakos’ life rather earlier: for instance, the Xristoneay Hayastan encyclopedia published in Yerevan in 2002 considers the date of his death to be 1356 (p. 490), largely on the basis of an excellent article by Srapean (ՍՐԱՊԵԱՆ, Ա. Ն., “Բանասիրական ճշգրտումներ [Philological corrections]”, in: Պատմա-բանասիրական Հանդէս, Yerevan 1972–4, p. 137–145). Nevertheless, Pōłos Xač‘atrean in his Ganjaran (ԳԱՆՁԱՐԱՆ ՀԱՅ ՀԻՆ ԲԱՆԱՍՏԵՂԾՈՒԹԵԱՆ [Treasury of ancient Armenian poetry], աշխ. Խաչատրեան, Պօղոս, Yerevan, 2000, p. 236 and p. 899) favours instead the attribution of this hymn to Kirakos T‘argmanič‘ (otherwise known as Arewelc‘i), who died in 1127. If this attribution is right, or else, if Srapean’s dating concerning Kirakos Erznkac‘i’s death is correct, then the age of the MS need not be doubted. For the time being, therefore, we see no overwhelming reason to doubt the colophon.

96

Haig Utidjian

point of view also, the hymnal is a publication of high quality. There are only two, very minor disadvantages, from a practical point of view: sometimes a melisma on the same syllable is allowed to continue from one line or even page to the next; and there are no hyphens between successive syllables of the same word – had they been deployed, the absence of a hyphen between successive syllables would in itself denote, at a glance, where one word finishes and the next starts, and thus help the performer to grasp the text immediately, and conduce to rapid decision-making as to the most appropriate places in which to take breath.

3.5 Melodic variants unattested elsewhere

Some particularly interesting and beautiful melodic variants may be found in the Tntesean hymnal. One example is the hauntingly beautiful penitential ԲԿ Miserere hymn Yamenayn žam ałač‘ank‘ im ays en, page 141 of the hymnal, reproduced below. Gprslean does not include hymns of penitence in his hymnal at all, whilst Č‘ērč‘ean, who does, has excluded this hymn; and the version found in the T‘aščean hymnal (p. 248) is, in our view, rather banal and contrived, in comparison to Tntesean’s melody, exquisite in its simplicity:

Other jewels abound. Two examples will suffice here – the ԴԿ penitential Miserere hymn Tēr or i mē lerinn (p. 208–209), and the Christmas Day Cantemus ԴԿ, Xorhurd mec ew sk‘anč‘eli (p. 7). These are all variants that are significantly different from other extant versions.

There are also some instances where other extant versions are unconvincing or flawed, and Tntesean provides a more acceptable alternative. One such


97

instance is the ԲԿ Patrum for the Third Sunday of Lent, where the versions given in T‘aščean (p. 232–233) or in the Antelias hymnal (Vol. 1, p. 36–38) display a very odd and somewhat unconvincing figure that first appears in the opera stanza and also immedately precedes the refrain at the end of the ensuing stanzas, thus occurring a total of four times, over the final syllables85 of the words օրհ-նե-ցէք, օրհ-նե-ցէք, դա-դա-րե-ցոյց and մե-ղաց, respectively:

The Tntesean version (p. 129) has the rather more convincing figure:

3.6 “Angularity” and syncopation

As Kerovpyan comments, most singers who know the Tntesean hymnal think the transcriptions therein to be “on the drier side”, and though its melodies are for the most part similar to those found in other known hymnals, Tntesean’s are slightly sparer86. However, if Tntesean has favoured a slightly “gaunter” approach (influenced, perhaps, by his desire to simplify, or find “roots” common to variants at his disposal), the effect is heightened by the fact that there are, from time to time, unusual effects of syncopation (corresponding, of course,

85 Consider first the T‘aščean version. The melisma is decidedly rather odd, not least its second and third beats: two semiquavers and a quaver, followed by two quavers – with an implied stress on the penultimate c resolving into a final, unstressed d, in turndissolving, as it were, into the unsettled silence of the ensuing crotchet rest. Further, the Antelias version is, in effect, a transcription of the T‘aščean edition but with the note values doubled, although T‘aščean’s crotchet rest has not been doubled to a minim, with the consequence that the syllable in question now has seven beats associated with it (which renders the passage even more unsettling).

86 Cependant, la plupart des chantres qui connaissent cette collection pensent que les transcriptions sont «un peu sèches». La grande majorité des mélodies sont similaires à celles des autres versions connues, mais on y rencontre un peu moins d’ornements (Kerovpyan, op. cit. Chapter 11, p. 261).

98

Haig Utidjian

to the metrical durations of the neumes) that are rendered all the more prominent by Tntesean’s disinclination to “mask” their effect through the use of auxiliary notes as “padding”.

One instance of a slightly odd turn of phrase entailing a syncopated effect unmitigated in any way – and which is slightly reminiscent of the Venetian style (as exemplified from time to time by the Bianchini and Tayean volumes), occurs in the ԴՁ De caelis of the Canon for Joachim and Anna, T‘agawor p‘aŕac‘ Astuac‘ (p. 585 of the Tntesean hymnal):

This fragment is sung to the word կեն-դա-նա-րար in the first stanza. Now Tntesean could have rendered the melody smoother and more in conformity with the expectations given rise to by, say, currently popular versions of the hymnal, by having two crotchets, c and d, instead of the minim c, and instead of the subsequent crotchet b natural, two quavers, c and b natural, respectively. T‘aščean (p. 48) has smoothed out the syncopation by a slightly more florid use of quaver movement.

Incidentally, this last hymn affords an instance of incompletely notated items in the Tntesean Hymnal. Thus, either Tntesean or the posthumous editor have refrained from writing the melody of the second and third stanzas; rather, they have merely given the verbal text of those stanzas, adding a erkar over those syllables where two beats should be sung. Note that Tntesean’s erkars here need not necessarily correspond to the neume erkar, but merely denote a duration of two beats87. We shall later return to this hymn and to the manner in which such incompletely worked out stanzas may be completed. We shall find that not always is the task a trivial one, and indeed that, more often than not, there is no unique solution.

Other instances of “angularity” may be readily identified, and are sometimes associated with Tntesean’s tendency to employ opening formulae

87 In the event, rather surprisingly, the “long” syllable in this sequence is represented by a xunč, ordinarily taken to represent a single beat’s duration. Moreover, the analogous syllables over the next two stanzas are: հօր եւ որդ-ւոյ in the second, and սուրբ Ա-ստու-ծոյ in the third stanza, and upon inspecting the Portable Hymnal (p. 22) we find that the “long” syllables in the above fragments all bear a xunč – with the complete sequence of syllables respectively bearing the following: p‘uš, xunč, no neume, and but‘. The very same sequence is found in the Amsterdam 1665 hymnal (p. 16), the Constantinople (Ōrt‘agiwł ) 1834 hymnal (p. 10), and the Matenadaran MS No. 1576 (p. 9a), and so the xunč cannot be dismissed as spurious. Yet nor would Tntesean appear to be in error – he has consistently intepreted the syllable to be a “long” one, and, as we have seen, so has T‘aščean. We are unable to offer a satisfactory explanation for this.


99

not encountered elsewhere. A rather striking example is a family of ԳՁ hymns88 that commence on a b flat – such as P‘ayt kenac‘ (where in fact the b flat is a minim). This feature would seem to be almost entirely unique to the Tntesean hymnal, with all other versions known to us starting on an a or on a d, and very occasionally on a g89; and had Tntesean so wished, it could have been easily avoided, by replacing the minim b flat with a crotchet a followed by a crotchet b flat. Naturally, such melodic “angularity” can sound rather refreshing in practice, and is partly responsible for the unique charm of many of Tntesean’s versions.

3.7 Instances of “cross-infection” between hymns of different modes

We have found the Tntesean hymnal to contain a number of ԱԿ darjuack‘ hymns that include a particular turn of phrase very similar to that found in certain ԲԿ hymns: an example of the former is the De caelis hymn Sk‘anč‘eli hreštakn teaŕn (p. 296), whilst an example of the latter is the well-known Pueri hymn Ov eranelid (p. 769)90. This is immediately noticeable if we juxtapose the melody of the former over the words իջեալ ի գերեզմանըն հարկանէր, with the latter over (ըն)կալար ի քրիստոսէ ըզթագ պարծանաց; particularly, the respective last words: harkanēr of the first with parcanac‘ of the second. In both cases we notice a descent to a low note that is a perfect fourth lower than the principal tonal axis (thus, in the ԱԿ darjuack‘ example, where the principal tonal axis is an a, the melody drops to an e; whilst in the ԲԿ example, where the axis is a d, it drops to an a). Interestingly enough, such a parallel between the two melodic fragments cannot be corroborated upon inspecting the neumatic notation associated with the respective passages (see Portable Hymnal, p. 404 and p. 109–110, respectively – where it may be seen that the neumes over the corresponding syllables are, in fact, completely different).

88 Our use of the word “family” here notwithistanding, at least on a cursory inspection, we are unable to find any discernible special correspondence with the neumatic notation associated with such beginnings.

89 Hitherto, we have succeeded in finding only one instance in another hymnal of a b flat minim beginning: it is found on p. 206 of the Gprslean hymnal (Vol. 1), on the first syllable – Սուրբ – of the Patrum hymn from the Canon of St. Jacob of Nisibis, Surb es tēr ew i surbǝs hanguc‘eal. In contrast, the Tntesean version of the hymn (p. 626) happens to start on a d.

90 We shall later have occasion to encounter another example, Or xonarhec‘ar (p. 178) in connection with our comparisons between the examples found in the 1864 Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ and their counterparts in the Tntesean hymnal.

100

Haig Utidjian

The Tntesean hymnal includes a very unusual instance of a ԲԿ darjuack‘ hymn – namely Amenayn ararack‘ (p. 148). In Nkaragir ergoc‘ (p. 72) Tntesean does refer to this hymn, which he considers an anomaly (zartułut‘iwn), but it is indeed marked as ԲԿ darjuack‘ in his hymnal. The melody of this ostensible ԲԿ darjuack‘ is in fact very similar indeed to hymns in the ԲՁ darjuack‘ mode. In this connection, it is interesting to note that Tntesean does not include any example of any hymn in ԲԿ darjuack‘ mode in his Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ (which is otherwise painstaking in its attempt to document all known modes), and nor is the existence of ԲԿ darjuack‘ acknowledged in T‘aščean’s textbook, although T‘aščean’s hymnal does include this hymn (p. 256) and in a version rather similar to that found in the Tntesean hymnal at that – and thus again redolent of the ԲՁ darjuack‘ mode.

Another comparable instance is the rather unusual ԴՁ Candlemas Patrum, Ōrhnemk‘ ǝzkez or aŕak‘ec‘er, found on p. 57–58 of the Tntesean hymnal. In particular, the last two stanzas – Tiwk‘ ew gišerk‘ and Israyēl ǝztēr, respectively, feature rather characteristic ascending fourths, within a modality that is highly reminiscent of ԴՁ darjuack‘. It is interesting to note that, in this instance too, T‘aščean’s hymnal has a very similar version.

Indeed, the phenomenon of “modal cross-infection” is not unique to the Tntesean hymnal. Modes appear to “infect” each other in other traditions also. A rather striking example of an ԱԿ darjuack‘ ending unexpectedly “grafted” at the end of stanzas of a ԲԿ hymn is encountered in the 1988 Antelias maštoc‘ (referred to above), where the ending of the first two stanzas of the ԲԿ baptismal hymn Errordut‘iwn anbažaneli (p. 617–618) is precisely that expected of ԱԿ darjuack‘ hymns.91 In the case of this particular hymn, the Tntesean hymnal (p. 416–417) more or less avoids deviating into ԱԿ darjuack‘, whilst the T‘aščean version may be said to be very near the borderline (p. 622).92

91 Of course it has to be remembered that the version found in the Tntesean hymnal is for use as a Levavi hymn, as part of the Canon for the First day of Pentecost, and is a particularly melismatic and rather beautiful specimen; whereas that found in the Antelias euchologion is rather more syllabic, and intended for somewhat more routine use during the baptismal ritual, and may well have been derived and adapted from T‘aščean’s (also rather melismatic) version.

92 A further, well-known example of confusion between modes is the “E miacin Surb es tēr”, usually described as ԱԿ, though it sounds more like ԴՁ darjuack‘ – although the official modality is ԱՁ, and the standard version firmly belongs to that mode. The E miacin Surb es tēr is still sometimes heard; one version is that transcribed and harmonised by Komitas (p. 122 in Vol. 8 of his Collected Works: ԿՈՄԻՏԱՍ, Երկերի Ժողովածու [Collected works], Ը. հատոր, Yerevan 1998), where it is perhaps significant that Komitas merely calls the melody E miacni ełanak, without any ԱԿ designation.


101

3.8 Terminology for tempo indications

It should be noted that Tntesean’s tempo designations (which often serve as signifiers of degree of melismaticity, rather than mere indicators of speed of execution) differ from those used by T‘aščean or found in more recent hymnals such as those by Gprslean or Aznaworean. Thus, in descending degree of melismaticity, or increasing tempo, Tntesean has: Ծանր – Միջակ – Չափաւոր – Յորդոր, whereas the others have: Ծանր – Չափաւոր – Միջակ – Յորդոր, and thus the relative significance of Միջակ and Չափաւոր is reversed as we proceed from the Tntesean hymnal to the others. It is also worth noting that, although Յորդոր indicates the fastest tempo, in practice there is little distinction in degree of melismaticity between hymns bearing this tempo designation and many of those subtitled Չափաւոր.

3.9 The organisation and ordering of the hymnal

As pointed out in the preface by Lewon Tntesean, the hymnal does not follow the usual arrangement of most Šarakan Jeŕac‘ (Portable Hymnal) publications. Amongst the most prominent changes may be included the fact that the Canon for Christmas Eve has been placed at the very beginning of the hymnal, instead of the usual Canon for the Birth of the Holy Mother-of-God and of her parents Joachim and Anna, which is placed a good deal later; and also the fact that most stełi hymns of the ԴԿ – IVP mode are placed together, at the very end of the Hymnal (although this is a feature shared by the Č‘ērč‘ean 1885 hymnal). However, it is not entirely clear to what extent Tntesean himself, as opposed to Fr. Psak, his posthumous editor, might be responsible for the hymnal’s peculiar organisation. A thorough comparison of the organisation of the Tntesean hymnal with other versions (including the T‘aščean and Č‘ērčean hymnals, the Amsterdam publication by Archimandrite Oskan and the Jerusalem Portable Pymnal, as well as particular MSS) from this point of view would be of considerable interest, but falls outside the scope of the present study.

3.10 Items missing from the Tntesean hymnal

It should be added that, unlike certain other hymnals (such as the Antelias and T‘aščean hymnals), Tntesean’s hymnal does not include any of the incipits and doxologies required in conjunction with the hymns for liturgical performance – no doubt as it was assumed that they would be well known to the potential users of the volume. Thus, an interesting challenge would be

102

Haig Utidjian

to provide these items for the behoof of modern users; this is no trivial matter, and would at the very least entail appropriately modifying the generally known versions, with a view to achieving stylistic consistency and compatibility precisely with the metrical and tonal peculiarities of the endings of hymn stanzas that have been discussed above. We also saw (in section 3.2.3 above) that “final” endings (that is, the endings of the final stanzas of hymns) have been eschewed in the Tntesean hymnal – athough, as we shall see in section 5.2 below, these may be found in his Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘.

There are, however, two further deficiencies. First, particular hymns are altogether missing from the hymnal. In one instance (the highly-melismatic ԳԿ Levavi hymn, Aysōr erewumn), the user is referred to a particular section of the hymnal, only to find that the hymn in question has been omitted (in error).93 Other hymns have been tacitly omitted – such as, for instance, the lovely and again highly melismatic hymn (nominally ԲՁ, but in fact transcending the bounds of that mode) Zarmanali e inj. Tntesean knew these hymns and their melodies well, and refers to both in Nkaragir ergoc‘ (p. 7494 and 7295, respectively, in the course of his discussions of special hymns belonging to the ԲՁ and ԳԿ modes). Other missing hymns are the ԴԿ hymn Arewelk‘ gerarp‘i and ԲՁ Xotačarakac‘ hymn, Yawurs ver in. Fortunately, both these late additions to the Armenian Hymnal have regular meter, belong to families of simple melody types (see Portable Hymnal, p. 993 and p. 741, respectively) and their omission may be easily remedied by having recourse to other, similar hymns. However, the omission of the third stanza of the ԳԿ De caelis hymn Aŕeal ew mer (commencing with the words Surb Astuac) is particularly regrettable, since, judging from the earlier stanzas, Tntesean’s version was quite distinct from that of T‘aščean; and the hymn itself forms a lovely sequel (kc‘ord) to the preceding De caelis hymn, Zk‘o yarut‘iwnd (both as part of the Canon, and whilst employed as a processional hymn in the Divine Liturgy), with an exquisite alternation between the main ԳԿ mode and its darjuack‘ version (p. 360 in the Tntesean hymnal). Clearly, neither this stanza, nor an item such as Aysōr erewumn could possibly have been excluded intentionally. Moreover, we have already seen (in section 2.1 above) that Tntesean’s son Lewon goes so far as to claim in his preface to the hymnal that his father’s manuscript was chosen by the Patriarchal Musical Committee on the grounds that it alone was complete96. It is thus very likely that these hymns were omitted from the 1934 publication

93 See p. 565: Համբարձի ԳԿ. «Այսօր երեւումն». տես ի վերջոյ ըստ ցուցակի ի շարս յատուկ շարականաց:

94 Իսկ Այսօր երեւումն երգը առանձին ձեւ մը ունի:95 Կան երեք երգեր ալ որք իրենց համար յատուկ եղանակ ունին, որք են

Զարմանալի է ինձ ...96 … քանի որ ներկայացուած ձեռագիրներուն մէջ միակ ամբողջական եւ

կատարեալ աշխատութիւնը Եղիա Տնտեսեանի ձայնագրածն էր,


103

in error, whilst in some cases it is also possible (albeit less probable) that certain items were lost or destroyed, or even that fair copies of certain items were never completed, due to Tntesean’s incarceration and premature demise.

The second deficiency concerns the all too substantial number of hymns which are incompletely notated: in some cases only the first stanza and parts of subsequent stanzas, often the first stanza alone, or even merely part of the first stanza, may be notated. Worst of all, there are hymns which are entirely without melody. Wherever the Limōnčean notation has been omitted, the verbal text alone is provided, but with the addition of a erkar on such syllables over which more than a single beat should be spent (irrespective of the precise nature of the neume or neumes that may have been originally present).

Of course, filling such gaps would have been easier for the fluent practitioners of the time than for us, and also incipits and doxologies would have been known by heart. But this fact serves to underline the importance of completing the Tntesean hymnal, thereby rendering it suitable for litrugical use even in less expert circles than those in the Constantinople in Tntesean’s or his son’s time. We shall return to the problem of the completion of the Tntesean hymnal in section 7 below. Much of the work documented in this paper is devoted towards gaining fuller understanding of Tntesean’s own procedures; one benefit accruing from such an endeavour is its undoubted value in helping us approach the ultimate objective of completing the hymnal as seamlessly and idiomatically as possible.

4. tnteseAn’s procedures As professed in Nkaragir ergoc‘

We shall now endavour to gain an understanding of Tntesean’s convictions and theoretical beliefs as expressed in his musicological writings. Later (in section 6 below) we shall compare these writings with the evidence of his musical transcriptions and realisations themselves, to establish the extent to which these beliefs may have informed his hymnal. There is no reason to doubt his sincerity; but the documentation is incomplete – there being a chronological gap exceeding half a century between his own publication of Nkaragir ergoc‘ and the posthumous publication of his hymnal. Tntesean, after all, though well ahead of his time, firmly belonged to the pre-Komitas generation97, and

հետեւաբար Յանձնաժողովը իւրացնելով այդ ծրագիրը կը լծուի իրական աշխատութեան...

97 Although he did anticipate Komitas, in both senses of the word; in retrospect, his words (Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 61) have the ring of an authentic prophecy: ... եւ թերեւս

104

Haig Utidjian

the hitherto gradual evolution in tastes, perceptions and performance practice dramatically accelerated around the turn of the century98. Finally, Tntesean wrote in a vibrant musical environment: liturgical music was alive and well, hymns were sung on a daily basis, and his writings would have been understood within the context of a living tradition. There is thus much that Tntesean could have taken for granted in his readership then, but which is lacking in us his unworthy heirs, working as we must as musical archeologists in the chillingly silent aftermath of that rich and vibrant tradition. We are thus virtually dependent on every word that he wrote, and must attempt to derive the fullest information from a reading of his texts, as well as cautiously reading between the lines where appropriate, whilst guarding against the danger of undue extrapolation.

Finally, we stress that our aim here is neither to assess whether or not Tntesean was right in his convictions and conclusions, nor to appraise his theoretical contributions per se, which in any case extend to far beyond that which we shall discuss in this paper. Rather, we shall endeavour to understand what he believed, so that we may then assess how it affected his hymnal melodies.

4.1 The search for simplicity and a common “root”

Tntesean repeatedly refers to his efforts to “simplify” variants transcribed, in a bid to arrive at a “common root“ to various melodic variants. How this exactly translated into practice remains unclear, so we shall focus on each of his statements individually.

First, in his introduction (reproduced in Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 9) to his Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘, he mentions that, in comparison to his earlier transcriptions undertaken with Gabriēl Eranean, the current transcriptions have been rendered “in a simpler form, as roots” (aweli parz kerpiw, ibr armat )99. This would seem to suggest that some retrospective redaction was carried out on already notated melodies. Tntesean proceeds to mention within the same article, albeit in a slightly contradictory manner: “We have kept invariant those melodies of the present day that are uniformly sung everywhere with

օր մը գտնուի հանճար մը՝ որ ազգային երաժշտութեան նոր ոգի եւ կենդանութիւն տայ ...

98 We hope to provide a discussion of this fascinating issue in a sequel to the present work.

99 ... եւ մեր արդէն գրածներէն աւելի պարզ կերպիւ՝ իբր արմատ.


105

little difference from each other, converting them to their simple state”100. It would thus seem that one element of the simplification referred to entailed the removal of embellishments and such inessential (passing or auxiliary) notes as might have constituted (or at least contributed to) the minor differences between these otherwise fundamentally congruent melodies.

A public challenge by T‘aščean (who reacted to the publication of Tntesean’s Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ with a letter to the journal Zamanak) soon led to a clarification (with both letters reproduced in Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 14). Tntesean mentioned that often the same hymn was sung to such diverse melodies that the result was a veritable tower of babel; in those circumstances he was obliged “to choose the most plausible and simplest version”, and collate the result with versions sung by “experts”, further versions recorded in the Limōnčean notation, the “neumatic notation of choice hymnals”, as well as melodies sung in “Armenia”. Ambiguities or deficiences found in one could then be made good by dint of referring to another101. Thus, the changes he had allegedly perpetrated concerned particular points of uncertainty, and had been purposely effected with a view to revealing as clearly as possible “the essential constitution of the chants as roots”102.

A slightly later retrospective assessment of the procedures used in connection with his Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ followed, in Tntesean’s lengthiest article of all (primarily devoted to neumatology). Here (p. 36 of Nkaragir ergoc‘ ) Tntesean

100 Նախ՝ այժմեան եղանակները որք ամենուրեք միօրինակ կ‘երգուին իրարմէ քիչ տարբերութեամբ, իրենց պարզ վիճակին վերածելով անփոփոխ պահեցինք:

101 It is perhaps no coincidence that Tntesean’s description so far is highly reminiscent of the colophon (p. 423) to an edition of the Armenian Maštoc‘ (or Euchologion) published in Constantinople in 1807; it too explained editorial procedure, referring to the work that had gone into the collation of diverse sources, and to the practice of making use of one source to correct or complete another, and the removal of that which was deemed to be inessential (though without specifying the sources or detailing the textual interventions). It thus appears that Armenian musicology had now reached roughly the same point that Armenian philology had attained half a century earlier.

102 ... այսօրուան օրս ամէն շարականագէտ ա՛յնչափ տարբեր կ‘երգեն իրարմէ, որ ստիպուեցանք այս բաբիլոնեան դաշնակին մէջէն ամենէն հաւանականը, պարզը ընդունելով, հմուտ անձանց շատերուն երգեցմունքին, հայերէն խազերով զանազան օրինակներու, ընտիր շարականաց խազերուն, եւ Հայաստանի եղանակներու հետ բաղդատել, եւ միոյն մէջ եղած երկբայութիւնը միւսով լրացընելէ զկնի, հմտագունից դիտողութեանը յանձնել իբր կարծիք քան թէ վճիռ: Հետեւաբար մեր կարծեցեալ փոփոխութիւնքը ա՛յնպիսի անորոշ կէտեր էին, զորս դիտմամբ ըրած էինք՝ երգոց էական կազմութիւնը իբր արմատ աւելի պարզ ցուցընելու համար.

106

Haig Utidjian

additionally referred to the necessity to “convert” melodies “to their simple form”, in view of the “difficulty of reconciling the particular differences” of the melodies103. It would seem, therefore, that his transcriptions entailed a sort of convergence, arrived at through reduction to a “simpler” form intended to serve as a common solution.

Now in view of the fact that (as we shall see in sections 5.4 and 5.5 below) the melodies in Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ are replete with grace notes – considerably more so than the melodies found in the Tntesean hymnal itself, it would seem that the “simplification” undertaken by Tntesean in connection with Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ was not a matter of removing grace notes, but a rather more sophisticated procedure. In the absence of sketch-books, or access to the sources that Tntesean had at his disposal104, we may do no more than reasonably speculate that Tntesean strove to establish a certain “skeleton” version common to the various competing variants, which he may well have partly “fleshed” out, adopting various features from the various variants. Such a procedure would have been possible only if the variants utilised had sufficient common ground; and of course, the closer the variants to each other, the more readily “reconcilable” they would be – and then perhaps the selective removal of auxiliary notes would suffice.

Though all the above references concern the transcriptions in Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘, we have grounds for believing that a similar approach informed the compilation of the hymnal, and that, again, the melodes therein are a sort

103 ... միայն եղանակաց մասնաւոր տարբերութիւնքը համաձայնեցընելու դժուարութիւնը տեսնելով՝ զանոնք իրենց պարզ ձեւին վերածել ստիպուեցանք:

104 It would now be very difficult to gain access to the melodies that Tntesean may have had at his disposal. Some limited progress might be possible, were it to prove possible to gain access to, and thus analyse, as many of the versions in circulation in Constantinople in the third quarter of the nineteenth century as we can (by gathering all extant versions notated in Limōnčean notation), and then comparing these to the versions that were published in Tntesean’s hymnal. The situation is, of course, complicated by the fact that Tntesean mentions that he had also heard, and taken account of, versions he had heard in “Armenia” (which, in this context, may refer to the Anatolian provinces, or indeed to Eastern Armenia – that is the portions of Armenia under Russian and Persian rule) and in Jerusalem; it is, alas, difficult to see how we may at this time gain access to the versions Tntesean heard outside Constantinople, as, almost certainly, anything that was not recorded on paper has been irreversibly consigned to oblivion; and little has been preserved other than the Constantinople-based hymnals (which certainly include the T‘aščean and Č‘ērč‘ean hymnals, and in a certain sense Bianchini’s and Tayean’s Venetian transcriptions also) and Amy Apcar’s Calcutta volumes (which are primarily devoted to the Missal but do include a limited number of canonical hymns).


107

of distillation of several variants – though now sparer still (as our detailed comparisons of section 5.4 will serve to demonstrate), being shorn of a high proportion of the grace-notes appearing in Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ (although a number did remain). We would like to propose that this might well partly account for the slight impression of bareness or of angularity that some of the Tntesean melodies give.

Finally, the question arises – how did Tntesean proceed when facing variants that were so different as to be mutually incompatible? The answer may be found in one of the later articles in Nkaragir ergoc‘, and now devoted unequivocally to the hymnal. With disarming simplicity, he states that in such instances he chose “the most suitable”105 (p. 103) – where, of course, suitability must have been determined by criteria compatible with those under discussion in the present section.

Nevertheless, Tntesean’s “simplification” may have involved yet another element, namely that of the reduction of more melismatic melodies to less melismatic versions – to which we now turn.

4.2 Melismaticity proportionate to density of neumes

It appears that Tntesean’s hymnal aimed to present less melismatic versions of certain hymns than was perhaps fashionable, in view of his wish to remain (at least in some limited sense) close to the neumatically-notated sources. There is some evidence to suggest that in some cases his professed wish to achieve a “simplification“ of melodies may refer to just such a practice. His posthumous editor, Fr. Psak Step‘anean, is more explicit about this tendency in the preface to the Tntesean Hymnal, citing as he does the example of two particular ԲՁ hymns attributed to St. Nersēs the Gracious – Or ǝzxorhurd and Noyn ew nman, which were metrically and neumatically identical, but one of which it had now become common to sing considerably more melismatically than in the past; in the hymnal both hymns are realised in similarly syllabic versions. Fr. Psak also refers to the comparatively recent practice of devising more melismatic versions, particularly of De caelis hymns, which could be pressed into service as processional hymns during the Divine Liturgy106. Fr. Psak is supported

105 Իրարմէ տարբեր երգուածներուն յարմարագոյնն ընտրեցինք:106 It is interesting that Fr. Psak appears convinced that the practice is recent, and

attributes it to musicians adept at the Limōnčean notational system (jaynagragēt): ... սակայն վերջերս հետզհետէ կարգ մը ձայնագրագէտ Երաժիշտներ օրուան տօնին հանդիսութեան փայլ մը տալու նպատակաւ՝ զանոնք ծանրացուցած են իրենց խազերուն կրկին չափերովը ձայնագրելով, ինչպէս կարգ մը «Տէր յերկնից» շարականներ թափօրի համար:

108

Haig Utidjian

byHisarlean (who credits Aristakēs Yovhannisean with this very practice, even naming particular hymns the latter re-composed for processional use107), as also by the 1811 Kondak (or Patriarchal Bull) cited by Tntesean in Nkaragir ergoc‘ (p. 129), wherein the Patriarch urges Clerks (dpirs) to modify their chants in a manner appropriate to the occasion, rendering the hymns in a “moderate or fast recitation on ferial days”, but on “festal occasions singing out loud” and employing “melismatic melodies” (barjr ew canr ełanakelov)108. Indeed, elsewhere in Nkaragir ergoc‘ (p. 58), whilst discussing “disorder” in church singing, Tntesean criticizes the very practice of singing the same hymn on different occasions in versions of different degrees of melismaticity109.

It is not clear if in general Tntesean devised less melismatic versions himself, and if he did so, whether he devised suitable melodies directly, or rather by dint of a process of reduction from more melismatic versions; or indeed whether he managed to collect and transcribe such versions still in existence from the more distant past. Whichever the case, Tntesean appears tacitly to have given precedence to hymns of a medium degree of melismaticity in many cases where, for instance, T‘aščean’s and Č‘ērč‘ean’s versions are more melismaic.

Nevertheless, the Tntesean Hymnal would have been impoverished indeed had it been entirely devoid of melismatic hymns. It does include a substantial number of some traditionally elaborate hymns (including a good many Patrum hymns, many stełi hymns, as well as others); and in many cases his versions are incommensurately more melismatic than would appear to be implied by the neumatic notation (as we shall see in section 6.7 below). Yet, judging both from his writings in Nkaragir ergoc‘ (see, for instance, his discussion on stełi hymns on p. 28 therein) and from his realisations in the hymnal, even in such instances he appears to have kept an eye on the durational proportions associated with the neumes, eager to maintain at least some relative, if not absolute, correspondence with the neumatically-notated sources at his disposal (and this despite his inability to work out the precise metrical implications associated with complex combinations of neumes). We now therefore turn our attention to his work on the durational values of neumes.

107 Hisarlean, op. cit. p. 83108 Ամենայն ժամերգութիւն պարտին ըստ պատուոյ աւուրն եւ ըստ

վայելչութեան բանին երգել. այսինքն ի հասարակ աւուրս միջակ ձայնիւ յորդոր ասացուածքով, յապաշխարութեան աւուրս պահոց՝ ողորմագին մեղմ եղանակաւ, եւ յերեւելի աւուրս՝ բարձր եւ ծանր եղանակելով ...

109 ... երգերու գործածութեան մասին եկեղեցւոյ մէջ ալ քանի մը անկանոնութիւններ կան. զոր օրինակ, երգի մը՝ մի եւ նոյն ատեն երբեմն ծանր եւ երբեմն յորդոր երգելու ստիպումը՝ որով երգերու դաշնակը ի հիմանց կը քանդի.


109

4.3 Adherence to metrical durations associated with neumes

Applying some highly ingenious reasoning110 to exploit the rather special metrical structure of the early hymn Anjink‘ nuirealk‘111, as well as observing what was common practice around him (Tntesean refers to consistency in “5/6ths” of all cases, provided that the most melismatic hymns be excluded from consideration112), Tntesean succeeded in plausibly demonstrating that neumes had particular time durations associated with them113 – notwithstanding the fact that the neumes could otherwise not be understood at all.

110 See, particularly, p. 23–24 of Nkaragir ergoc‘.111 The composition of this hymn is associated with the Catholicos Komitas, and

the dedication of the newly-built church of the Holy Hŕip‘simean Virgins, of which the construction was completed in 618. The hymn is unusual for its time – it is an acrostic and also has a regular (6–6) meter, which is surprising in the light of the Laodicean Council’s prohibition (in 360) of such poetry for church use. As Archimandrite Zareh Aznaworean pointed out in a lecture attended by the author in October 1981 (see ԱԶՆԱՒՈՐԵԱՆ, Արք., “Հայ եկեղեցական երգին ծագումն ու զարգացումը[The origin and development of Armenian ecclesiastical chant]”, in: ԱԶՆԱՒՈՐԵԱՆ, Զարեհ Արք. (աշխ. Վարուժան Արք. Հերկելեան), Հայ Եկեղեցին 20-րդ դարուն եւ 21–րդ դարու շէմին[The Armenian church in the twentieth century and at the threshold of the twenty-first century], Nicosia 2005, p. 163–181, especially p. 171), it is interesting that it took a Catholicos to break this prohibition in the seventh century, much as it took another Catholicos (namely St. Nersēs the Gracious) to do so in the twelfth century (and on a much larger scale): Հետաքրքրական է նշել, որ այդ կանոնին առաջին դէմ գացողը կաթողիկոս մըն է, բան մը՝ որ յետոյ աւելի մեծ չափով պիտի ընէր ուրիշ կաթողիկոս մը՝ Ներսէս Շնորհալին: Nonetheless, some rare examples can be found of further hymns – of uncertain age but possibly dating back to the earliest Armenian hymnal compilations associated with Saints Mesrop and Sahak in the early fifth century – which possess regular meter (one example being the Penitential Miserere hymn Alik‘ yanjanaj imoc‘ – see p. 292 of the Portable Hymnal).

112 See Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 28: Մինչեւ հոս տեսնուած կանոններն արդի սովորութեան մէջ այնչափ հիմնական են որոց կը համաձայնին Շարականի երգոց 5/6 մասը, ի բաց առնելով Ստեղիները եւ ծանր երգերը.

113 The argument, though highly plausible, is not entirely watertight, in our view, for various reasons. Amongst other things, an a priori belief in Tntesean’s time (or immediately before) that certain neumes were “long” and others “short” may itself quite possibly have affected the melodies that were sung for some time, and might thus have proved to be self-fulfilling. The argument that Tntesean’s theory was largely supported by current practice may, therefore, have entailed a certain degree of circularity. Tntesean’s conclusions fit less well with some of

110

Haig Utidjian

Thus, he was convinced that the presence of any one of a certain category

Amy Apcar’s transcriptions, believed to be of greater antiquity than many of the Constantinople variants (though, tantalisingly, in many cases they do fit, whilst in others a pattern does emerge, albeit one that is more complex than the scheme proposed by Tntesean – as we shall later, as part of our discussion when comparing the version of the Pentecostal hymn Aŕak‘eloy aławnoy found in Tntesean’s Bovandakut‘win nuagac‘ with its counterpart in the Tntesean hymnal) or with the surviving fragments of Archimadrite Komitas’ notes and attempted decipherments unearthed by Art‘ur Šahnazarean (see ՇԱՀՆԱԶԱՐԵԱՆ, Ա. Մ., Խազերի Կոմիտասեան վերծանութեան յայտնութիւնը [The revelation of Komitas’ decipherment of the neumes],Yerevan 2001: p. 311, where a erkar is associated with a duration of three beats; and p. 315, where a erkar – or possibly xosrovayin (?) – is associated with a six-beat melisma, and a t‘ur variously with two beats and three beats). Incidentally, the extant melody of the hymn Anjink‘ nuirealk‘ was believed by Yarut‘iwn Mkrtič‘ean to be Greek in origin (see ՄԿՐՏԻՉԵԱՆ, Յարութիւն, “Շարականախօսութիւն [Hymnology]”, in: Լոյս, Եկեղեցագիտական Շաբաթաթերթ [Loys, ecclesiological weekly], Constantinople 1905–1906, reprinted Antelias 1987 as a compilation in two volumes, Vol. 1, p. 1003): Գալով Անձինքի եղանակին, զոր դկ. ձայն եղանակի դարձուածք կ‘նկատենք, եւ որմէ շատ քիչ բան ունի Շարակնոցը, յայտնապէս յունական է: Յոյն եկեղ. երաժշտութեան մէջ մասնաւոր տեղ մ‘ունի այս կանոնը եւ երբ նկատողութեան առնենք Աւագ Եշ. գիշեր Յոյն եկեղեցիներու մէջ երգուած ներբողեան երգը («Hē zōē en taphō katethēs Christe kai Angelōn», եւայլն), կրնանք վստահաբար ըսել՝ թէ Կոմիտաս Կաթողիկոս իր Անձինքը քերթած եւ կաղապարած է այս կամ անոր նման եղանակի մը վրայ: Արդէն յոյներ կ‘հաւաստեն թէ շատ հին է այս եղանակը: Nonetheless, Tntesean’s argument does not entirely rely on the validity, antiquity, or indigenous nature or otherwise of the particular melody. Moreover, it is very interesting to recollect here Aristakēs Yovhannisean’s contentious and minority view that all hymns in the Armenian hymnal ought to be sang as poems with regular meter; given that a large percentage of hymns appear to be highly irregular in terms of numbers of syllables, and do not appear as poems of regular metre as they stand, Yovhannisean’s thesis would necessarily involve considerable manipulation of time durations, doubtless entailing the violation of Tntesean’s rules involving “short”, “long” and “very long” syllables, with lenghts pre-determined by the neumes they bore (or by the absence of neumes). Consequently, it would seem that Yovhannisean must have (albeit indirectly) challenged Tntesean’s theory. On the positive side, some encouraging corroboration for Tntesean’s conclusions is found by noticing certain consistent patterns at the end of hymn stanzas, such as the fact that from the penultimate “long” syllable to the end there is usually an odd number of syllables (frequently five), and exceptions are found to conform to the general rule after all – upon accounting for the durations of neumes as proposed by Tntesean. These observations may be found on p. 54 and p. 103 of Nkaragir ergoc‘, though Tntesean does not go so far as to cite them by way of evidence for his theory on “long” and “short” neumes.


111

of neumes (“short” neumes) over a syllable, or the absence of any neumes at all, both imply that such a syllable should be apportioned a single beat’s duration; whilst the presence of one of another group of neumes (“long” neumes) signified a duration of two beats. He also identified yet a third family, comprising “very long” neumes, the presence of any one of which over a syllable he associated with a duration of four beats. At the opposite end of the spectrum, he associated the presence of the small circle, suł, with a shortening or “abbreviation” of a syllable (as also of one or more syllables in its immediate vicinity) to half a beat. Consequently, though unable otherwise to “read” the neumes, he generally sought consistency in his hymn melodies regarding the metrical durations of syllables as evidenced by the neumes in this manner. However, neither he nor his contemporaries were able to work out the total duration associated with syllables bearing a complex combination of several neumes114, and of course nor were they in a position to reach any conclusions regarding the internal rhythm associated with “long” or “short” syllables. As noted, Tntesean’s results were arrived at by a combination of logical argument and empirical observation, and were demonstrated with several examples. He presented his conclusions in the table below (reproduced from p. 21 of Nkaragir ergoc‘ ), where he first lists the “abbreviating” suł, followed by the “short”, “long” and “very long” neumes, associated with durations of haf a beat, a single beat, and two and four beats, respectively:

114 We stress that Tntesean never claimed, for instance, that the neume but‘ itself “lasts” one beat; and that, consequently, two but‘s on a syllable would necessarily imply a duration of two beats, and so forth; merely that syllables bearing a single but‘, and syllables bearing no neumes, alike last a single beat. Thus, it is not clear how many beats a syllable bearing, say, a combination of one erkar and two but‘s, ought to last. Moreover, not all neumes need to express a durational value. Indeed, the total duration associated with a combination of any of the above neumes on a single syllable could not be determined through any simple additive rule, and remained an unknown then, as it does now. Also, Tntesean made it quite clear that this work dealt with the metrical values alone of the neumes, and acknowledged that many neumes no doubt embodied other vital information that remained beyond our reach.

112

Haig Utidjian

4.4 Treatment of successive stanzas within the same patker

Tntesean was convinced that successive stanzas within a given patker ought to be sung to one and the same melody. He mentioned this whilst commenting on the Venetian hymnal transcribed by Bianchini (Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 37–38), in which each successive stanza of the hymn Xorhurd xorin had been given a somewhat different melody. In addition to objecting that this could create practical difficulties in performance, and to counter the possible argument that each stanza ought to be sung to a melody modified to suit the meaning of the words, Tntesean reminded readers that, “until a short time ago” the teaching of hymns used to involve learning the melody of the first stanza and then singing the remaining stanzas to the melody already learnt115. At one point we may take issue with his reasoning – he claims that if each stanza of every hymn were to be sung slightly differently, then the music could not be transmitted from generation to generation, and would hardly have survived to the present time116 – yet subtle differences in the neumatic notation between one stanza and another may possibly have served to indicate just such musical variation.

Though the link is not explicit, one suspects that at least some of his criticisms of the “distortions“ found in certain editions of the neumatically-notated hymnal, may well have been associated with variations in the neumatic notation of successive stanzas. If so, the interesting question arises: to what extent would more reliable sources vindicate Tntesean in this respect? Tntesean made use of old MSS, mentioning that the oldest of these was from the year 1309 (ՉԾԸ, i.e. 758 + 551 – see Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 18), and was not satisfied merely with the published versions of the neumatically-notated hymnals; it is clear from his writings that he made use of more than a single source, being convinced, in particular, that recent publications were especially prone to error. Unfortunately, he does not specify a particular version, but he does mention (writing in 1864, in an article reproduced in Nkaragir ergoc‘ ) that in the “last

115 Խորհուրդ խորին երգին յորդորակ հատուածներուն ամեն [sic] մէկը իրարմէ քիչ շատ տարբեր ձեւերով գրուած է, որն որ անտանելի եւ աւելորդ դժուարութիւն մ‘է երգելու մասին: ... Կարելի է ոմանք կարծեն թէ բառերու իմաստին համեմատ ամեն հատուած այլ եւ այլ ձեւերով երգելու է. այս կարծիքը սխալ է եւ անգործադրելի ... դեռ քիչ ժամանակ յառաջ՝ երգի մը մէկ տունը ուսնելով, միւսներն ալ անոր վերայ կ‘երգուէին:

116 Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 38: ... եթէ այս ընթացքը նախնիք ալ ունեցած ըլլային, անհնար էր որ շարականի երգերը գէթ այսօրուան եղածին չափ ալ մեզի հասնէր.


113

Jaynk‘ał edition” inaccuracies had reached “an extreme degree”117. It seems possible that he might be referring to an 1852 Constantinople publication118. A comparison between the neumatic notations found in this publication with those in early manuscript sources might reveal whether or not Tntesean assessed the quality of a source primarily vis-à-vis his conviction that in essence a common melody ought to pertain to all stanzas of a patker, and might assist us in judging whether or not he went too far – that is, further than was warranted by the neumatic notation found in truly reliable sources. One reason for suspecting that Tntesean’s position in this may have been exaggerated is the fact that (in the sentence already cited above) he called for a small number of changes to be made with respect even to older sources, in instances where this was “highly necessary”, “on the basis of the ancient order”, in a future edition of the neumatically-notated hymnal119. It almost appears that, having a priori convinced himself of the “ancient order”, Tntesean was prepared to contemplate modifying the ancient neumes to suit his convictions. Accordingly, for the purposes of his hymnal Tntesean in effect “homogenised” the neumatic notation by fitting a single melody to the hymn Anjink‘ nuirealk‘ (see p. 760 of

117 Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 34: Ուստի փափաքելի է որ վերստին շարական տպուած ատեն խազերուն թէ՛ ձեւերը եւ թէ՛ կարգերը ընտիր օրինակներու վերայ սրբագրուի, վասն զի թէեւ ձեռագրաց մէջ ալ աղաւաղութիւններ կան, այլ տպագրեալներուն մանաւանդ Ձայնքաղի վերջին տպագրութեան մէջ աղաւաղութիւնը վերջին աստիճանի հասած է. եւ եթէ հին օրինակներու վերայ ալ շատ անհրաժեշտ երեւցած քանի մը տեղեր փոփոխութիւն մ‘ալ ընել պէտք ըլլայ, վաղեմի կարգը իբր հիմն ճանչցուի:

118 This document – Ձայնքաղ Շարական, ի Կոստանդնուպօլիս, ՅՕրթագիւղ, ի տպարանի Պօղոսի Արապեան Ապուչեխցւոյ, 1852 – is mentioned (albeit in another context) in a footnote by A. M. Šahnazarean on p. 311 of his monograph charting his discovery of fragments of Komitas’ neumatological investigations: ՇԱՀՆԱԶԱՐԵԱՆ, Ա. Մ., Խազերի Կոմիտասեան վերծանութեան յայտնութիւնը [The revelation of Komitas’ decipherment of the neumes],Yerevan 2001. Our best efforts notwithstanding, we have not been able to gain access to a copy of this edition of the hymnal.

119 Indeed, Tntesean was the first to call for what we might nowadays describe as a “critical edition” of the neumatically-notated hymnal, as we saw in section 2.4 above. A fuller discussion may be found in the author’s conference paper: ԻՒԹԻՒՃԵԱՆ, Հայկ, “Դէպի խազագրեալ շարակնոցի քննական խմբագրութիւնը – Տնտեսեանի տեսլականի լրումը եւ յարակից թնճուկներ [Towards a critical edition of the Armenian Hymnal: the fulfilment of Tntesean’s vision and associated conundrums]”, in: Հայկական լեռնաշխարհի պատմամշակութային ժառանգութիւնը International Conference, National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia, Yerevan and Stepanakert 24 June – 1 July 2012.

114

Haig Utidjian

his hymnal), and openly admitted the fact (see p. 101 of Nkaragir ergoc‘ )120. In his monograph devoted to this very hymn, the musicologis Krikor Pidedjian strongly criticises Tntesean for this practice121 (see ՓԻՏԷՃԵԱՆ, Գ., op. cit. p. 119–120).

4.5 Taking up the slack

Wheresoever the number of syllables of mutually analogous stanzas was not identical, Tntesean was convinced that the “slack” associated with the presence of “extra” syllables ought to be taken up at the opening of the hymn or of the phrase in question, rather than at the end122. He demonstrated his views by examples corresponding both to traditionally accepted melodies and by having recourse to neumatically-notated sources.

In particular, whenever Tntesean was confronted by the need to fit a “model” melody to other texts123 of varying numbers of syllables, he was adept at adjusting the melody appropriately. Let us first consider the two simplest cases. Should there be a “shortage” of a syllable – that is, should the text to which he wished to adapt a musical phrase be shorter by one syllable than that associated with the original melody – he would remove a crotchet from the melody, usually at the beginning of the phrase, or sometimes a repeated note early in the phrase. When, on the contrary, he had to deal with an “extra” syllable, he would, conversely, add another crotchet, usually at the beginning

120 ... նոյնպէս եւ Անձինք նուիրեալք երգը տաղերգութեան ընդհանուր օրէնքին յարմարցընելով՝ ամեն [sic] տուն մի եւ նոյն եղանակի վերածեցինք, եւ այսպիսի դէպքերո՛ւ մէջ միայն խազերու կարգը փոխեցինք՝ աւելի հաստատուն ձեւի մը փոխադրելու համար.

121 Ինք [Տնտեսեան] հասարակաց սկզբնաձեւ մը հաստատած է եւ թելադրած, որ շարականին բոլոր տուները, հակառակ իրենց վանկերու թուաքանակային տարբերութեանց, յարմարցնելով այդ կաղապարին երգուին : Ասիկա սխալ է: Գիտական հիմունքէ հեռու է:

122 See p. 102 of Nkaragir ergoc‘ : ... նմանաձայն երգոց մէջ նախադասութեանց կամ տողերու վերջին մասե՛րը պէտք է իրարու յար եւ նման ըլլան, եւ ասոնց մէջէն վանկի կամ բառի աւելորդը հատուածին կամ տողին կամ նախադասութեան սկիզբը կամ սկզբան մօտերը կը մնայ. ... թէ՛ արձակ եւ թէ՛ չափական երգերու մէջ վերջին մէկ կամ երկու բառերը իրարու կը համեմատին, եւ աւելին ու պակասը սկիզբը կը մնան:

123 These may have been further stanzas of the same patker, or (as we shall see in the next section) other hymns which, judging from the neumatic notation, belonged to the same musical family within the same mode.


115

of the phrase, or sometimes by repeating a note somewhere early in the phrase. He thus appears in effect to have worked his way backwards from the end of a phrase or from the nearest “long” syllable, or from the syllable bearing a particularly characteristic or otherwise “telling” combination of neumes, or from the end of the stanza. This aspect of his procedure is strikingly reminiscent of the processes associated with echphonetic chanting and of the element of improvisation associated with the practice124.

When the discrepancy in the number of syllables was greater, a whole melodic fragment or phraselet would need to be omitted, and although Tntesean’s writings in Nkaragir ergoc‘ cover only simple cases, his procedures in somewhat more complicated instances are often rendered strikingly transparent from the ingenious manner of presentation to be found in his hymnal, whereby he aimed to make the most of similarities between successive stanzas by placing the verbal text of several stanzas below a single musical line; various means had then to be employed to cope with the inevitable divergence arising between one stanza and another. Consider, for example, Tntesean’s version of the Cantemus hymn Zōrut‘iwn surb chač‘i (p. 540–541): the verbal underlay of several stanzas has been placed below what is essentially a generalised melody. This incorporates all that the stanzas share in common, as well as fragments specific to one or other stanza; whilst horizontal dashes in mid-text denote notes that need to be omitted in particular stanzas. All the stanzas in question continue with a refrain, for which a “dal segno” sign is employed. In the case of the final three stanzas, as the closing passages in each case substantially differ from each other, these passages have necessarily been indicated separately; but the earlier sections, where the words share a common melody, have been presented as previously, and an elaborate system of crosses has been used

124 Indeed, a comparable process of semi-improvisation, reminiscent of the manner in which ecphonetic chant (which will be discussed in the sequel to the present paper) is performed, would come into play wherever church singers devised, in real time, a convincing melody whilst “reading” from the (neumatically-notated) Jaynk‘ał hymnal; in this sense, Tntesean may be considered to have been reproducing their procedures to some extent, albeit in a more refined and planned manner. At this point it is also interesting to note the subtle combination of knowledge, memory, mental flexibility and creativity deployed during the semi-improvisational procedures whereby singers would “read” the neumes in live performances during services – an exciting process which, in able hands, always had an air of wizardry about it – as well as one that has not been properly studied or codified; and nowadays adequate exponents of the skill are few and far between.

116

Haig Utidjian

with a view to indicating all that is needed by the singer in the clearest, most compact and economical way possible125 – as shown below:126

Only a minority of hymns in the Tntesean hymnal would lend themselves to being presented in the above manner. As we shall see upon analyzing other examples from his hymnal in section 6 below, his procedures in more complex cases were, necessarily, correspondingly more subtle and musically creative.

Tntesean’s ideas presented in sections 4.4 and 4.5 above were readily extended to apply beyond the successive stanzas of any one hymn, to other hymns deemed to belong to the same family – as evidenced by similarities in the neumatic notation; we shall therefore address this issue in the next section.

125 Of course the extent to which the resulting hymn structure might be consistent with the neumatic notation is not always certain, and the issue warrants further investigation. It almost appears that in some cases Tntesean was so convinced by the merits of his approach that he ventured to “correct” the neumatic notation, to bring it into conformity with his realisation.

126 A similar way of presenting a hymn is often encountered in the Gprslean hymnal, as well as elsewhere.


117

4.6 Determining melody types on the basis of characteristic sequences and combinations of neumes, and exploiting the apparent congruence of hymns belonging to the same species

Tntesean claimed127 that often mere inspection of the neumes enabled one to tell whether a hymn was intended to be sung in the main version of a particular mode or in its darjuack‘ version, or to detect the transition from the main mode to its darjuack‘ version. This could be achieved by dint of taking heed of the presence of characteristic sequences of neumes (on successive syllables), or of particular combinations of neumes (on the same syllable)128 in certain hymns. His table summarising these sequences and combinations is reproduced below (from Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 32):

Although his views could be confirmed empirically by considering contemporary practice129, there were occasions when he noted that the current

127 See p. 32–33 of Nkaragir ergoc‘ : ... ասոնց ո՛ր տեսակին պատկանիլը մինակ խազերու կարգադրութէնէն [sic] ալ կրանք իմանալ. ... նոյնպէս ԴՁ Առաքելոյ աղաւնոյ երգէն յետոյ երբ Կենդանարար Աստուած երգը պիտի սկսի, եղանակին խոտորումը իմանալու համար բաւական է խազերուն կարգը ճանչնալ. ... ամեն [sic] մասնաւոր խազերու կարգ իրենց սովորականէն զատ ձայնի մէջ չեն գտնուիր ... ասկէ սա օգուտը կրնանք քաղել որ շատ մը երգերու վերայ երբ խնդիր կ‘ըլլայ թէ արդեօք դարձուա՞ծք են թէ բուն եղանակ . – այս հարցումը ասով կը լուծուի.

128 It should be stressed that this was a “long-range” inspection of series of neumes, and not any attempt to “read” or “decipher” the music embodied in the notation on a more “local”, i.e. neume-by-neume basis.

129 Tntesean’s conviction is rendered all the more credible upon considering some of the Amy Apcar transcriptions. These, though apt to be very different from those of the Constantinople-based versions, do nevertheless furnish further evidence in favour of Tntesean’s hypothesis; in particular, if we consider one of the examples cited by Tntesean wherein a change in the neumatic notation

118

Haig Utidjian

versions of particular hymns were “incorrectly” sung130. Even more interestingly, he went further, refining his observations to identify particular “families” or melody species within a given mode. This was of particular assistance to him in compiling his hymnal: he started with well-known melodies and adapted those to further hymns, fitting, in effect, variations of a single melody to all the hymns in a group, and thus worked his way through the hymnal in a more or less systematic fashion131. He stated that this enabled him to deal with some two-fifths of the hymns in the hymnal and greatly facilitated his task; in essence, it was as if hymns belonging to the same family were but “different extracts from the same song”132.

suffices to inform us of a change from the main mode to a darjuack‘ version of the mode from one patker of the same hymn to the next – namely the hymn for the First Day of Pentecost, Aŕak‘eloy aławnoy – we find a comparable change in the Apcar version also: the hymn (see MELODIES OF THE OFFICES FOR THE EVES OF CHRISTMAS AND EASTER, Apcar, Amy (Ed.), Breitkopf and Härtel, Leipzig, 1908) starts on p. 78 (incorrectly marked as ԲՁ instead of ԴՁ – an obvious misprint), and a highly recognisable change in the melody occurs on p. 81, starting at the second patker, to the words Kendanarar Astǝwac. Though the melodies, and the modalities, are somewhat alien to the Constantinople school, the change, and its timing, are unmistakable.

130 In such cases he faced the dilemma as to whether the versions to be included in his hymnal ought faithfully to record what could be heard in his own time, or whether he ought to construct “correct” versions – that is, versions compatible with the conclusions that could be reached through an inspection of the neumatic notation. He appears to have dealt with such problems on a flexible, case-by-case basis. For instance, he mentions (Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 74) that the ԴՁ hymn Luys i lusoy is neumatically notated (see, for example, Portable Hymnal p. 74) in a manner that would suggest that it is not a darjuack‘ hymn, even though it is sung as such “at present”; the version found in the Tntesean hymnal (p. 46) is indeed a darjuack‘, conforming to the practice of the time rather than to the neumatic notation. On the other hand, Tntesean mentions (Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 72) that, judging from the neumatic notation (see, for instance, Portable Hymnal p. 201), only part of the ԲՁ hymn Ułił en anaparhǝk‘ k‘o ought to be sung as a darjuack‘, whereas at the time the whole hymn was usually sung as a darjuack‘ (Այս վերջին երգին Գործատո՛ւնը միայն ստուգիւ դարձուածք է ինչպէս կ‘երեւի իւր խազերէն, բայց հիմա ամբողջ երգը դարձուածք կ‘երգուի); but the entire version in the Tntesean hymnal (p. 137–138) is in the main mode.

131 Tntesean names particular hymns where he made exceptions, overruling the information implied by the neumes – see, for instance, Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 101.

132 See Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 101–102: Սոյն բաղդատական դրութեամբ՝ երգերուն երկու հինգերորդը պակսեցան, այսինքն՝ շատ մը երգեր գրեթէ ճիշտ մի եւ նոյն եղանակի վերածեցան, ինչպէս եւ էին ալ իրօք, եւ տարբերութիւննին աղաւաղութենէ միայն յառաջացած էր: ... Սոյն ոճը ուրիշ դիւրութիւն մը եւս տուաւ մեզ. ... ամէն եղանակի երգոց


119

Now it was an encouraging consequence of this procedure that from time to time patterns emerged, whereby it could be observed that particular neumes appeared to “function” in a particular way vis-à-vis the melodies that had been so fitted to the words133. But this appears mainly to have been a retrospective observation and a by-product of his procedure, and not an integral part of the procedure itself. Even so, it does appear that the presence of particularly telling combinations of neumes on particular syllables may have provided useful “anchors” to which he could attach formulaic melodic fragments. We shall examine this issue in considerable detail in later sections. But once again, it cannot be stressed sufficiently that the overall correspondence between groups of hymns exhibiting similarities in their neumatic notation on the one hand, and the very similar melodies with which hymns within such groups were endowed, is not tantamount to saying that the melodies genuinely reflected the significance of the mediaeval neumes; nor did Tntesean claim anything of the sort. A kind of correspondence at a “macro” level was achieved, but at the “micro” level, details of the neumatic notation were ignored134. The neumes themselved remained incomprehensible. Indeed, this very fact renders

նմանօրինակները յաջորդաբար գրելով, մէկը զմիւսը այնպէս դիւրացուց որ կարծես թէ ամեն [sic] ալ մի եւ նոյն երգի այլ եւ այլ հատուածներն են, ինչպէս եւ իրօք ալ են. ասով ի սկզբան մէկ կամ երկու երգերու վրայ փորձ մը ընողը միւսներուն վերայ լիուլի տեղեկութիւն մը կրնայ առնուլ:

133 Ասկից ալ բացայայտուեցաւ թէ եւ ըստ մասին՝ խազերու ա՛յն շարայարութիւնը, որով մի եւ նոյն խազ եթէ ոչ ամեն [sic] տեղ՝ գոնէ նմանօրինակ տեղեր միշտ մի եւ նոյն դրութեամբ կը գործածուի (Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 101).

134 It has to be pointed out, with some regret, that this point does not appear to have been sufficiently understood by Atayean – see, in particular, p. 259–260 of his monograph (ԱԹԱՅԵԱՆ, Ռ., Հայկական խազային նօտագրութիւնը (ուսումնասիրութեան եւ վերծանութեան հարցեր) [The Armenian neumatic notation (issues of study and decipherment)], Yerevan, 1959), where he discusses the apparent correspondence of a more-or-less similar motif in the highly-melismatic ԴԿ stełi hymns in the T‘aščean hymnal with a particular characteristic combination of neumes: Քանի որ հին եւ նոր ձայնագրութիւնների մէջ նշանախումբն ու «իջնող» ֆրազը համապատասխան երգերում համընկնում են տեքստի միեւնոյն վանկերին, ուստի այդ ֆրազը մենք դիտում ենք որպէս տուեալ նշանախմբի այս կամ այն չափով պահպանուած նշանակութիւն: ... Այդ երեւում է խազախմբի տարբեր մասերում եղած բենկորճի միանման նշանակութիւններից: It does not appear to have occurred to Atayean that such correspondences may have been the result of a conscious, retrospective effort on the part of church musicians and composers in relatively recent times to devise melodies that purposely maintained such a correspondence at the „macro“ level; or indeed, that this may have been a standard feature of relatively modern redaction – verging on the re-composition – of stełi hymns.

120

Haig Utidjian

Tntesean’s achievement all the more remarkable: he was able to extract the maximum amount of information from a neumatic system that remained undeciphered.

4.7 Final remarks

Though Tntesean was unique in making his procedures explicit through his published articles, one wonders if other Constantinople-based musicians did not also proceed in a more or less comparable manner in compiling their own hymnals. Indeed, it could be justifiably argued that Tntesean’s procedures constituted a refined version of the quasi-improvisatory practices common in churches on a daily basis in nineteenth-century Constantinople (and for decades afterwards)135. If so, it follows that it is not appropriate to consider melodies so constructed as being sacrosanct, faithful reproductions of miraculously recollected mediaeval tunes, and nor would it be reasonable to assume that any one of the hymnals so compiled is likely to have a monopoly over the “truth” in any such sense. For neumatological research, therefore, it is abundantly clear that one ought not to confine oneself to any one of these variants for the purposes of comparison with neumatically-notated sources, but rather make use of the information provided through the juxtaposition of several sources at once –Soviet musicological practice notwithstanding136.

At the same time, it has to be noted that the procedures enumerated above could have only gone so far in enabling Tntesean to compile his hymnal, and could not in themselves suffice to allow the “synthesis” of melodies out of a vacuum. Rather, they may have assisted him to fill gaps by allowing him him to exploit particular melodies as “models”, as a way of achieving suitable “realisations” for other stanzas or other hymns than the ones with which the models were primarily associated in his mind, and also provided him with criteria for the assessment of the mutually-competing versions of which he must have been aware in the Constantinople milieu of his time. However, even here it has to be stressed that the above criteria were not the sole ones. Tntesean did not relinquish his aesthetic and musical sensibilities or his acute sensitivity to the verbal text. These, as we shall see in section 6 below, may indeed have taken precedence over his theories, or at least tempered their application.

135 These issues warrant fuller investigation, and will be discussed in the sequel to the present paper.

136 Atayean and Tahmizean relied exclusively on the T‘aščean hymnal. See ԱԹԱՅԵԱՆ, Ռ., op. cit. and ԹԱՀՄԻԶԵԱՆ, Ն. Կ., op. cit., respectively.


121

Finally, the reader is reminded that in the present paper it is not our primary intention to assess the validity of Tntesean’s hypotheses, even though this is a fascinating issue with far-reaching implications. The fact is that most of his views have come to be accepted, and indeed appear to have informed the compilation of other hymnal versions by Constatinople musicians (though Tntesean was the only one to formulate and disclose these principles). An assessment of their inherent validity is no trivial matter, and would, in our view, presuppose significant progress in our state of knowledge on the mediaeval neumes. However, it is not our aim to assess Tntesean’s principles here, but rather to establish the exact manner and extent of their application in his hymnal realisations.

5. tnteseAn’s hymnAl And the eArlier BovaNdakut‘iwN Nuagac‘

We are exceedingly fortunate in that, in addition to Tntesean’s musicological writings and his posthumously-published hymnal, an earlier work has also survived – a slim booklet containing Tntesean’s transcriptions of brief specimens from all the modes and their auxiliary versions (known as darjuack‘ ), entitled Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘, and published in 1864. As we saw in section 2.1, it was not Tntesean’s first attempt as far as the transcription of Armenian hymns was concerned, but it was the first to be published. Prior to Tntesean, the Venetian fathers had published a brief anthology of hymns, transcribed by the Italian composer, Pietro Bianchini. The announcement concerning this Venetian publication was reproduced by Tntesean in his Nkaragir ergoc‘ (p. 7), by way of a precursor to the preface to his own Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘, which was partly a response to the Venetian publication. As Tntesean explained in his own preface (see Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 8–10), he wished (1) to publish his own versions of some Armenian hymns, to demonstrate that the more “usual“ versions then current in Constantinople differed substantially from the Venetian melodies, (2) to guard against the possible publication of the Eranean/Tntesean transcriptions as their own work by any rivals who might have purloined them (as these had mysteriously disappeared upon Eranean’s unexpected demise during Tntesean’s absence), and (3) to demonstrate that it was indeed possible to transcribe Armenian hymns satisfactorily in European notation – a fact which the Venetian publication had not entirely succeeded in making evident (as Tntesean diplomatically hinted in a later article – see Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 38).

The existence of Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ is no small boon from the point of view of any student of 19th-century Armenian church music, but it is a particularly great blessing for anyone with an interest in the Tntesean hymnal: it affords a unique “snapshot” in European musical notation, which may then

122

Haig Utidjian

be fruitfully compared and contrasted with the corresponding items in Tntesean’s hymnal (in Limōnčean notation) compiled a decade later (albeit published with a delay of a further six decades), thereby shedding light on several matters of considerable interest – as will be explored below.

The preface to Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ was reproduced by Tntesean in his Nkaragir ergoc‘ in 1874, but not the ten pages of musical examples. The 1864 publication is now a great rarity – our best efforts notwithstanding, we have not been able to locate it either in present-day Armenia or in Constantinople. As a service to the research community, we now reproduce herewith these ten pages in full, from the expanded, posthumous republication of Nkaragir ergoc‘ of 1933 (itself a rare and none too accessible volume), which, fortunately, did reproduce the original trancriptions, as a special addendum. We shall then provide a full description of their contents, intended to serve as a guide to their appropriate interpretation, and then embark upon a detailed comparison of the hymn versions documented therein with their counterparts found in the Tntesean hymnal itself.

5.1 The musical transcriptions in facsimile

It is a great privilege hereby to make available to the research community Tntesean’s transcriptions from Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘, reproduced in full in the following pages. As they were originally published as a slim booklet, prefaced by a brief foreword, they appear to have perished, or at least evaded the catalogues of libraries and archives around the globe. And despite their later republication by Tntesean’s son Lewon as an addendum at the very end of the posthumous (1933) edition of Nkaragir ergoc‘, they appear to have been forgotten, and we are not aware of any discussion or analysis of their contents in the literature, either in the twentieth century or more recently. Yet, as we shall shortly see, the transcriptions are immensely valuable, both in a direct sense, for their musical contents – that is, by virtue of the particular melodies that they capture (including some incipits and formulaic endings, not available in the Tntesean hymnal), and in an indirect way, in terms of the wealth of information that they yield when juxtaposed against their counterparts found in the Tntesean hymnal (where such counterparts exist). We shall soon see that such a comparison is nothing short of illuminating. Nonetheless, we have by no means exhausted the full potential that may accrue from these transcriptions, and indeed by making them available to the public at large we very much hope to stimulate further study and discussion on their contents.


123

124

Haig Utidjian


125

126

Haig Utidjian


127

128

Haig Utidjian


129

130

Haig Utidjian


131

132

Haig Utidjian


133

5.2 Contents of Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘

In addition to the preface, reproduced in Nkaragir ergoc‘ (p. 8–10), this work comprises ten pages of transcriptions in Western musical notation, possibly written – music as well as underlay – in Tntesean’s own hand137. Tntesean has provided a very substantial amount of information in a highly concentrated manner, and to assist the reader with the appropriate interpretation of this material we shall now provide a brief navigational guide.

The musical transcription may be considered to comprise eight sections, one each for each of the eight modes of Armenian church music. In general, Tntesean has endeavoured to include one stanza of a hymn from each of the eight modes, and in most cases also a stanza of the darjuack‘ associated with the mode. Each section, however, starts with the incipit (sksuack‘ in Armenian) associated with Cantemus hymns, consisting of the words Ōrhnesc‘uk‘ ǝztēr zi p‘aŕōk‘ ē p‘aŕaworeal. Interestingly enough, a neumatically-notated version of this particular incipit is usually included at the end of most printed hymnals, Portable or Jaynk‘ał alike. Tntesean includes the Cantemus incipits associated with each of the eight modes. Moreover, where appropriate, to demonstrate how the ending of the incipit is adapted if the incipit is to be followed by a stanza in the darjuack‘ version of the mode, Tntesean has included the relevant (concluding) fragment of the incipit also. The verbal underlay makes it clear from which point onwards the singer ought to abandon the main version of the incipit and “migrate” to the fragment associated with the ending proper to the darjuack‘. This fragment is given immediately following the main incipit. Only then is a stanza exemplifying the main version of the mode given. Tntesean has invariably chosen the first stanza in the case of each hymn. The stanza is notated as it would be sung liturgically, and it thus ends in the manner in which it would end in the expectation that further stanzas of the same hymn would follow. However, with a view to demonstrating how the hymn itself would end – that is, the so-called “final ending” of the hymn, Tntesean has provided the appropriate melodic fragments of these endings also; yet he has done so using the text of the ending of the first stanza – that is, the stanza already given. This need not be misleading, so long as the reader is aware of the fact that in liturgical practice, the melody associated with the final ending of the hymn would be encountered at the end of the final stanza of the hymn and not at the end of its first stanza. Finally, it is subsequent to this fragment that Tntesean has generally provided an example of a stanza in the darjuack‘ version of the mode.

137 The Armenian script is similar to the handwritten annotations to be found in the diagram from the author’s Tarerk‘ eražštut’ean,reproduced in section 3.1 above, but we are not in a position to tell who prepared the diagram for this posthumous publication.

134

Haig Utidjian

Thus, the general scheme for each mode is the following (and is adhered to with only minor devations, which we shall point out in due course):

(i) The incipit associated with a Cantemus hymn in the given mode(ii) The modified ending of the incipit, to render it suitable for instances where the hymn to follow is in the darjuack‘ version of the mode(iii) The first stanza of a Cantemus hymn in the main mode(iv) The final ending of the hymn (but to the closing words of the first stanza)(v) The first stanza of a hymn (not necessarily Cantemus) in the darjuack‘ version of the mode.We now provide a complete list of the contents, identifying each hymn and

indicating precisely how the modified and final endings should be appended:

1. ԱՁ or IA mode:Page 1 – The incipit to the Cantemus is provided, followed by a further bar (to replace the last bar of the usual incipit) pertaining to the dajuack‘ version of the mode. There follows one stanza of the Awag Orhnut‘iwn – Principal Cantemus – Ergesc‘uk‘ erg nor. This is followed by a further two bars, which would have served to replace the (single) last bar of the stanza, indicating how the final ending would sound, had it been appropriate to use it at the end of the first stanza. In practice the final ending ought to conclude the final stanza; but Tntesean’s aim is to demonstrate the final ending in the most economical way possible, and thus he has given the melodic fragment associated with the final ending in conjunction with the final words of the first stanza. Finally, he also provides the first stanza of a hymn in the darjuack‘ form of the mode – the Magnificat for the first day of Pentecost, Aysōr nor žołovurdk‘.

2. ԱԿ or IP mode:The incipit to the Cantemus is provided, followed by two alternative two-bar groups, either one of which could be used to replace the last two bars of the incipit, to allow the latter to be adapted in instances where it is to be followed by a hymn in the darjuack‘ form of the mode. Page 2 starts with the first stanza of the Awag Orhnut‘iwn or Principal Cantemus of this mode, namely Ergec‘ēk‘ teaŕn erg nor ; Tntesean follows this with a further four bars that would replace the last three bars of the first stanza, should the melody of a final ending be deployed here. Next, by way of an example of the darjuack‘ version of this mode, Tntesean provides the first stanza of the Levavi for the Resurrection, Aŕak‘ec‘ar i hōrē.

3. ԲՁ or IIA mode:The incipit to the Cantemus is provided and is directly followed by the first stanza of the Cantemus for the seventh day of Christmas, Anełaneli bǝnut‘iwn. On page 3 this is followed by a further four bars, to replace the last two


135

bars of the incipit, should it be desired to deploy the formula for a final ending here. As the darjuack‘ version of this mode is encountered rather rarely, and no such Cantemus hymn is known, Tntesean now proceeds to provide a complete Magnificat incipit (starting with the words mecac‘usc‘ē anjn im ǝztēr – on the second line of p. 3), of which the ending has been appropriately adapted to allow it to serve as a precursor to a hymn in the darjuack‘ version of the mode, namely the Midday Hymn for the fifth day of Christmas, Ant‘aŕam całik – perhaps better known as the Midday Hymn for the feast of the Assumption of the Mother of God. However, four bars before the end of the incipit so modified, the small figure (1) in parentheses above the very beginning of the bar (at the very beginning of the third line of the page) refers us (as explained in a footnote) to an alternative variant on p. 10, which indicates the manner in which the incipit leads to the darjuack‘ through a different modulation, which (as the next two bars on p. 10 demonstrate) results in the darjuack‘ stanza being a perfect fourth lower than otherwise (cf. the darjuack‘ stanza commencing on the fourth line of p. 3). It is interesting to note that, as we saw in section 3.1 above, the ԲՁ darjuack‘ hymns in the Tntesean hymnal are indeed notated at this lower tonality, unlike those in the T‘aščean hymnal (which, as we have seen, includes two versions of this hymn – of various degrees of melismaticity: on p. 94 and p. 745 therein – both notated in the higher tonality, and the latter version provided with an incipit). Returning to the first stanza of Ant‘aŕam całik, Tntesean supplies five additional bars, which are intended to replace the last three bars of the stanza, by way of providing the melody for the final ending. Here there is a curious anomaly: the melody associated with the final ending is grafted to the end of the stanza in such a manner that the hymn concludes in E minor – that is, a perfect fifth higher than it started. Appending the final ending in this manner could be highly approprate if the version of the incipit modulating down a fifth were to be used; then, such a final ending would restore us from D back to the original tonality of A. However, if the other incipit were to be used, whereupon the main body of the hymn would remain in A, surely some alternative way of attaching a final ending (not indicated by Tntesean) ought to be used, to avoid ending the hymn a perfect fifth higher than it started.

4. ԲԿ or IIP mode:Page 4 – Tntesean supples the incipit for Cantemus hymns of this mode, followed by the first stanza of the Cantemus for the fifth Sunday of Lent, Or patuiran čšmartut‘ean. The stanza is followed by a further three bars indicating the melody associated with the final ending, which would replace the final two bars of the stanza. Next, Tntesean gives two alternative endings to the incipit associated with Miserere hymns, each intended to precede slightly different versions of the Miserere for the third Sunday of Lent, Or xonarhec‘ar,

136

Haig Utidjian

of which the first stanza is provided. These versions differ only in their opening bar. Thus, Tntesean provides the relevant information in the following sequence: first, the last bar of ending I of the Miserere incipit is given, followed by the first bar (and first bar alone) of the corresponding opening – which, for convenience, we shall also name version I – of the Miserere stanza. Next, the last bar of ending II of the Miserere incipit is given, followed by the whole of the Miserere stanza commencing with opening II. Two alternative versions are provided for the closing bar of the stanza. The first conclusion corresponds to version I (and is identical to ending I of the incipit), and the version II ending is added afterwards. Though somewhat confusing for the reader, this manner of presentation is consistent with Tntesean’s apparent wish to present the maximum amount of information as economically as possible. On the penultimate bar of line 9, the crotchet g is preceded by an acciacatura a, but this has been written in such a way that there is a danger that it might be misunderstood to be a sharp sign. (Of course, in the present context a g sharp is entirely out of the question.) Finally, we note that Tntesean does not include any example of the darjuack‘ version of this mode, although his hymnal does (for instance, in section 3.7 above we encountered the De caelis hymn Amenayn ararack‘, on p. 148 of the hymnal), and Nkaragir ergoc‘ (p. 72) includes a discussion where further examples are named.

5. ԳՁ or IIIA mode:As usual, Tntesean starts by presenting the Cantemus incipit (comprising the last four bars of p. 4), whilst the first bar of page 5 is intended to replace the fourth and last bar of the incipit, in such instances when a stanza in the darjuack‘ form of the mode is to ensue. Next, he gives the first stanza of the Cantemus hymns for Ash Wednesday, Or yat‘oŕ p‘aŕac‘ bazmeal. Tntesean then provides a further five bars: the last two bars of the stanza could be replaced by these five bars to form the final ending associated with the mode. Next, Tntesean provides the incipit for Patrum hymns, in a rather melismatic version. Interestingly enough, the incipit starts on a b flat minim; as discussed earlier, this type of opening for ԳՁ hymns appears to be an idiosyncracy of the Tntesean hymnal. This second incipit may have been provided by way of a rather more melismatic specimen. Next, Tntesean provides the first stanza of the Pueri hymn for the Feast of the Holy Translators, Nǝmaneal movsēsi. This hymn provides an illustration of the manner in which some ԳՁ hymns start in the main mode but evolve into the darjuack‘ version of the mode within a given stanza.

6. ԳԿ or IIIP mode:This starts on the third line of page 6: the incipit to Cantemus hymns is given, followed by the first stanza of the Cantemus for the fifth day of


137

Pentecost, Zanǝzkǝzbnanar bǝłxumn i hōrē; to form the final ending, the last two bars of the stanza are to be replaced by the ensuing four bars, given on line 7 of p. 6. Somewhat surprisingly, the last bar of this final ending includes a g sharp – not usually encountered in ԳԿ hymns – although, as we saw in section 3.3 above, there are exceptions in the Tntesean hymnal138. No modification to the incipit has been made to cater for the case when the incipit is to be followed by a stanza in the darjuack‘ version of the mode – as none is required for ԳԿ. Thus, Tntesean is able to proceed directly to give the first stanza of the Cantemus for St. Stephen’s Day, Nahatak bari k‘ristosi. The ending of this stanza is rather unusually melismatic, and might well represent a final ending of sorts; it is not attested elsewhere, according to our present knowledge. (Generally, for the final ending, hymns in the darjuack‘ form of any given mode tend to return to the main mode, and thus the same final ending may be said generally to apply to the main mode as well as to its darjuack‘ version.) In the light of this, the ending that appears here would appear to constitute an exception to more usual practice (exemplified, in the case of ԳԿ darjuack‘ hymns, by the final ending of the De caelis hymn Aŕeal as in the Gprslean hymnal, p. 524 or Petrosean volume, p. 268).

7. ԴՁ or IVA mode:Tntesean starts (page 7, line 3) by providing the usual incipit for the Cantemus. The incipit consists of five bars, whilst the next two bars are intended to replace the last bars of the incipit to enable it to be followed by stanzas in the darjuack‘ version of the mode. Tntesean then presents the first stanza of the Awag orhnut‘iwn – Principal Cantemus – starting with the words Ōrhnesc‘uk‘ ǝztēr ew zyałt‘oł zōrut‘iwn. The last two bars of the stanza are to be replaced by the subsequent four bars, to conclude the stanza with the melody for a final ending. Next, Tntesean provides one version of the Cantemus for the first day of Pentecost, Aŕakēloy aławnoy. This hymn provides an example of a semi-darjuack‘ version of the mode, forming a distinct family of hymns within the mode ԴՁ. We encounter two footnotes here – the first, (2), leads us to the penultimate line of p. 10, providing two bars that give an alternative version for the first two bars of the stanza given on p. 7. (Interestingly enough, we notice that the variant found on p. 10 entails two beats being spent on the first syllable ա- of the word ա-ղաւ-նոյ, whereas the variant on p. 7 has a mere two quavers on the same syllable; such inconsistencies are generally unusual in Tntesean, who takes heed of the metrical values associated with the corresponding neumatic notation.) The second footnote is found later on in the stanza, where the bracketed figure (3) again leads us to a variant found on the last line of p. 10, whose two bars

138 The exceptions encountered are Ančaŕeli bnut‘iwn (p. 355) and Aysōr patuakan xač‘i k‘o (p. 536).

138

Haig Utidjian

are intended to replace the corresponding two bars on p. 7 – the last bar of the ante-penultimate line and the first bar of the penultimate line of p. 7. Moreover, Tntesean provides two alternative conclusions to the stanza on p. 7; the first ends on the penultimate line, whilst the second (consisting of the two bars found on the last line of that page) is intended to replace the last two bars of the penultimate line, and serves to make the stanza end in a manner closer to that associated with the darjuack‘ “proper” of this mode.

Finally, on page 8 Tntesean illustrates the darjuack‘ version of the mode by means of the Pueri hymn for David, Ōrhnec‘ēk‘ ǝztēr yōrhnut‘iwn i nor.

8. ԴԿ or IVP mode:Tntesean follows the usual pattern of starting with the incipit of the Cantemus hymns of the mode. However, two alternative endings to the incipit are provided – the last bar of line 6 (ending on an a) and the first bar of line 7 (ending on a g). It is likely that the a-ending is intended for deployment in connection with the example in the main mode and the g-ending for the darjuack‘ example, although in our view the opposite choice could also be defensible here139. The incipit is immediately followed by the first stanza

139 The usual practice (a-ending for the main version of the mode and g-ending for the darjuack‘ version of the mode) is attested, inter alia, in the Aznaworean hymnal for Holy Week (ՁԱՅՆԱԳՐԵԱԼ ՇԱՐԱԿԱՆ ՀԱՅԱՍՏԱՆԵԱՅՑ ԵԿԵՂԵՑՒՈՅ [Notated Hymnal of the Armenian Church], Բ. հատոր Աւագ Շաբաթ [Holy Week], 1984). Compare, for instance, the Levavi incipit for the ԴԿ stełi hymn Ekayk‘ hawatac‘ealk‘ (p. 201), which ends on an a, with the Pueri incipit for the ԴԿ darjuack‘ stełi hymn Yovsēp‘ (p. 225), which ends on a g. However, as it happens, for the two particular examples provided in Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘, precisely the opposite choice could also be defended. For example, in the case of the non-darjuack‘ example, Xorhurd mec, the g-ending may be defended on the grounds that it somehow “feels” appropriate that the incipit should end on a g and the first stanza of the hymn start on an a, continuing as it does in stepwise upward motion to a b natural and then a c. It is interesting that in Gprslean’s hymnal precisely the opposite combination results in connection with this hymn (see Vol. 1, p. 36 of the Gprslean hymnal): the hymn stanza commences on a g, in the immediate aftermath of an incipit which ends on an a. (The incipit has admittedly not been provided by Gprslean, but in the author’s experience is invariably sung ending on an a; comparable, if somewhat less melismatic, ԴԿ Cantemus incipits may be found on p. 71 of the Aznaworean Principal Canticles volume (ՁԱՅՆԱԳՐԵԱԼ ՇԱՐԱԿԱՆ ՀԱՅԱՍՏԱՆԵԱՅՑ ԵԿԵՂԵՑՒՈՅ [Notated Hymnal of the Armenian Church],Գ. հատոր Աւագ Օրհնութիւններ [Principal Canticles], Antelias 1985) and on p. 7 of the Aznaworean Lenten Hymnal (ՁԱՅՆԱԳՐԵԱԼ ՇԱՐԱԿԱՆ ՀԱՅԱՍՏԱՆԵԱՅՑ ԵԿԵՂԵՑՒՈՅ [Notated Hymnal of the Armenian Church],Ա. հատոր Մեծ Պահոց Կիրակիներ [Lenten Sundays], Antelias 1981) – both ending on an a). Thus, here too, the incipit ends


139

of the Cantemus hymn for the first day of Christmas, Xorhurd mec ew sk‘anč‘eli. The last line of p. 8 then provides a further four bars, to replace the last two bars of the stanza in order to form the final ending of the hymn. Next, on page 9 Tntesean provides an example of the darjuack‘ version of the mode. The example chosen is the first stanza of the Cantemus for the Vardanank‘ saints, Norahraš pǝsakawor. Next, starting from the fifth line of p. 9, Tntesean provides another example of a very special type of darjuack‘ – the Miserere hymn Vasǝn meroy p‘ǝrkut‘ean. He precedes the first stanza of this Miserere by the last bar alone of the appropriate incipit. Tntesean then proceeds to provide illustrations of stełi hymns in this mode. First, he provides the incipit of Pueri hymns, and gives two alternative endings. The first incipit is written out in full, on the last three lines of p. 9; the second version is formed by replacing the last two bars of p. 9 with the first two bars of page 10. (It is noteworthy that the two incipit versions mirror those for the Cantemus examples, in that again we have an a-ending as well as a g-ending.) Next, Tntesean provides merely the opening phrases of two stełi Pueri hymns (in view of their rather considerable length): first, the first five bars of the hymn Or yanǝstuer from the Canon for the “Sons of Thunder, the Holy Apostles James and John”, and then the first four bars of the hymn for the Vardanank‘ saints, Ariac‘ealk‘. In the case of the latter, he also provides the very formula for the final ending, albeit – as elsewhere in Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ – to the words pǝsakealk‘ i kristosi concluding the first stanza (rather than to the words concluding the last stanza). Finally, the last four lines of music on p. 10 hark back to the relevant footnotes on previous pages, as already discussed.

5.3 Significant features of Tntesean’s Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ transcriptions

First, to be able to read the music correctly, the reader needs to notice that, contrary to standard practice, Tntesean writes the clef and key signature in the beginning of the first line alone, and these are implied for the following lines, but not shown.

Next, it is useful to note that the transcriptions provided here are consistent with those to be found in the Tntesean Hymnal in some particular respects:

on the one note and the ensuing stanza commences on the another. In both versions of Xorhurd mec with their respective incipits, it could be claimed that the mutually-competing tonal axes of a and g may thus be seen to alternate with one other in a particularly delicious manner. Such an alternation, and the attendant tensions, constitute a fundamental element of the ԴԿ mode.

140

Haig Utidjian

1. With the exception of the “final endings” (which are not found in the Tntesean Hymnal at all), the last syllables of the various stanzas, as also those of the incipits (also not included in the Tntesean Hymnal), are associated with a duration of two beats – consistent with the usual metrical value of the erkar neume (devoid of any special augmentation by virtue of its position on the last syllable of a stanza). This feature is not entirely unique to Tntesean, but he is unique in the rigour and universality of its application, as we saw in section 3.2 above.

2. In addition to acciacaturas that are to be “crushed” on the beat, Tntesean makes liberal use of acciacaturas that follow the principal note, and which are thus to be executed at the latest possible moment at the end of the current beat, instead of being “crushed” on the next note. This feature is sometimes unclear in the Tntesean hymnal (where, of course, there are no barlines), due to typographical imprecisions and inconsistencies in the spacing between the acciacatura and the notes that precede and succeed it, but is quite explicit here, not least due to the presence of barlines – an acciacatura that is found just before a barline clearly belongs to the current bar and not to the next.There are a number of other ways in which Tntesean’s transcriptions in

Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ serve to clarify otherwise obscure matters in his hymnal. The reader will recall that the former are in European musical notation, whilst the latter are in Limōnčean’s system. Thus, we now find that instead of the somewhat puzzling and found in the Tntesean Hymnal in connection with particular modes (discussed in section 3.1 above), Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ employs quite simply f sharp and b natural, respectively, in analogous situations. This fact is a useful and encouraging confirmation of our hypothesis that such apparent anomalies may have more to do with older notational conventions than with any requirement that intonational modification be necessarily attempted on the tones so notated140. However, surprisingly, the fourth degree of the ԳԿ mode, invariably notated as in the Tntesean Hymnal (as also virtually all other hymnals notated in Limōnčean notation), and usually rendered as a d flat in many transcriptions into European notation, is in fact interpreted as a d natural in Bovandakut’iwn nuagac‘.

Next, it is interesting to note that certain features in the melodies notated here differ from those to be found in the Tntesean hymnal. In particular:

140 As suggested in section 3.1 above, such older and largely obscure notational conventions may well have been associated with the earlier history of the Limōnčean notation, when (as evidenced by studying Bžškean’s treatise) the system was still theoretically expounded with reference to Ottoman modes and their (supposed or actual) microtones – at a time, moreover, where Armenian church modes were apparently closely allied to Ottoman modes. A fuller discussion will be included in a future paper on performance practice.


141

1. c sharps instead of the c naturals of the hymnal (as discussed in section 3.2.2 above) are to be found at the appropriate points in ԲԿ or IIP mode and ԴՁ or IVA mode hymns in Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ (though not in ԱԿ darjuack‘ hymns).

2. The melodies associated with the “final endings” – that is, the endings of the last stanzas of hymns – are always given here (albeit appended to the first stanza, and not the last – no doubt for reasons of economy of space). In contrast, in his hymnal Tntesean eschews final endings (as we saw in section 3.2.3 above), and does not even acknowledge them in any way. In this, of course, Tntesean’s hymnal follows the neumatic notation to be found in manuscript sources as well as printed, neumatically-notated hymnal editions, where the neumes on the final syllables of the last stanza are almost always identical to those found at the end of previous stanzas. Yet one wonders whether, in fact, the omission of the melodies for final endings in the Tntesean hymnal might not have been caused by the expectation that experienced church musicians would know the melodies associated with the relevant final formulae and would have no difficulty in fitting them, and that altering the final endings of all hymns would thus be unnecessarily laborious and space-consuming141 – recalling that final endings are generally at least twice as long as the endings of the previous stanzas.

3. By the same token, whilst Tntesean has generally provided the incipits here (at least those associated with Cantemus hymns), in his hymnal none are given at all. There is hardly any reason to suspect that Tntesean would not expect the incipits to be sung: they must have been omitted from the hymnal to save space and as most church musicians would have known the incipits associated with the various hymn types, modes, and tempi, by heart, and been able to reproduce them, wherever required, from memory. In our case, however, it is of very great value to have at our disposal the final ending formulae and at least some of the incipits, to enable Tntesan’s hymnal to be suitably equipped with the relevant melodic formulae at the appropriate points in a manner that is stylistically consistent with his own versions, to enable practical use of the hymnal in a liturgical context in the present day. But the reader should note the proviso below.

4. Tntesean uses time signatures and barlines here, and in an attempt to create equal bars even when the melody cries out for asymmetrical bars, he adds crotchet rests to create regularity – a procedure which he acknowledges

141 However, it is also conceivable that, by the time he compiled his hymnal, Tntesean came to the conclusion that these final endings must have been a relatively recent innovation, and ought to be eschewed, in favour of the usual endings implied by the neumatic notation; but we are not able to find anything in his writings to lend support to such a notion.

142

Haig Utidjian

explicitly in his introductory essay142, and which may be considered to be harmless, as it may be readily reversed. In Nkaragir ergoc‘ Tntesean suggests that the neume but‘ at phrase endings may be interpreted either by a crotchet alone or by a crotchet followed by a crotchet rest143, as though a erkar neume were present – as indeed it apparently was in more recent copies of the neumatically-notated hymnal144; the punctation mark mi akēt could also be interpreted as a crotchet rest145; thus, instances of a but‘ immediately followed by a mi akēt dot (such pairs are often present at phrase endings) readily gave Tntesean licence to insert a crotchet rest after the syllable bearing the but‘ in his Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ transcriptions. Though he exploited this flexibility in Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘, by the time he prepared his hymnal Tntesean had abandoned the practice146. In the Tntesean hymnal there are no time signatures or barlines; in the case of medium (mi ak), moderate

142 See Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 9: ... եւ ո՛ր տեղը որ երբեմն անյարմար կու գար չափերու կանոնացը, Ձայնահատ մը աւելցուցինք ըստ պահանջման կարգի բանին:

143 See p. 30: Բութը ( ՝ ) եղանակի ու հատուածի մը վերջաւորութեան ատեն իբր Ձայնահատ կը վարուի.

144 See p. 23, footnote 1: Թէ եւ այսպիսի մի քանի տեղեր երկար խազ չկայ հին օրինակաց մէջ, այլ ոտանաւորի սահմանը պահելու համար այս խազը գործածելու ստիպուած են, որով եւ նոր օրինակներուն մէջ ալ դրուած է շատ տեղ. ասոնցմէ առնելով մենք ալ շատ պէտք եղած տեղեր Ձայնահատ գործածեցինք երբեմն:

145 See p. 30: Կէտ ( . ) ... կա՛մ դարձեալ իբր Ձայնահատ եւ կա՛մ հատուած ու եղանակ ընդմիջելու կը գործածուին:

146 Interestingly enough, as we shall see later, many other church musicians also differ in their interpretations of but‘s and mi akēt dots at the ends of phrases, and when we come to compare several variant versions of melodies for the same hymn derived from different traditions, we shall find that there are frequent divergences on this particular point. Differences in taste continue to exist on this: for instance, Pidedjian (op. cit. p. 108) favours the version whereby an additional beat is inserted in the form of the rest, claiming that the result would otherwise sound “breathless”, and that his practice is consistent with the Antelias tradition: Կիլիկիոյ Կաթողիկոսութեան, Անթիլիասի աւանդութեանց համաձայն նախադասութիւններու վերջաւորութիւնները պէտք է պահէինք իրենց տեւողական լման արժէքներով (շատ քիչ բացառութիւններով) եւ ոչ թէ կարճ կտրելով զանոնք՝ անցնէինք յաջորդ նախադասութեան, որու պարագային հեւ ի հեւ վազքի մը տպաւորութիւնը պիտի թողուր ունկնդրին վրայ. Indeed, we found, upon listening to recent recordings of Penitential Levavi Hymns made during services at the Antelias cathedral, where (according to the testimony of Archimandrite Hrand T‘ahanean) the singers were performing directly from a neumatically-notated Jaynk‘ał hymnal, that the “extra” beats are deployed. Yet the Gprslean hymnal, and the Aznaworean edition published in Antelias, both generally eschew such insertions.


143

(č‘ap‘awor) or fast ( yordor) hymns, from time to time one finds implied groups of, say, three or of five crotchets, before the more usual grouping of pairs of crotchets is resumed, and it is clear that the music does not naturally conform to a consistent four-in-a-bar pattern; and in the case of slow (canr) hymns, the notes are grouped so as to form the equivalent of a crotchet, although, as implied by Fr. Psak in his preface to the Tntesean hymnal, it is often helpful mentally to “subdivide” the crotchets into quaver beats in performance147, and thus there is automatically a duple grouping at work here. But in the case of Bowandakut‘iwn nuagac‘, occasionally one does, unfortunately, get the impression that Tntesean may have done some violence to the natural metrical feel of a passage for the sake of making it fit a (usually) four-in-a-bar mould, over and above the introduction of crotchet rests. In this respect, the damage may be particularly serious in the case of the incipits and final endings, partly because any modifications to make the melody fit a permanent meter are less easy to locate, and partly in view of the fact that we have no immediate counterparts available from the Tntesean hymnal for the purposes of comparison and “restoration” – although, of course, we may have recourse to the incipits found in T‘aščean’s and Č‘ērč‘ean’s hymnals. Recourse to these hymnals is, in any case, likely to prove inevitable, to allow us to construct further incipits compatible with the style of Tntesean’s hymn realisations, since, even if the incipits found in Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ were to be adopted as they stand, they still constitute but a small proportion of all the requisite incipits associated with the various types of canonical hymn and with various tempi (or, more precisely, degrees of melismaticity)148.Finally, we note that Tntesean’s examples are not devoid of notational and

grammatical shortcomings and oddities. All hymns have 4/4 time signatures except for the ԲՁ – IIA darjuack‘ Magnificat on page 3 (2/2), the ԳՁ – IIIA incipit (but not ensuing hymn!) given on page 5 (again 2/2), the ԳԿ – IIIP darjuack‘ hymn at the bottom of p. 6 (also 2/2), and, oddly enough, the second ԴԿ դրձ. – IVP darjuack‘ example (3/4)! Curiously enough, sometimes on

147 We shall have cause to return to this issue in section 5.4 below, in comparing the note values in the slow and melismatic (canr) ԳԿ դրձ. – IIIP darjuack‘ example provided in Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ with that of its counterpart in the Tntesean hymnal. In Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ the notational values have been doubled; thus, instead of beating quavers as suggested by Fr. Psak in the Tntesean hymnal, crotchets may now be beaten to equivalent effect.

148 Indeed, a comparison of the incipits found in Bowandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ with their counterparts in the T‘aščean and Č‘ērč‘ean hymnals, with a view subsequently to modifying doxologies and various incipits for the purpose of furnishing the Tntesean hymnal with a complete set of incipits, is a most interesting challenge for the future, though falling outside the scope of the present paper.

144

Haig Utidjian

a single page, Tntesean uses both C and 4/4 as time signature designations. There are also instances of incorrect or ungrammatical notation, over and above the fact that clefs and key signatures are given but once and not repeated on each staff. An example of such incorrect notation may be found on page 3, where the second bar of the second line – a 2/2 bar – is notated with a syncopation in mid-bar: thus, there is a quaver followed by two semiquavers, next two further semiquavers and a dotted crotchet, followed by a final crotchet. (Further minor slips will be pointed out in the ensuing discussion, as and when they are encountered.) Such errors are understandable if we note that, in all probability, Tntesean was the first Armenian to notate Armenian hymns into Western musical notation (though preceded by the non-Armenians Schröder149, Villoteau150, Petermann151, and Bianchini).

5.4 Comparisons

Here we shall endeavour to make a detailed comparison between the versions found in Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ (BN) and their counterparts in the Tntesean Hymnal (TH), as they often shed valuable light or at least provide indirect hints on the evolution of Tntesean’s thinking during the decade or so that separates the two. A facsimile of the BN examples has been reproduced in section 5.1 above, in its entirety; for ease of reference, the corresponding items from TH are individually reproduced below.

ԱՁ – IA:

149 SCHRÖDER, Joh. Joach., Thesaurus linguae Armenicae, VII, 243–248, Amsterdam, 1711).

150 VILLOTEAU, Ch., De l’état actuel de l’art musical en Egypte, en Perse, Syrie, Arménie, Vol. IV, Paris 1809.

151 PETERMANN, H.: “Über die Musik der Armenier”, in: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, Leipzig, 1851.


145

The version in TH (p. 442) appears to be sparer than that in BN (p. 1), with fewer auxiliary notes and acciacaturas. This is evident from the opening phrase, but also later (notice, for instance, the missing acciacaturas following the c sharp and b sharp crotchets on the syllables -րո- and -ղու- of the word կա-րո-ղու-թեամբ. Thus, one wonders whether this is part of what Tntesean had in mind, whenever he referred to his “simplification” of versions which he heard from various sources (although we have to recall that, in the first instance he claimed to have “simplifed“ the versions in BN). The version in TH also has a slightly wider compass – in particular, in TH the melody goes up to an e over the words Աստուծոյ փրկչին. Interestingly enough, որ փըրկեացն starts on a b sharp in TH, which gives it more of the character of an answering-phrase, whereas BN here sounds slightly more repetitive. Yet it is clear that the two versions are very closely related – indeed, identical over the words եւ ապրեցոյց փառաւորեալըն փառօք; and it does not seem likely that the TH version might be based on a different source than that of BN. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that in TH Tntesean arrived at a version closer to some ancient version of the melody, truly corresponding to the neumatic notation: though in TH frequently the melody rises to a d where we find a p‘uš in the Portable Hymnal (p. 936), this is likely to be fortuitous, and is not borne out in the case of the second syllable, -րո-, of the word կա-րո-ղու-թեամբ, where we find that both versions have a c sharp and not a d. Finally, we note that in TH all the syllables in ծա-ռա-յու-թե-նէ ըզ-մեզ are of a single beat’s duration, whereas in BN the syllables -նէ ըզ- are given half values (quavers) even though there is no suł to be found in any of the neumatically-notated sources at our disposal (see, for instance, Portable Hymnal, p. 936)152. One is led to the suspicion that in BN Tntesean may have imposed the shortening of those syllables merely to allow the music to fit into a four-in-a-bar mould, but by the time he compiled TH, he had long since abandoned this attempt.

ԱՁ դրձ. – IA darjuack‘:

152 The sign suł generally indicates a halving of values (with respect to the single beat associated with syllables bearing “short” neumes, or no neumes at all), as already seen in section 4.3 above; it is also sometimes deployed to guard against the possible insertion of a hidden “shewa” ǝ syllable. There are comparable instances in the Portable Hymnal where the addition of a “shewa” ǝ, and thus the introduction of an additional syllable, is compensated for by the metrical diminution expressed by a suł. Yet TH preserves the ǝ as well as the crotchet durations, since there is no suł, and it is thus BH that is anomalous here.

146

Haig Utidjian

The most striking difference between the two versions is that the TH version (p. 413–414) has double the note values found in BN (p.1). In this, the TH version is consistent with other moderately-fast, or syllabic, hymns to be found in the hymnal (as also with the practice in the T‘aščean, Č‘ērč‘ean, Gprslean and Aznaworean hymnals), usually marked č‘ap‘awor (despite the fact that, were one to conduct the hymn, one would probably beat minims and, occasionally, dotted minims, and not crotchets), whilst BN is consistent with the practice found in (for instance) the Venetian Tayean hymnal. However, even if we allow for the shorter time-values in BN, there is an inconsistency between BN and TH when it comes to the fourth syllable, -ցա- of the word մե-ծա-ցու-ցա-նե-լով, which does not bear a neume – at least in the version found in the Portable Hymnal (p. 506) – and thus ought to last a single beat. Might Tntesean have made use of a neumatically-notated version which bears a “long” neume on this syllable in compiling TH? The versions in Archimandrite Oskan’s 1665 Amsterdam hymnal (p. 391), Matenadaran MS. No. 1576 (p. 178a), the Constantinople 1834 hymnal (p. 190) and the 1789 E miacin hymnal (p. 433) are all identical to that in the Portable Hymnal, as far as this word is concerned153. In any event, as was common practice in the nineteenth century in connection with most Magnificat hymns, the realisations provided are rather syllabic, even in instances where the neumatic notation suggests that a considerably more melismatic version might have been originally intended. Moreover, the neumatic notation frequently features rather complex combinations of neumes found on particular syllables, of which the metrical value is difficult to establish. But a comparison between BN and TH is very much more fruitful in a rather

153 They all differ from the Portable Hymnal, however, in having the combination of the following three neumes – a but‘, large benkorč (or ordinary benkorč in the case of the Oskan hymnal), and benkorč, on the word նոր of the first stanza, the syllable -ծան of ցըն-ծան in the second, and -ցան of զը-ւար-ճա-ցան in the third, whereas (apparently uniquely) the Portable Hymnal instead has the combination šešt, large benkorč, and benkorč over the word նոր in the first stanza. The former combination is highly surprising, in that it is very strongly associated with hymns of a different mode, namely ԴՁ darjuack‘, as we shall discuss later. It is, moreover, noteworthy that in the present case the syllable bearing the šešt, large benkorč, and benkorč combination is interpreted very differently from the way in which it is rendered in the case of ԴՁ darjuack‘ hymns, as we shall see in section 6 below.


147

different respect: clearly, the in TH corresponds to the b natural in BN. The question arises – why, then, did Tntesean use and not in TH? Might the use of suggest that that note perhaps ought to be slightly raised in pitch in comparison to a b natural? Though we are unable to furnish a definitive answer, nonetheless, irrespective of how that note may have been sung prior to Tntesean’s day – giving rise to the evident convention of notating the note as and not as – the fact of Tntesean’s observing such a convention in his notation in TH notwithstanding, comparison with the European notation employed in BN enables us to conclude that, at the very least, it was perfectly acceptable to sing an ordinary b natural – otherwise Tntesean could not have used a b natural in his BN. It could, of course, be argued that Tntesean may have had no choice – even if he had wished to indicate a slightly higher pitch, European musical notation at that time would not have offered him any obvious means of doing so. Yet, as we shall see later, in the case of ԳԿ hymns, Tntesean chose to notate the fourth degree as a d natural, refraining from writing a d flat or a c sharp in BN, even though years later in TH he adhered to the convention of notating that degree as . This leads one to suspect that (as suggested in section 3.1 above) these notational peculiarities may indeed have been more a matter of convention, possibly (but not necessarily) related to intonational nuances of an earlier era, and associated with theories of Classical Ottoman scales, and no longer necessarily intended to influence intonation in some major way in performance. (And it is clear that they certainly cannot be taken at face value, since the result then would be quite unconvincing and illogical – with b sharps rubbing shoulders with c naturals – as well as inconsistent with the versions in BN.) Finally, we note that the triplets in BN have been replaced by duple rhythmical divisions in TH154.

ԱԿ – IP:

154 In general, we find that triplets are not unusual in early transcriptions, such as those by Villoteau and by Amy Apcar (whose versions, though published late in the nineteenth century, are believed to belong to a particularly old tradition). They do become rarer in more modern transcriptions, though they are generally retained in ԴԿ stełi hymns in the Gprslean and Aznaworean hymnals. It is thus possible that the absence of the triplets in TH may have been be part of a wider trend.

148

Haig Utidjian

The very opening bar of BN (p. 1), upon being transponsed up a third, yields the opening of the TH version (p. 448), thereby providing a clear illustration of the Patriarchal Committee’s “rational arrangement” referred to in Fr. Psak Step‘anean’s preface to TH, where (as we saw in section 3.1 above) he mentions the Committee’s preference for the “upper” versions of ԱԿ hymns. It is thus very likely that in this instance the Committee’s stance may have influenced TH, and that this may at least partly account for the different beginning in TH. However, it is also quite possible that Tntesean may have been dissatisfied with the BN opening bars: the BN version does sound somewhat awkward, due to the almost exact repetition of the figure c, e flat, d, c of bar 3 (syllables նոր եւ օրհ-նե-) in bar 6 (syllables -րա յաղ-թա-) – not helped by the otherwise innocuous repetition of the minim d in bar 5. Such repetition is in no way borne out by the neumatic notation (see, for instance, Portable Hymnal, p. 943). On the contary – the very fact that the TH and BN versions differ from each other to such a considerable extent eloquently testifies to the fact that, whilst the metrical values associated with long neumes were observed in both cases, there appears to have been little attempt to go beyond mere consistency in respect of duration. Otherwise, from the word նորա onwards the TH version is similar to the BN – although the BN version employs e flat throughout, whilst the TH version uses e natural, as in most other ԱԿ realisations in TH (although there are some isolated instances using e flat, as already noted). It would be rash to jump to any conclusions to the effect that realisations using e flat might be older, or, on the contrary, that they might have been deemed to bear “eastern” influences and thus went out of fashion. They are, at any rate, wholly absent from more recent realisations such as those of Gprslean, though they also appear to be absent from the T‘aščean and Č‘ērč‘ean hymnals.

ԱԿ դրձ. – IP darjuack‘:

The versions in TH (p. 291) and BN (p. 2) are quite similar; TH here is slightly more generous with passing notes, whilst lacking the triplets in BN. Both versions are compatible in terms of metrical durations with the neumatic notation found in the Portable Hymnal (p. 400).


149

ԲՁ – IIA:

There are substantial differences in the melodic countours of BN (p. 2) and TH (p. 41) – consider, for example, bar 2 of the version in BN (corresponding to the syllables -նե-լի բը-նու-). It is difficult to make an aesthetic judgement over the relative merits of the two versions. The opening phrase, in particular, does not sound especially convincing in either version, and in this instance the TH version is not necessarily to be preferred to that in BN. Indeed, the ending in BN may be said to succeed in realising in a more natural way Tntesean’s usual penchant for ensuring that the final syllable of the stanza not exceed two beats, than does that in TH. The versions we expect to find in other hymnals unencumbered by this requirement would, in effect, use the melody we find in TH on the syllables -րար-չա-կից, followed by the melody in BN associated with the two syllables -կից հօր, but placed on the final syllable հօր alone. This expectation is indeed borne out upon inspecting the Gprslean (vol. 1, p. 83) and T‘aščean (in a slightly more embellished version – p. 99) hymnals. It thus seems quite possible that, in preparing his version for TH, Tntesean may have had access to a melody of this sort, and proceeded hastily to alter its ending such that the final syllable occupy two beats instead of four. From the point of view of metrical durations, both versions are in conformity with the neumatically-notated version of the Portable Hymnal (p. 69), particularly in the way in which both interpret the duration of the complex combination of the neumes but‘, but‘, large benkorč and large vernaxał. The one exception arises due to the fact that the combination of a but‘ on the last syllable of the word կու-սէն and the ensuing dot mi akēt, is exploited in BN (in the manner discussed in section 5.3 above) to justify the addition of a crotchet rest, to make up the number of beats in that bar to four, and thus allow retention of a four-four time signature.

150

Haig Utidjian

ԲՁ դրձ. – IIA darjuack‘:

The differences between the BN (p. 3) and TH (p. 35) versions are less great than they might initially seem. As already mentioned, the most striking difference is that the BN version is a fifth higher than that in TH – a consequence of the deployment of the sort of modification of the incipit (accounting for the transformation to the darjuack‘ mode) found more usually in other hymnals (such as that of T‘aščean). Otherwise, TH seems reluctant to to countenance the tendency of the version found in BN to have pairs of successive minims – found thrice in BN but avoided in each case in TH (through the judicious deployment of passing and other auxiliary notes). Otherwise, it is interesting to notice that in TH (and in other familiar versions) we have a phrase ending on the concluding syllable of the word շա-ռա-ւիղ, whereas the music at this point in BN is linked to the succeeding phraselet – the melody is thus prevented from “resolving” to the usual “dominant” note of e (BN) or a (TH) – which is a non-trivial difference; instead, BN ends the musical phrase at the end of the word յեսսեայ – where, in contrast, TH endeavours to link up to the next phrase through the use of auxiliary notes. Another significant difference is that over the words ընդունարան գոլ the melody in the BN version descends and rests on a c sharp (the equivalent in TH would have been an f sharp) – a note lower than the “dominant”, and not reached at all in TH. The two versions do not differ from each other in their interpretation of the durations of the neumes (see Portable Hymnal, p. 63).


151

ԲԿ – IIP (first example):

The version in BN (p. 4) is similar to the realisation in TH (p. 178) – the latter is slightly more ornate, with acciacaturas in BN appearing as fully-fledged auxiliary notes in TH, although instances of the precise opposite may also be found. The first prominent difference arises at the end of the word Քրիստոս, where we find that (in addition to the crotchet rest inserted for the usual reason – exploiting, once again, the possibility afforded by the but‘ and immediately ensuing mi akēt – see Portable Hymnal, p. 245) BN arrives at an e and TH at an f. (This sort of divergence in hymns in the ԲԿ mode is one that remains unresolved to this day, and all too often results in a lack of unanimity in performance in hymns such as the Hymn to the Holy Cross, Խաչի քո Քրիստոս155.) The two versions are otherwise almost identical, except for the differing endings – both alternatives at the end of BN being substantially different from the ending in TH – in addition to the appearance of a c sharp (second BN version) versus c natural (TH) as part of the concluding formula, already discussed above. Metrically, the TH and BN versions are identical.

ԲԿ – IIP (second example):

In this example the divergence between the BN (p. 4) and TH (p. 130) versions is particularly pronounced – particularly over the first half of the

155 The author has direct experience of this (in connection with the version in the Gprslean hymnal).

152

Haig Utidjian

stanza. But both descend to a low a over the word անմոլար, in a manner uncomfortably reminiscent of ԱԿ darjuack‘ hymns156. BN is arguably more homogeneous, and, with its successive minims throughout the stanza, also gives the impression of being less melismatic (doing so in a self-consistent way); whereas the first half of the TH version appears to have considerable melismatic movement on some of the syllables where there is a stationary minim in BN – although the TH version too, being labelled with the tempo indication čapawor, is thus categorised amongst the usual class of fairly syllabic hymns (the tempo indication yordor, corresponding the fastest tempo, being relatively rare). The two versions are also metrically inconsistent in various places. Thus, BN spends two beats on the second syllable of the word բար-ձանց, whereas TN merely one; on the first syllable of հո-վի-ւըդ BN allots six beats, and TH just two. On the contrary, on մեզ BN spends two beats, whereas TH lingers for four. The crotchet rest after անմոլար in BN belongs to the usual case of but‘-and-mi akēt. Here too, the BN example presents two alternative stanza endings – identical to those that were presented in connection with the first ԲԿ example (above); in particular, here too the second version features a c sharp.

ԳՁ – IIIA:

The melodies in BN (p. 5) and TH (p. 239) are very similar, but TH (where the hymn is labelled միջակ) appears to involve an uneasy mixture of two layers of somewhat different degrees of melismaticity, with semiquavers on certain syllables but crotchet movement on others, whilst in this respect BN seems more homogeneous. The most striking difference is that the verbal underlay in TH differs from that of BN and indeed all other sources known to us – including the Portable Hymnal (p. 327), Awetik‘ean (p. 222), the Matenadaran MS No. 1576 (p. 110b), the Oskan hymnal (p. 260), the 1789

156 The tendency for similarities to occur between turns of phrase found in ԲԿ hymns and ԱԿ darjuack‘ hymns may be encountered elsewhere also, as has already been discussed in section 3.7 above.


153

E miacin hymnal (p. 280) and the 1834 Constantinople hymnal (p. 124): all have the reading հողեղէնսըն, whereas TH, uniquely, has աշակերտսըն. An error must be suspected here – particulary as the word աշակերտ occurs later in the hymn (in the fifth stanza) in connection with the very same melodic figure (again p. 239 of TH).

ԳՁ դրձ. – IIIA darjuack‘:

The BN version (p. 5–6) makes use of e sharp, giving the mode a slightly ԱՁ-like feel, whilst TH (p. 625) does not, invariably employing e instead of e sharp. In this TH is perhaps relatively unusual, and BN closer to the “mainstream” – at least from a modern standpoint. It is conceivable that TH adheres to e natural again with a view to distancing the mode from ԱՁ, though, admittedly, in either case there is little danger of confusion between the modes here. As elsewhere, BN seems to incorporate extra beats – first, through the insertion of a crotchet rest following the word վարդապետ, and then by means of a dotted crotchet on the second syllable of աշ-խարհս followed by a quaver rest. Now the latter instance is a straightforward case of a but‘ followed by a mi akēt, comparable to similar cases already encountered. However, in the former instance, BN is consistent with the erkar found on the last syllable of վարդապետ in the Portable Hymnal (p. 697), and it is therefore surprising that the TN melody here entails a mere crotchet e and immediately continues with the ensuing words. It would be interesting to investigate why TN appears not to observe the erkar. (In addition to the Portable Hymnal, the Matenadaran MS No.1576 (p. 248b) and the Oskan hymnal (p. 532), the 1789 E miacin hymnal (p. 600) and 1834 Constantinople hymnal (p. 261) all have a erkar on this syllable.) It seems highly unlikely that there should be an error in TH, as in the analogous locations in the second and third stanzas – the final syllables of the words փա-ռա-բա-նու-թեան and again վար-դա-պետ, respectively – Tntesean has a crotchet e as in the first stanza. Curiously enough, in the second stanza of the hymn, the Portable Hymnal does not have a erkar on the final

154

Haig Utidjian

syllable of փառաբանութեան – and we find the same in the case of the 1834 Constantinople hymnal (p. 261). Now whereas the Portable Hymnal, MS 1567 and the Oskan hymnal all have the word փառաբանութեան written in full, the Constantinople hymnal uses the slightly abbreviated form: փառաբանութեն with a horizontal dash over the ե. One wonders if such a prosaic reason could have resulted in the erroneous omission of the neume erkar that might have otherwise been placed on the omitted letter – and that similar omissions in the sources from which the Portable Hymnal was compiled might have resulted in the omission of the neume from the Portable Hymnal as well, even though here the word is written out in full. On the other hand, could it not be that Tntesean used a neumatically-notated source which lacked a erkar on the pertinent syllable in all three stanzas? This seems an attractive explanation, but we still lack sufficient information on the neumatically-notated sources at Tntesean’s disposal at the time when he compiled TH, and hitherto we have not encountered any source lacking the erkar in all three stanzas. Finally, it is noteworthy that BN is particularly richly endowed with acciacaturas here, most of which have been removed from TH. For this reason, as also due to the strangely “clipped” passing-note effect associated with the e sharp in the last bar of the penultimate line of page 5 of BN, the version in BN is redolent – from our present perspective – of an oddly “archaic” or “oriental” feel.

ԳԿ – IIIA:

As previously discussed, the fact that BN (p. 6) consistently uses a d natural where TH uses strongly suggests that the latter ought indeed to be sung as a d, or at the very least something rather close to a d, and not a d flat or c sharp. Up until the refrain, the two versions are very similar – initially it is the TH version (p. 430) that is slightly more ornate, but later the two become comparable in this respect. It is instructive to compare the two versions over the words որ հնչմամբ ձայնի էջն ի – both versions strive to strike a balance between repetition and alternation of successive notes, albeit in slightly different ways. Thus, BN employs a b natural on the syllable ձայ- but then compensates for this, as it were, by allowing the c to be repeated over the syllables -նի էջ.


155

A very similar impression of balance is achieved by TH – this time by dint of the repetition of over the syllables -մամբ ձայ- on the one hand, counterbalanced by a return to the peak of on the word էջ. The more striking difference occurs on the first syllables of the refrain, զոր փա-ռա-ւո-, where we find that, whilst TN employs a standard figure commonly associated with ԳԿ hymns of the same mode157, BN deploys a somewhat halting and defiant-sounding pair of minims reiterating a d. We already had occasion to note the relative propensity of BN to employ repeated minims even in hymns where the tempo is not particularly fast, and of the tendency of TN to eschew this tendency. Finally, a by no means surprising difference arises, again in connection with the apparent necessity to observe the four-four time signature in BN, whereby the but‘-mi akēt succession (see Portable Hymnal, p. 524) is exploited to insert a crotchet rest just prior to the refrain, to make up the number of beats in that bar to four.

ԳԿ դրձ. – IIIP darjuack‘:

Here we encounter a somewhat shocking divergence between BN (p. 6–7)

and TH (p. 65–66). Remarkably, there is a close correspondence between the respective melodies in the two sources over the entire first half of the stanza, but with a crucial difference of modality: whilst we have the darjuack‘ version of the mode in BN, the TH version is in the main mode – the melody

157 And found, for instance, at the opening of the canr version of the processional hymn (not included in TH) Barexōsut‘eamb mōr k‘o, found in the Vałaršapat Missal, ՁԱՅՆԱԳՐԵԱԼ ԵՐԳԵՑՈՂՈՒԹԻՒՆՔ ՍՐԲՈՅ ՊԱՏԱՐԱԳԻ [Notated chants of the Divine Liturgy], Vałaršapat, 1878, p. 12 – albeit notated in semiquavers instead of the quavers here, and rendered popular through Ekmalian’s and Komitas’s later harmonisations.

156

Haig Utidjian

“converts” to the darjuack‘ version afterwards, from the words եւ մտեր onwards158.

Now this in itself might plausibly be explained by the fact that the neumatic notation in the case of the ԳԿ – IIIP mode is less recognisably “different” here (see Portable Hymnal p. 524), and that it is not possible to tell with certainty precisely at which point the melody should evolve into the darjuack‘ modality. Indeed, it may perhaps be significant that in his table of neume sequences associated with the principal and darjuack‘ versions of modes (Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 32, reproduced in section 4.6 above) Tntesean does not include an entry for ԳԿ/ԳԿ darjuack‘. In addition, elsewhere (Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 74) Tntesean mentions his conviction159 that in the past very many more ԳԿ hymns must have been sung in the darjuack‘ version than in his own day160 – and thus it is possible that in TH he gave preference to a more modern version161. What

158 It is noteworthy that the version of this stanza in the Č‘ērč‘ean hymnal here presents a solution lying somewhere “between” TH and BN: the melody over the word նահատակ is practically identical to that found in TH, but turns into the darjuack‘ modality on the second word, բարի (see Č‘ērč‘ean hymnal, vol. 2, p. 63).

159 Այս եղանակին երգերուն գրեթէ ամբողջը պարզ ձեւին վերայ կ‘երգուին այժմ, բայց անտարակոյս անհետ եղած են ասոնց շատին դարձուած ձեւերը. այժմ քանի մը հատ մնացած են, որք են ...

160 Indeed, he cites a mere four hymns as being sung as ԳԿ darjuack‘, plus Aysōr erewumn, which, however, has a “special form of its own” (առանձին ձեւ մը ունի). His list is not, however, complete, and we may add (for instance) the Hymn Yareaw tērn (TH p. 357), which enters the darjuack‘ modality in the beginning of the second stanza.

161 Another instance is the ԳԿ De caelis hymn, Aŕeal ew mer (TH p. 360): in the opening of the hymn Tntesean retains the principal version of the mode, modulating into the darjuack‘ modality on the last syllable of the word հրեշտակացն, whereas the versions by T‘aščean, Gprslean and Petrosean all embark on the darjuack‘ modality from the very outset. A further example – even closer to the case of the present hymn, in that a very similar melodic contour is sung but variously employing the principal ԳԿ modality or its darjuack‘ version – may be found if we compare various versions of the opening of the Good Friday version of the celebrated evening hymn (not included in the canonical hymnal) Luys zuart‘, where during the characteristic run up a fourth from a to d, instead of a b natural and c natural (leading up to a slightly lowered d ) one sometimes encounters a b flat and a c sharp (leading to a d natural) – in effect transforming the mode from its principal version to its darjuack‘ version. The passage in question (in the former of the two versions described) may be found in the second bar of the third line of p. 414 of Vol. 2 of the Gprslean hymnal (where the melody is attributed to Fr. Hambarjum Vardanean), in the equivalent place in the transcriptions found on p. 177 of Vol. 8 of Komitas’ Collected Works (ԿՈՄԻՏԱՍ, Երկերի Ժողովածու [Collected works], Ը. հատոր, Yerevan 1998), and on p. 1of Pētēlean’s


157

is equally surprising is an anomaly found in TH in this hymn, whereby the usual ԳԿ darjuack‘ modality has been adjusted such that instead of the usual b flat we find b natural throughout – as already discussed in section 3.3 above. TH also differs from BN in that, unusually for a hymn in the ԳԿ mode, towards the very end of the stanza the version in TH descends to a low d, whereas that in BN descends no further than to an e. Finally, the opposite to the situation described in connection with example in ԱՁ darjuack‘ above applies here, in that the notation in TH has half the time values found in BN – consistently with the explanatory note provided by Fr. Psak Step‘anean at the end of the preface to TH (as discussed in section 5.3 above): whenever we are dealing with canr – slow and melismatic – hymns notated in Limōnčean notation, the beats are now quavers and not crotchets, and it is recommended that their values be doubled in transferring them to European notation162; alternatively, as one might say using modern parlance, the beat is “subdivided” when one reads from the Limōnčean notation of TH.

ԴՁ – IVA:

The version in TH (p. 480) has fewer acciacaturas but more auxiliary notes than that found in BN (p. 7). The first substantial difference arises over the syllables -թող զօ-րու-թիւն նո-րա, where, as in previous instances, both versions achieve a different balance between repetition and alternation. Thus, BN repeats the note d over the first three syllables, but the melody then rises to an e, falls to a c and returns to a d. In constrast, TH eschews repetition during the first syllables but tolerates it over the penultimate and ante-penultimate syllables quoted above. A further difference arises over the word օգնական,

manuscript hymnal copied in 1914 (of which a facsimile may be found in the archives of the Cilician Catholicosate in Antelias), which, according to Pētēlean (who gave this information to the present writer), he transcribed himself from his own father’s singing in Adana.

162 Հայ Ձայնագրութեան մէջ ծանր մէկ բաղխումը՝ այսինքն մէկ (.) կէտը ձեռքի մը իջնելու եւ ելնելու տեւողութիւնը կ‘արժէ, իսկ Եւրոպականին մէջ միայն իջնելը, հետեւաբար երբ Հայկական ծանր չափ մը Եւրոպականի վերածել ուզուի պէտք է մէկ կէտը (..) երկու կէտի վերածել:

158

Haig Utidjian

where TH features a descending fourth from d to a over the first two syllables of the word – an interval that is not infrequently encountered in TH, as also in the other main Constantinople sources – as the ending of a stanza is approached. But the more significant difference arises over the ending of the stanza. Contrary to the practice favoured in TH, whereby hardly ever is the c sharpened (as we saw in section 3.2.2 above), BN does sharpen the c – and, moreover, does so in a manner not encountered in the other main hymnals163. The effect is, if anything, slightly reminiscent of somewhat ubiquitous alternations between c and c sharp (albeit at variously transposed keys) of the ԴՁ hymn transcriptions found in the Amy Apcar volumes164, as well as (to a lesser extent) in Bianchini’s 1877 Venetian Missal/hymnal. One thus wonders if perhaps BN does not document an older practice here – one that was soon phased out in Constantinople, but which somehow persisted in the more isolated

163 For instance, the Aznaworean Awag Ōrhnut‘iwnner (ՁԱՅՆԱԳՐԵԱԼ ՇԱՐԱԿԱՆ ՀԱՅԱՍՏԱՆԵԱՅՑ ԵԿԵՂԵՑՒՈՅ [Notated Hymnal of the Armenian Church], Գ. հատոր Աւագ Օրհնութիւններ [Principal Canticles], Antelias 1985) volume (p. 61) and the T‘aščean hymnal (p. 1059) both have exactly the same formula but without the c sharp found here; and whenever the c is sharpened in the T‘aščean and Aznaworean hymnals a somewhat different concluding formula is deployed whereby the c sharp is invariably approached in stepwise motion from above (see, for instance, Aznaworean Awag Ōrhnut‘iwnner p. 63, second line (end of first patker), or first line p. 64 (end of second patker); and T‘aščean p. 1060 and 1061, for analogous cases). However, we may find counter-examples to this practice in the Bianchini 1877 Missal/hymnal, where (after the due transposition has been undertaken, to ensure tonal equivalence) we find that the ԴՁ c sharp is approached in stepwise motion from below (see, for instance, bar 4, p. 9), as well as in the manner more familiar to us today, that is stepwise motion from above (see bar 6, p. 9).

164 The five Amy Apcar volumes are a valuable source of hymns from a non-Constantinople tradition, and though transcribed in Calcutta in the late nineteenth century, are believed to represent a considerably older tradition, associated with the Armenian community in New Julfa. Though some of the musical modes attested therein are strikingly different from the mainstream to the point of being unrecognisable, there is also undeniable common ground. They deserve to be studied fully, and it is a great pity that only a fraction of the hymns in the Armenian hymnal have been captured in them. The volumes are: MELODIES OF THE HOLY APOSTOLIC CHURCH OF ARMENIA, Apcar, Amy (Ed.), 2nd enlarged edition, Vols. 1–3, Calcutta 1920; MELODIES OF THE OFFICES FOR THE EVES OF CHRISTMAS AND EASTER, Apcar, Amy (Ed.), Breitkopf and Härtel, Leipzig 1908; and MELODIES OF THE FIVE OFFICES IN HOLY WEEK, ACCORDING TO THE HOLY APOSTOLIC CHURCH OF ARMENIA, Apcar, Amy (Ed.), Leipzig 1902. I am greatly indebted to Archdeacon Dr. George-Giragos Leylegian for his generosity in supplying photocopies of the latter two volumes from his private collection.


159

environment of New Julfa/Calcutta – or, at least, some local practice that shortly afterwards fell into abeyance. A neumatically-notated version of the hymn may be found on p. 978 of the Portable Hymnal. Interestingly enough, both TH and BN spend two beats on the second syllable of the word փա-ռօք, even though that syllable does not bear any neumes in the Portable Hymnal, and thus ought to last only one beat. But this may be readily explained – MS 1576 (p. 344a) has a long, diagonal line with a dot over it – a t‘ur or possibly sur – which would, in either case, warrant two beats on this syllable. All the other printed editions we have consulted do have a t‘ur on the syllable – namely Oskan (p. 731), E miacin 1789 (p. 836), Constantinople 1834 (p. 364). It may well be that the Portable Hymnal may be unusual in having omitted the neume in question, and may have done so in error; if so, one might reasonably expect other melodic variants also to linger on this syllable for two beats – and this is indeed borne out, upon inspecting the hymnals by both Aznaworean (1985, Awag Ōrhnut‘iwnner, p. 61) and T‘aščean (p. 1059).

ԴՁ – IVA second example (“semi-darjuack‘ ” type165):

Here too, we find that BN (p. 7) features c sharp in unexpected places – over the words իջանելով մեծաձայն and (in the case of the first of the endings presented in BN) վերնատան – which render the version reminiscent of some of Amy Apcar’s realisations166. The reader should note that BN ought

165 It is interesting that in BN Tntesean chose to supply a separate example of this type of hymn, which, though usually considered to belong to the principal mode, does exhibit some darjuack‘-like characteristics, and forms a particularly readily identifiable family of hymns within the mode (see Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 33 footnote 1, and especially p. 74), by virtue of two highly-characteristic combinations of neumes. Several celebrated hymns belong to this family, including Xorhurd xorin and T‘agawor golov.

166 Indeed, we are in the happy position of being able to refer to her transcription of this very hymn – see MELODIES OF THE OFFICES FOR THE EVES OF CHRISTMAS AND EASTER, Apcar, Amy (Ed.), Breitkopf and Härtel,

160

Haig Utidjian

to be corrected to enable the sign in front of the quaver c on the second syllable of the word հընչ-մամբ to read as a natural, rather than a sharp (as is clear from the context). There are metrical inconsistencies – the first syllable of ա-ղաւ-նոյ is associated with a single beat in the first version of BN but two beats in TH (p. 411). In fact the Portable Hymnal (p. 504) has a xunč here, generally associated with only a single beat; but versions which spend two beats on the syllable are very common, not least those traditionally sung when water is ritually blessed (see, for instance, the 1988 Antelias Maštoc‘ version – p. 621). Thus, in this instance TH may have given preference to common practice over grammatical observance of the respective durations believed to be associated with particular neumes. It is, however, interesting to note that BN includes an alternative opening (as indicated by footnote (2), which leads us to the penultimate line of p. 10) which is very similar to – and metrically consistent with – that found in TH. The fermatas and run associated with the word զաշակերտսն in BN are of considerable interest (whereas the TH version is rather standard); the impression is that the fermatas here are not merely a device to ensure consistency with a four-in-a-bar pattern, but do betoken a genuine element of rubato, giving the realisation a refreshingly improvisatory feel. However, the situation is more complex in BN, where (as indicated by

Leipzig 1908 – the first stanza on page 78–79. (Clearly the designation ԲՁ on p. 78 is a misprint, and ought to read ԴՁ instead.) The alternation between a natural and a sharp in the Apcar version of the hymn is entirely comparable to that between c and c sharp in BN, once the needful transposition has been made; and though the Apcar version seems not to correspond to the metrical values of the neumes in the usual way, there is a semiquaver run on the word աշակերտսն, comparable to that in BN – as we shall see shortly. As far as the metrical values are concerned, one should bear in mind that Apcar’s transcription is of the melody used ritually (during the ceremony for blessing water) and not as sung by way of a Cantemus hymn as part of the Canon for the first day of Pentecost. It may, however, be useful to take ino consideration another transcription of Apcar’s of a ԴՁ semi-darjuack‘ hymn, namly Xorhurd xorin, which bears the same neumes as the present hymn.This may be found in Apcar’s first Missal volume, and there are, in effect three versions. (As the neumatic notation of all the stanzas is comparable, it need not matter that not all the stanzas have been transcribed in all the versions.) The version most closely comparable to Aŕak‘eloy aławnoy is the least melismatic, and is found on p. 41 of the Missal, commencing from the fifth stanza of the hymn, to the words Tan k‘um vayel ē srbut‘iwn. A comparison of the various versions of the two hymns in the Apcar volumes indicates that her versions do have a logic of their own, entailing, inter alia, various syllables of three beats’ duration (in common with some of Komitas’s experiments with the decipherments of neumes cited by Šahnazarean), as already discussed; and that the relative metrical durations associated with various syllables are not as haphazard as might initially seem.


161

footnote (3), which pertains to the very last line on p. 10) an alternative melodic fragment is supplied for the syllables -լի զա-շա-կերտսն. This example entails a descending perfect fourth – d to a – on the first two syllables, directly comparable to that found in TH in the previous example (though TH does not feature the figure in the present case), and the same stepwise ascending and descending figure that we find in TH; with the difference that TH has the whole figure (lasting four beats) on a single syllable, whilst BN distributes it over two syllables. (It is hard to say which version best corresponds to the neumatic notation, as the syllable in question bears the complex combination of a erkar, two but‘s, one large benkorč and a t‘ur, and, as we saw in section 4.3 above, neither Tntesean nor present day musicology are equipped with any clear notion as to how to work out the total duration associated with such a combination.) It may thus be justifiably claimed that, between themselves, TH and BN embody three genuine variants of equal interest and (according to our limited understanding of neumes) comparable validity – and this without even counting the alternative ending provided in BN (which serves to enhance the darjuack‘-like element in the character of this “semi-darjuack‘ ” type of melody). In so doing, they simultaneously attest to the variety and fluidity associated with what was sung, as well as hinting at the element of modularity that underlies many hymn melodies – in the sense that the total number of variants can be increased very considerably by combining various fragments from the various versions – as in this case all are mutually compatible167. Finally, we note that the acciacaturas with which the BN version commences are not found in TH, although otherwise the TH version is slightly more melismatic in places. It is particularly instructive to compare TH and BN as far as the acciacatura d between the final two syllables of the word հրա-զին-եաց is concerned. In TH the acciacatura is printed closer to the previous than to the subsequent ; similarly-placed acciacaturas are found elsewhere in TH also, provoking the question as to how they should be performed (given that in other hymnals, particularly those in current use, nothing similar is encountered – and thus one could be tempted to suspect that the position of such acciacaturas in TH may be unintentional, and the result of imprecise printing. But comparison with the corresponding passage in BN, where the

167 The concept of modularity is, in our view, a very fundamental one; it may be demonstrated that it applies on a considerable scale in Armenian hymn melodies (at least in their current form). We believe that it has considerable implications as far as the future course of neumatological research is concerned, precisely because it can help generate a very considerable number of possible variants (over and above those already transcribed) for purposes of subsequent comparison with neumatically-notated sources, and thus potentially increase the likelihood of genuine correspondences being observed (which might otherwise be missed) between specific fragments of melody and particular neumes.

162

Haig Utidjian

acciacatura is clearly placed after the b natural and is followed by a barline, unequivocally indicates that the ornamental d is not intended to be performed as a crushing note on the next beat, but rather in the aftermath of the b natural. This provides useful guidance on the appropriate way of realising in performance the many similarly-positioned acciacaturas that occur in TH.

ԴՁ դրձ. – IVA darjuack‘:

The BN (p. 8) and TH (p. 64) versions are initially quite similar. We appear to have a genuine divergence in terms of the positioning of the acciacatura b natural at the opening bar – in BN it is at the very ending of the bar, and thus ought to be sung to the syllable ըզ-, whilst, in contrast, on this occasion TH seems to have a genuine crushing-note, to be sung at the very beginning of the next syllable, -տէր. TH differs from BN on the syllables քան-զի ծագ-, where the BN version is rather similar to a turn of phrase frequently encountered in hymns of the ԱԿ mode. Thus, Tntesean may have modified the melody here (or adopted an alternative version, as the case may be) in accordance with the Patriarchal Musical Committee’s desire generally to keep the modes as distinct from each other as possible. Next, we find that the TH melody dwells on the second syllable of the word ծագ-եաց for three minims, whilst the BN does so for only two. The Portable Hymnal (p. 115) has the combination of the following neumes on this syllable (as also on the analogous syllables in the remaining two stanzas): a large benkorč, a single šešt, and a t‘ur. We find precisely the same in the Matenadaran MS No. 1576 (p. 41a) and in the Oskan (p. 93), E miacin 1789 (p. 101) and Constantinople 1834 (p. 45) hymnals. However, it may be significant that there do exist instances in other hymns belonging to the ԴՁ darjuack‘ mode of comparable syllables bearing the slightly fuller combination of a large benkorč followed by two successive occurrences of šešt,


163

and a t‘ur. A case in point is the Levavi hymn Nor siovn cǝneal (Portable Hymnal p. 16, Oskan hymnal p. 10, E miacin 1789 hymnal p. 13, Constantinople 1834 hymnal p. 7–8) 168, where the syllable of interest is the last in the word շնոր-հա-զար-դեալք (and analogous syllables may be identified in the remaining stanzas). The irony here is that the realisation of this hymn in TH (p. 580) has only two minims’ worth of music on those syllables. Thus, although the turn of phrase is identical to that found on the syllable considered in the previous hymn, it is now distributed on two syllables. This phenomenon is highly reminiscent of the similar case encountered above in connection with the specimen from the “semi-darjuack‘ ” mode ԴՁ, where again the same figure appeared in both versions, but in one it was distrubuted on two syllables instead of one. It would thus appear that one ought not to read too much into the issue of the total number of beats spent in the respective versions found in BN and TN here, when in fact TN itself would seem to be none too consistent in this respect169. The same motif appears in both, but not too much attention is devoted to its precise distribution onto the verbal text, particularly when we are dealing with a combination of neumes on a syllable whose total duration could not be established with certainty170. The next significant difference arises on the first syllable of the word փըր-կու-թեան, where TN employs an f natural and BN an f sharp. (An f sharp in such a context is often encountered in examples in the Gprslean hymnal also, but is generally eschewed in TH, as we saw in section 3.3 above.) The two versions diverge again over their treatment of the second syllable of ըզ-մեզ. The Portable Hymnal (and Matenadaran MS No. 1576, as well as the Oskan, E miacin and Constantinople hymnals) all have the following combination of neumes: but‘, but‘ and erkar. Again, the metrical duration theoretically associated with such a combination is uncertain, and it is therefore not in itself surprising that TH spends a mere two beats on this syllable whilst BN does four. What is slightly shocking, however, is the fact that BN here deploys exactly the selfsame motif associated with the combination of neumes characteristic for ԴՁ darjuack‘ in general – namely but‘, large benkorč, small benkorč. Thus, it is likely that by the time he compiled

168 This hymn appears to be missing from Matenadaran MS No. 1576 (copied in Drazark, almost certainly in the year 1328, as discussed in section 3.3 above), as also from certain other MS sources (such as Matenadaran MS No. 5114, copied in Mecop‘ in the year 1424). We were, however, able to locate it in Matenadaran MSS No. 1590 (year 1308, p. 5b) and No. 9838 (year 1193 – although the page in question, p. 6a, appears to be a considerably later interpolation), in both of which, however, we find but a single šešt instead of two – the complete combination on the syllable in question being a large benkorč, a single šešt, and a dotted t‘ur.

169 This issue will be discussed in considerable detail later.170 Thus, Tntesean would appear to have been not entirely self-consistent. This too

we shall have occasion to discuss more fully in section 6 below.

164

Haig Utidjian

TN, Tntesean may have wished to correct the BN version here, reserving the highly telling motif exclusively for syllables bearing the associated combination of neumes171. Next, the first two syllables of the word կա-մե-ցաւ give yet another example of a stylistic feature already encountered in BN – the sudden, halting appearance of a minim, entailing the repetition of the same note to boot (a b natural in this case172). TN here has continuous quaver movement, with auxiliary notes serving to “soften” the overall ascent and subsequent descent. Then, just before the refrain (օրհնեցէք...) BN has a crotchet rest inserted in the usual manner, to ensure four beats in the bar, and exploiting the ambiguity traditionally associated with the presence of a but‘ followed by a mi akēt.

The second syllable of ըզ-տէր again bears the characteristic combination of neumes already discussed, and is accordingly rendered in BN; surprisingly, and very unusually, the realisation given in TN for this syllable is substantially (though not radically) different. Had Tntesean wished to adhere to the usual motif associated with the combination of neumes on this syllable, he could have done so rather easily173. Finally, the last two bars of BN and the corresponding passage in TN both (albeit in different ways) give the impression of a conscious attempt to avoid deviating into the ԱԿ mode, though seemingly with only partial success.

171 Alternatively, it is conceivable (if somewhat far-fetched) that in preparing BN Tntesean made use of a neumatically-notated source which may have had the appropriate combination of neumes on this syllable also, thus logically suggesting the presence of the motif; by the time he compiled TH, Tntesean may have been convinced that the reading found in the neumatically-notated source was spurious, and thus amended the melody accordingly.

172 In our view the minim on the first syllable of the word, slightly ambiguously placed on the staff, ought to be read as b natural (and not c).

173 We are, sadly, unable to make a comparison with analogous syllables in other stanzas, since, being part of the refrain, this fragment is identically repeated with each stanza. It is conceivable that Tntesean here referred to a neumatically-notated source where the characteristic combination of neumes was not present, and thus he may have purposely eschewed the usual motif – again, with a view to confining its deployment only when the aforementioned combination of neumes occurred. However, an inspection of a variety of neumatically-notated sources suggests that this might be less than probable: the Matenadaran MS No. 1576, and the Oskan, E miacin and Constantinople hymnals all bear the same neumes here as the Portable Hymnal; and it is, in any case, very usual for the combination to occur more than once in each stanza of hymns belonging to this family, and the final occurrence within the stanza is almost invariably near the end – which is borne out in this case also. A more plausible explanation is that Tntesean may have merely sought some degree of variation here.


165

ԴԿ – IVP:

It is interesting to note that the time signature now is 2/2, and thus to make comparisons with the version in TH (p. 7) we need to halve the values found in BN (p. 8). It then emerges that the version in TH is merely a less ornate variant of that in BN. Metrically, both BN and TH interpret the combination of three neumes (see p. 38 of the Portable Hymnal – or other sources such as the Oskan or Matenadaran MS No. 1576 hymnals) – ēkorč, large benkorč and krknolorak – on the second syllable of the word հրեշ-տակս somewhat differently, with BN spending two (minim) beats and TH four (crotchet) beats174. BN is anomalous here in its ending, with the last syllable of the stanza occupying only a single beat.

ԴԿ դրձ. – IVP darjuack‘ first example:

174 The inconsistency between TN and BN here is hardly surprsing – there is no uniformity within the various eighteenth-century traditions as far as the metric duration associated with the realisation of this syllable is concerned – as may be confirmed by inspecting the transcriptions of Gprslean, T‘aščean, Apcar, the Constantinople Tōnakarg (ՏՕՆԱԿԱՐԳ ՀԱՅԱՍՏԱՆԵԱՅՑ Ս. ԵԿԵՂԵՑՒՈՅ [The Order of the Feasts of the Holy Armenian Chuch], Vol.1, Constantinople, 1931), Bianchini (1877), and Tayean (whose own two versions are not consistent with each other in this respect). A full discussion, including a superposition of all the above versions of this hymn in Western musical notation, is included in the sequel to the present paper.

166

Haig Utidjian

At first sight the version in BN (p. 9) gives the impression of coming from a genuinely different tradition to that represented by TH (p. 644), and is perhaps closer to the version found in T‘aščean (p. 890). However, the two versions are related, and the impression of distance between the two is a consequence of the fact that BN abandons the b flat associated with the darjuack‘ mode from the word զօրագլուխ, making use of b natural instead. Thus, modally speaking, BN reaches an equivalent point of transition on the last syllable of the word առաքինեաց, attained in TN not until the last syllable of վառեցար. In addition, BN makes use of a sharp instead of ain the less darjuack‘-like passages, giving them a slightly ԱՁ-like feel. BN and TN become more similar from the word վառեցար onwards – whereupon it may be noticed that TN favours continuous quaver movement, whilst BN exhibits a higher proportion of crotchets. BN also makes liberal use of fermatas (TN has none), contributing to the improvisatory feel of the melismata on the final syllables of նո-րա-հրաշ and of Վար-դան. In terms of metrical differences between the two version, it is noteworthy that BN uses a fermata on (or, to be more precise, in the immediate aftermath of) the final syllable of մա-հու – at which point the neumatically-notated version (see Portable Hymnal, p. 755) has the but‘-mi akēt sequence; BN uses this expedient to create a feeling of repose here without having to add a crotchet rest, which would disturb the rather artificial four-in-a-bar pattern. However, the BN version does insert an extra beat on the final syllable of ա-ռա-քին-եաց – the last note of one bar having to be tied to the first note of the next – in order to ensure that four beats in a bar are maintained. (Here the Portable Hymnal has a but‘ followed by a comma, not a mi akēt.) In our view such inconsistencies are the consequence of Tntesean’s attempt in BN to fit the melodies into the mould dictated by a regular time signature, to which the melodies are on the whole ill suited. In general, it would seem that in TN Tntesean has adopted a version that makes the hymn sound similar to the well-known Breviary hymn Aysōr ančaŕ (unfortunately not included in TN). This is not unreasonable, given the similarities in the neumatically-notated versions (Portable Hymnal, Norahraš p. 755, Aysōr ančaŕ p. 346).

ԴԿ դրձ. – IVP darjuack‘ second example:


167

Whilst in the first example, both BN and TH invariably used e natural instead of e flat, in the second darjuack‘ example presented in BN (p. 9) we find that an e flat is employed here and an e natural in the equivalent locations in the TH version (p. 395). This hymn is very unusual in that the time signature given in BN is 3/4. There is an omission in BN, which may be corrected after TH – over the first syllable of յերկ-նից the three quavers ought to be triplets; alternatively, the three quavers might be replaced by a quaver followed by two semiquavers, as in TH – although the former alternative seems the more likely, both in view of the relative abundance of triplets in earlier sources, and given that elsewhere on the same page (third line, first bar, first beat) Tntesean has again grouped the stems of three quavers together without making an explicit indication that a triplet is required and yet it is quite unequivocal from the context that a triplet is intended. Metrical inconsistencies between the versions may be found on the final syllable of Աս-տը-ւած and on the word բանդ – corresponding in the Portable Hymnal (p. 498) to the comparatively obscure but decidedly “long” neumes k‘ark‘aš and krknolor, respectively. It is also noteworthy that, unusually, the TH version allocates three beats to the second syllable of the word ո-ղոր-մեա. This syllable bears a complex combination of the following neumes in the Portable Hymnal: erkar, huhay, small benkorč, but‘, but‘ again, and p‘uš.

This is a highly unusual hymn, particularly in its realisation given in the TH version, where (as discussed in section 3.3 above) it seems that the usual modal features of the darjuack‘ are, in a sense, reversed – above the tonic axis of g we have a minor modality instead of major, as expressed by the deployment of b flat instead of b natural, and below the g we have major instead of harmonic minor, as manifested by the use of e natural instead of e flat. The result sounds curiously, and sweetly, lugubrious.

ԴԿ – IVP stełi first fragment:

There is a certain correspondence between the BN (p. 10) and TH (p. 727) versions, once the former’s note values are halved, as discussed in connection with the ԳԿ դրձ. – IIIP darjuack‘ example above.

ԴԿ – IVP stełi second fragment:

168

Haig Utidjian

The connection between the BN (p. 10) and TH (p. 751) versions is even more tenuous now; for instance, the third syllable of the word Ա-րի-ա-ցեալք bears a melisma ending on a long f sharp in BN, but only two quavers in TH. (In this, TH is arguably closer to the neumatically-notated version, since this syllable does not bear any neumes – see Portable Hymnal, p. 758). The dissimilarities between the two versions may be explained by noting that in the case of stełi hymns the link between what was sung and the neumatically-notated hymnals was particularly tenuous, because the neumatic notation, though somewhat denser than usual, probably did not sufficiently correspond to the highly melismatic character of the melodies being sung. This is particularly so in the case of the first example (Portable Hymnal, p. 133). For the same reason, Constantinople church musicians175 would visit older experts to “obtain” and transcribe their versions of various stełi hymns, mere semi-improvisation no longer being sufficient in the case of such hymns; and we may reasonably suspect a greater degree of susceptibility to personal compositional endeavour in such cases than in the case of less melismatic hymns, and, consequently, a greater divergence between various competing versions in circulation. In either example, it is difficult to assess which one of the BN and TH versions sounds more rhythmically free and spontaneous; the difference is principally notational. That freedom and spontaneity were expected in performance follows from Tntesean’s own writings in Nkaragir ergoc‘, where it is suggested that such hymns are to be interpreted as solos and ǝst hačuys176 (p. 25), and thus not strictly measured or rigorously counted. With this fact and an awareness of the style in mind, there is no reason why either version could not prove equally effective in inspiring Tntesean’s readers to perform from his transcriptions in a convicing manner.

5.5 Discussion and conclusions

Our detailed comparisons over the whole of BN have indicated that TH is based on broadly similar melodies as those found in BN in the majority of cases. Some of the differences arising in TH with respect to the earlier BN transcriptions may be attributed to the following:

(1) The abandonment of Tntesean’s earlier penchant for imposing a regular time-signature on the music.

175 Such as T‘aščean – see his letter, re-published by Tntesean in Nkaragir ergoc‘ (p. 10): ... եւ ան ատեն ես ինքս անձամբ քանի մը անգամ Սիմոն աղային գնացի, քանի մը ծանր ստեղիներ անկէ առնելու, եւ ձայնագրելու համար.

176 Or ad libitum – Tntesean provides, in addition to the Armenian term Ըստ հաճոյս, the Frenchversion à volonté.


169

(2) The removal of some of the embellishments (though the difference is not all that great, as Tntesean exercised some measure of “simplification” in BN also – as stated in the preface to BN), indicating a clear evolution of taste against the liberal deployment of acciacaturas.

(3) The removal of the slightly piquant e flat in ԱԿ and the even more unusual b natural in ԳԿ darjuack‘, and their respective replacement by d natural and b flat; the abandonment of c sharp in ԴՁ hymns (whose manner of use in BN is slightly reminiscent of the possible archaicism of Amy Apcar’s transcriptions, and distinct to that found in more recent hymnals). We note, however, that (as was pointed out in section 3.3 above) TH does include other ԱԿ hymns where e flat is used instead of e – so the practice has not been eradicated from TH. Thus, if these changes were motivated by a desire to achieve a greater degree of standardisation or to get closer to what may already have been “mainstream” practice, they were only partial in their effect, as they were not applied uniformly throughout the whole of TH.

(4) The possible application of a light editorial touch (on TH), seemingly motivated by the attempt to arrive at longer, more coherent musical phrases, and to avoid tonal repetitiousness (according to the aesthetic criteria of his, and our, time). Whether or not Tntesean modified the melodies in BN to achieve these changes, or whether he chose such versions “ready-made” from some source or other in preference to the BN versions, we cannot tell.

(5) The probable accommodation of the preferences of the Patriarchal Musical Committee – in the adoption of the “high” ԱԿ versions, with a view to rendering them more distinct from ԱՁ hymns – and, possibly, also the replacement of e sharp by e natural in ԳՁ darjuack‘ – again rendering the mode more distinct from ԱՁ.

(6) Tntesean’s increasing exposure to variant melodies since the publication of BN, and increasing access to further neumatically-notated sources over the years since 1864; we are not, alas, able to comment on these until such time as we have more precise information on at least some of the written (as opposed to oral) sources at Tntesean’s disposal.

Of course the above may at best acount for only some of the differences we notice in proceeding from BN to TH; and there are further possible factors on which one may speculate, but which cannot be established with certainty – such as the probable evolution of Tntesean’s personal, subjective taste, which may have played a substantial role, but which can hardy be defined in a clear-cut manner. In any event, there remain particular changes in the progression from BN to TH for which the underlying reasons will necessarily remain unknown and inexplicable to us (a case in point is the opening of the ԳԿ/ԳԿ darjuack‘ hymn Nahatak bari), or which may be due to sheer inaccuracy or human error (perhaps the replacement of the word հողեղէնսըն by աշակերտսըն in TH may be just such an instance). There may also be minor differences that are almost random in cause, and thus it would be inappropriate

170

Haig Utidjian

to attempt to read too much into them. In any event, caution is appropriate – after all, it has to be recalled that BN is unfortunately a slim booklet, and the number of examples is rather small. We must also guard against the impression that BN and TH may have been two representative “snapshots” on a time graph, documenting a uniform, monotonic development. Thus, even if certain variants in BN may appear to be more “archaic” from our current perspective, it is quite likely that the effect of local variations may have dominated over and above any temporal evolution of a mere decade or so. That is, BN-like variants may have continued to be sung in some Constantinople churches a good deal later, whilst TH-like variants will almost certainly have been in existence long before either BN or TH were published.

There is also much common ground between BN and TN; the fact that we have concentrated on their differences, with a view to gleaning as much information as possible through their interpretation, must not lead the reader to lose sight of their kinship. Indeed, if anything, it is rather remarkable how similar the BN and TH versions are; this is consistent with Nkaragir ergoc‘, wherein, in describing his progress on his hymnal, Tntesean claimed that since the time of his initial publications he had not come across any evidence to make him correct his hypotheses or radically change his views177. We have to remember that Tntesean’s penchant for “simplification”, his search for common “roots” of variants, and his wish to ensure that the final syllables of stanzas should not exceed two beats in duration, must all have influenced BN and TH alike178. Yet, though it is indeed true that in many respects his editorial

177 See Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 101: հարկադրած եմք ըսել որ, կարծես ի նպաստ մեր դեռ չգտանք այնպիսի դրութիւն մը որ կարող լինէր հիմնապէս փոփոխել մեր կարծիքը, քան զոր հրատարակած էինք ցարդ. ուստի, ինչպէս ըսինք, առանց մեր առաջին կարծիքը փոփոխել կարենալու, միայն քանի մը ամփոփումներով ձեռնարկեցինք սոյն գործին.

178 There is no reason to dispute that Tntesean “processed” at least some of the melodies available to him in some such way already by the time he was working on BN, and this is evident from the protestations of T‘ašcean (reproduced in Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 11–13), who took Tntesean’s newly-published Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ and showed it to Simōn (or Simon) Minēčean, who in the past had lent his approval to the earlier Eranean/Tntesean transcriptions, but now “rejected” Tntesean’s transcriptions. On those grounds, T‘aščean accused Tntesean of having changed the hymnal chants “to suit his fancy”: մենք ալ նոյն տետրը ձեռուընիս Սիմոն աղային գացինք, եւ գրուածը ճշդիւ կարդալով, հարցուցինք թէ ինք ա՞յնպէս կ‘երգէ, եւ կամ ա՞յնպէս գիտէ, կամ ա՞յնպէս իր երեւելի դասատուէն հանգուցեալ Մինէճի համբաւաւոր շարականագէտէն սորվեր է – ինք Սիմոն աղան մերժեց, եւ նոյն եղանակները չընդունեց: Ասկէ կ‘իմացուի որ Պ. Տնտեսեանը իր քմացը համաձայնեցուցեր է շարականի ասմունքը. The fact is that Simōn Minēčean had checked the Eranean/Tntesean transcriptions, but had not been involved in BN, where (as


171

principles had not changed in any radical way, nonetheless in some subtle ways he does appear to have changed his opinions on some particular issues. For instance, whilst in Bowandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ he always attempts to form complete bars consisting of four crotchets, two minims, or three crotchets, depending on his chosen time signature, to which he adheres throughout a stanza – claiming to have done so through the addition of rests to fill in the bars where necessary; clearly by the time he prepared the MS of his hymnal, he had (rightly) abandoned the notion of creating equal bars, and thus his transcriptions do preserve irregular meter: the attentive reader will notice that there are places where groups of three crotchets are interspersed amongst the more usual pairs of crotchets, depending on the verbal text of the hymns. A further (and related) example is that in TH Tntesean no longer allows an extra beat to be inserted (as a crotchet rest or otherwise) in instances where a but‘ is followed by a mi akēt.

Our discussion has time and again underlined the desirability of identifying the neumatically-notated sources used by Tntesean at the respective times when he was preparing BN and TN; such information could well help explain at least some particular details which otherwise seem surprising to us179. Our analysis has also demonstrated some of the consequences of the potential ambiguity and uncertainty associated with the total metrical duration associated with syllables bearing combinations of neumes. Instances of such inconsistencies may be found within TN itself, without the necessity for recourse to BN, and we shall therefore have occasion to discuss them more fully in section 6 below.

The inclusion of alternative fragments (the hymn Aŕak‘eloy aławnoy being an extreme example) leads one to wonder if perhaps Tntesean’s original manuscript presented to the Patriarchal Musical Committee (which eventually gave rise to TH) might not have been similarly endowed with several variants. We have already pointed out (in section 2.1 above) that only rarely does Tntesean present alternative versions in TH. Yet we have also seen that in Nkaragir ergoc‘ (p. 108) Tntesean states that he recorded and presented variants, in a manner (as quoted in section 2.1) which suggests that he did so on a very much wider scale than may be found in TH. In this respect BN is likely to be more

Tntesean pointed out in his reply to T‘aščean’s criticism, in a passage already quoted above), Tntesean had collated, “simplified” and otherwise applied his own editorial principles (Nkaragir ergoc‘, p. 14).

179 To our regret, details found in the various realisations have not enabled us to narrow the field except to the extent of indicating that Tntesean’s versions may have relied on any one of the various remaining published versions available to us, on such occasions when they are at variance with the 1936/1997 Portable Hymnal. Thus, such cases perhaps say more about the Portable Hymnal – which, in any case, did not yet exist in Tntesean’s time – than about the differences between BN and TN.

172

Haig Utidjian

representative of the working version of the manuscript presented to the Committee – although again, we are crippled by the insufficiency of information. Tntesean’s son Lewon suggests in his preface to TH that his father presented a complete manuscript to the Committee, which proceeded to examine almost all of it “section by section”, and made comparisons and certain “corrections”, whilst for the remaining part Tntesean continued and completed the process on his own “on the same basis”180. It must have been the fair copy so produced which Lewon lovingly preserved, and which eventually formed the basis for the posthumous publication181 – although, of course, the precise nature and extent of Fr. Psak Step‘anean’s editorial role remains to be established.

It has to be remembered that one of Tntesean’s objectives in publishing BN, as expressed in his preface, was to demonstrate that the melodies of Armenian hymns could be satisfactorily notated in European notation. This necessitated not only showing that the features of Armenian music could be faithfully captured in this notation, but also that the rules associated with the notation were respected. At this time unequal bars were not yet usual in Western music, and so it was perceived as a necessity to mould the music in such a way that it would “fit” a regular time-signature. At the same time, the manner in which Armenian hymns were sung must have been sufficiently fluid to allow various hypotheses to be propounded and melodies worked out accordingly, or existing melodies freely “massaged” to fit them (for an extreme example of this we may consider the case of Aristakēs Yovhannisean, referred to in Nkaragir ergoc‘ p. 106–107, and described by his own pupil Hisarlean as spending many a sleepless night with his tambur (a traditional Ottoman string instrument), trying to adjust the melodies of the hymnal and devise new versions in conformity with his ideas on the regular metrical structure of the hymns182).

180 ... ներկայացուած ձեռագիրներուն մէջ միակ ամբողջական եւ կատարեալ աշխատութիւնը Եղիա Տնտեսեանի ձայնագրածն էր, հետեւաբար Յանձնաժողովը իւրացնելով այդ ձեռագիրը կը լծուի իրական աշխատութեան եւ 48 նիստի մէջ (որ կը տեւէ երկու տարի, 22 Ապրիլ 1873 – 25 Ապրիլ 1875) զայն հատուած առ հատուած կը քննէ, կը բաղդատէ եւ կը սրբագրէ գրեթէ Շարականի ամբողջութեան մեծագոյն մասը, իսկ մնացեալ մասին համար նոյն հիմերուն վրայ Տնտեսեան կը շարունակէ գործին աւարտական աշխատութիւնը:

181 Ահա սոյն հրատարակուածը այն ձեռագիր աշխատութիւնն է՝ որ այդ թուականէն ի վեր իբր թանկագին աւանդ գուրգուրանքով պահուած էր:

182 Hisarlean, op. cit. p. 74: Իւր Լանկա-Պօսթանի տան խցիկը առանձնացած, շատ գիշերներ քունը զոհելով՝ թամպուր ի ձեռին կ‘աշխատէր կանոնաւոր չափերու վերածել Շարականաց եղանակները, որոնց մեծագոյն մասին համար կը պնդէր թէ ոտանաւոր են. այդ գաղափարին վրայ ա՛յնչափ հաստատ համոզում գոյացուցած էր՝ որ կէտադրութիւններով սահմանաւորած էր Շարականներու գրեթէ երեք չորրորդ մասը, երբեմն


173

BN is, nevertheless, very revealing in some ways, and helpful towards the resolution of some of the conundrums associated with TH. In particular, the notational choices made by Tntesean in BN strongly suggest that the notational anomalies in TH are likely to be more the consequence of historic convention and ought not to be taken at face value. Thus, as discussed, and in particular situations should be rendered as and , respectively; and, perhaps rather more surprisingly, in ԳԿ may quite acceptably be interpreted as a d natural. Whilst we cannot rule out that such notational conventions within the Limōnčean system still bore some suggestion of the possible deployment of microtones, it was evidently acceptable for them to be disregarded when it came to actual execution. Alternatively, the tonal modifications involved were so subtle that Tntesean chose not to indicate them whilst writing in European musical notation. Finally, it is also possible that he assumed that many singers would automatically observe any subtle tonal adjustments through the force of habit, even if such modifications were not in any way expressed in his transcriptions by the musical notation. But our argument is not that such modifications could not exist; rather, that, even if they did exist, it is significant that Tntesean chose not to indicate them in BN in any way, and that he deemed such a choice to be acceptable to his readers.

Editorial note: The complete manuscript of Haig Utidjian’s study Tntesean and the Music of the Armenian Hymnal was received and accepted by the editors for publication in September 2012. However, for technical reasons, we have included sections 1 to 5 of the article in the present issue of Parrésia, and the remaining sections 6 to 9 will be included in our forthcoming issue. M. Ř.

kEywordsTntesean, neumatology, semi-improvisation, modality, Armenian Canonical Hymnal, Limōnčean system of notation.

abstraCtIn this paper we attempt to establish, in as concrete and tangible a manner as possible, the procedures used by Ełia Tntesean (1834–1881) when compiling

յապաւելով եւ մերթ երկարելով, որպէս զի կարենայ միօրինակութեամբ ոտանաւոր չափերու վերածել ամբողջ պատկերի մը բոլոր տուները, թէեւ անոնցմէ ոմանք բաւական տարբեր էին իրարմէ:

174

Haig Utidjian

his hymnal, and the precise manner in which they were applied. Our approach entails the juxtaposition of his musicological writings with his transcriptions published in 1864 (Bovandakut‘iwn nuagac‘ ) and his realisations of 1869–1871, subsequently revised and posthumously published in 1934 (Šarakan jaynagreal ). By treating the above sources as a coherent corpus and engaging in an iterative process entailing the testing of our understanding of his writings through repeated comparisons with his hymn realisations, we have identified particular principles that informed his procedures: the desirability to “simplify” the melodies of variants in a search for a common “root”; an insistence on observing the time durations associated with particular neumes; the conviction that successive stanzas within a hymn ought to be set to the same melody, and the deployment of devices for coping with “excess” syllables; the identification of melody types through the recognition of characteristic sequences of neumes on successive syllables or of especially telling combinations of neumes on single syllables; and the wish to maintain a degree of melismaticity commensurate with the density of the neumatic notation.

Although it is clear that Tntesean was not satisfied merely to transcribe what he heard, and indeed sought to apply his theories when compiling his hymnal, our detailed investigation of specific examples has revealed some surprises. A particular combination of neumes appearing in nearly all hymns in a given mode is indeed found consistently to have been rendered by Tntesean using the same musical motif; yet the very same combination, when it exceptionally appears in a hymn of another mode, is not realised in a similar manner. Nor is the combination of neumes interpreted in a comparable way when it features as a subset of a longer combination, found in yet another mode. Other combinations of neumes that are found in only some hymns of a given mode are interpreted in a less strictly consistent manner, (for instance) being subject to temporal diminution, or to being “spread out” over more than a single syllable. Tntesean often chooses the melody to be deployed on the strength of recognisable sequences and combinations of neumes, but does not attempt to fit the melodies in a manner that would maintain consistency with the disposition of the neumes as he proceeds from one example to the next, preferring instead to observe the natural stresses in the verbal underlay, and taking account of the overall musical context as created by turns of phrase heard earlier on in the stanza. Any syllable-by-syllable patterns that emerge seem fortuitous; only the durations associated with the various neumes are observed rigorously (yet this too fails whenever complex combinations of neumes are encountered). Finally, Tntesean could not have created his melodies in a vacuum; rather, he adopted and adapted turns of phrase already in circulation, deploying them in a manner comparable to the semi-improvisatory procedures of singers performing in a liturgical environment, where a convincing result was a higher priority than apparent consistency in interpreting successions of neumes.


175

We have indicated how the above investigation may be applied to the important task of filling the gaps in the published version of the Tntesean hymnal. Moreover, Tntesean’s work may serve as a point of departure for the preparation of a critical edition of the neumatically-notated hymnal, for further neumatological investigations, and for studies of performance practice placing Armenian church music in an appropriately international context. The present paper is believed to be the first devoted to the Tntesean hymnal, as well as a first attempt to expound the connections between the procedures professed in his musicological writings and his hymn realisations. Further, we postulate the wider relevance of such procedures to versions by Tntesean’s colleagues, and therefore believe this work to constitute an important step towards a fuller understanding of the manner in which the mediaeval neumes were interpreted and exploited by Armenian musicans in nineteenth-century Constantinople.

Haig Utidjian, Cert. of Adv. Studies GSMD, M.Sc.(DIC), B.Sc., was educated at the Universities of Sussex, London and Cambridge and at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama in the UK, and by means of consultations with Carlo Maria Giulini, Hugues Cuenod, Lothar Zagrosek, Vilém Tauský and Josef Kuchinka. In his native Cyprus he was a pupil of Archbishop Zareh Aznaworean, and was ordained a deacon of the Holy Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church in the year 2000. In Prague he regularly assists in services at the church of St. Giles. He is a professional orchestral and opera conductor and choirmaster. Since 2001 he is the chief conductor of the Orchestra and Chorus of Charles University in Prague. In addition to his musical career, he is a scholar of the Armenian hymnal and patrology, and is a regular participant in international armenological conferences.

Parresia V Utidjian Hymnal I

Documents

Transcript of Parresia V Utidjian Hymnal I