the earliest christian chant repertory recovered- the georgian witnesses to jerusalem

The Earliest Christian Chant Repertory Recovered: The Georgian Witnesses to JerusalemChantAuthor(s): Peter JefferySource: Journal of the American Musicological Society, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Spring, 1994), pp. 1-38Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the American Musicological SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3128835 .Accessed: 24/10/2014 01:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of California Press and American Musicological Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Musicological Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.62.65.120 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 01:04:27 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Earliest Christian Chant Repertory Recovered: The Georgian Witnesses to

Jerusalem Chant*

BY PETER JEFFERY

For MiloF Velimirovi"

ITH ALL THE ALLURE of the mysterious East, Jerusalem has always beckoned to chant scholars. Writers from as early as the fourth

century depict a city full of singing, as Greek and Syrian townsfolk, countless monks and nuns and clergy, pilgrims and immigrants from every nation and tongue,' worshiped in (what they believed to be) the very places where the great events recounted in the Bible had actually happened.' Every medieval chant repertory is full of texts that speak of the Holy City, and the art and architecture of its most impressive shrines were imitated all over the medieval Christian world.3 The orders of service followed in Jerusalem exercised profound influence on Christian worship everywhere, so that in almost every Eastern or Western rite one can detect traditions that originated in or near Jerusalem, interacting and competing with the very different traditions emanating from the imperial capitals of Rome or Constanti- nople, from Egypt-the "cradle of monasticism"-and from other liturgical centers.4 Imitation of the Jerusalem rite was in fact so extensive that most of our sources of information about it come not

*An earlier version of this article was presented at the Fifty-sixth Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society in Oakland, California, November r990. I am grateful to Professor MiloS Velimirovid for lending me his personal copies of the rare Georgian editions of the Jerusalem liturgical books.

' For recent literature on the early history of Jerusalem as a Christian pilgrimage center, see the bibliography in section I.A. of the Appendix.

2 For recent publications on the archaeology and history of these biblical sites, see the bibliography in section I.B. of the Appendix.

3 The influence of the Christian shrines in Jerusalem on art and architecture in other localities is discussed in the publications listed in section I.C. of the Appendix.

4The history of the Jerusalem liturgy and its influence on the development of other liturgical traditions has been one of the most important areas of liturgical studies during the last three decades. The more important recent publications are listed in section I.D. of the Appendix.


2 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

from the city itself, but from other places that adopted or imitated Hagiopolite ("Holy City") practices, often translating the texts from the original Greek into their own local languages.

Worship in Jerusalem itself was always a cosmopolitan affair, not only because it attracted pilgrims from all over the Roman Empire and beyond, but because of the great number and variety of monasteries, shrines, and other churches in and around the city, each with its own local community, its own traditions, and even its own language. The most central and best-documented tradition was of course the stational liturgy, at which the bulk of the urban population worshiped under the leadership of the bishop and the diocesan clergy, at times also joined by the monks. On each day of the liturgical calendar, the stational celebration would be held in a different church or at some other location, so that in the course of a year it moved throughout the whole city, as well as to such nearby towns of biblical fame as Bethlehem and Bethany. The location selected was often the very spot where the biblical event being commemorated was believed to have taken place, and the readings and chant texts were specially chosen to refer to the event or the place.s Thus it may have been at Jerusalem that the concept of Proper chants, with texts that vary each liturgical day, first developed fully. At least it seemed a novelty to the Western pilgrim Egeria, who visited the city in the early 38os:

And what I admire and value most is that all the hymns and antiphons and readings they have, and all the prayers the bishop says, are always relevant to the day which is being observed and to the place in which they are used. They never fail to be appropriate.6

5 See Robert Taft, "Historicism Revisited," Studia Liturgica 14, nos. 2-4 (1982): 97-109, reprinted in Robert Taft, Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding, N[ational Association of] P[astoral] M[usicians] Studies in Church Music and Liturgy (Washington, D.C.: The Pastoral Press, 1984), 15-30; John F. Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship: The Origins, Development, and Meaning of Stational Liturgy, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 228 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1987). On the participation of the monks in stational services, see Jean-Miguel Garrigues and Jean Legrez, Moines dans l'assemblMe des fidles a l'poque des p#res, IV?-VIII sicck, Th6ologie historique 87 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1992), 66-77.

6 "Illud autem hic ante omnia ualde gratum fit et ualde admirabile, ut semper tam ymni quam antiphonae et lectiones nec non etiam et orationes, quas dicet episcopus, tales pronuntiationes habeant, ut et diei, qui celebratur, et loco, in quo agitur, aptae et conuenientes sint semper" (~gerie, Journal de voyage [Itinnraire], ed. Pierre Maraval, Sources chr6tiennes 296 [Paris: lditions du Cerf, 1982], 314-16). I am quoting from the most widely used English translation: John Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels to the Holy Land: Newly Translated with Supporting Documents and Notes, rev. ed. (Jerusalem: Ariel Publishing House; Warminster, England: Aris and Phillips, 1981), 146. On the date,


THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN CHANT REPERTORY 3

Egeria's description of the services in Jerusalem is not only the most detailed source of information regarding the fourth-century Hagiopolite liturgy; it also demonstrates that in her time the Jerusa- lem rite already attracted international attention. She herself came from far to the west, most likely Spain or southern France, and penned her account for her fellow nuns back home: "Loving sisters, I am sure it will interest you to know about the daily services they have in the holy places, and I must tell you about them," she wrote enthusiastically.7 And Egeria was hardly the only observer who had come from afar: she herself reported that, although the official language of this liturgy was Greek, many of the people in attendance spoke other languages. The largest minority were at home with Syriac, a Semitic language related to the vernacular Aramaic that had been the native tongue of Jesus and the Apostles; many speakers of this language would have come from the eastern edge of the Roman Empire (modern Syria, Israel, Jordan) or from the Persian Empire beyond it (modern Iraq). After Greek and Syriac, Latin had the status of a third language, spoken by pilgrims from the West. "In this province," Egeria wrote,

there are some who know both Greek and Syriac, but others who know only one or the other. The bishop may know Syriac, but he never uses it. He always speaks in Greek, and has a presbyter [i.e., priest] beside him who translates the Greek into Syriac, so that everyone can understand what he means. Similarly the lessons read in church have to be read in Greek, but there is always someone in attendance to translate into Syriac so the people understand. Of course there are also people here who speak neither Greek nor Syriac, but Latin. But there is no need for them to be discouraged, since some of the brothers or sisters who speak Latin as well as Greek will explain things to them.8

identity, and homeland of Egeria, see the works cited in Peter Jeffery, "The Lost Chant Tradition of Early Christian Jerusalem: Some Possible Melodic Survivals in the Byzantine and Latin Chant Repertories," Early Music History 11 (1992): I5I-90, esp. 156 n. io, where the number and first line of the footnote have unfortunately been omitted. To the bibliography cited there should be added Paul Devos, "Une Nouvelle

g"grie," Analecta Bollandiana o (1983): 43-70; idem, "Egeriana: Nouvelle

Vdition catalane et commentaires divers," Analecta Bollandiana 105 (1987): 159-66; and Antoon A. R. Bastiaensen, "Sur quelque passages de l'Itinerarium Egeriae," Analecta Bollandiana io8 (i990): 27 1-77- 7 "Vt autem sciret affectio uestra, quae operatio singulis diebus cotidie in locis

sanctis habeatur, certas uos facere debui, sciens quia libenter haberetis haec cogno- scere" (leg~rie, Journal, 234). Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels, 123- 8 "Et quoniam in ea prouincia pars populi et grece et siriste nouit, pars etiam alia per se grece, aliqua etiam pars tantum siriste, itaque quoniam episcopus, licet siriste nouerit, tamen semper grece loquitur et nunquam siriste: itaque ergo stat semper



The variety of tongues was even greater in the numerous monasteries of the region, many of them populated by former pilgrims who had chosen to spend the rest of their lives worshiping in the holy places. A ninth-century Latin listing of the churches and clergy in Jerusalem, supposed by some to have been prepared for Charlemagne himself, reports that, within the neighborhood of a single church, one could hear as many as six different languages, as the diverse commu- nities of hermits, monks, and nuns celebrated their own offices in Greek, Syriac, Latin, Georgian, Armenian, and "Saracen" or Ara- bic.9 Throughout the centuries many other pilgrims have remarked on the variety of languages that could be heard in the churches of Jerusalem.'o

Thus, with the great theological controversies of the fifth and sixth centuries, Eastern Orthodox Christianity began to fragment along linguistic as well as confessional lines. The breakup accelerated in the seventh century when the entire region succumbed to Persian (Zoro-

presbyter, qui episcopo grece dicente, siriste interpretatur, ut omnes audiant, quae exponuntur. Lectiones etiam, quecumque in ecclesia leguntur, qui necesse est grece legi, semper stat, qui siriste interpretatur propter populum, ut semper discant. Sane quicumque hic latini sunt, id est qui nec siriste nec grece nouerunt, ne contristentur, et ipsis exponitur eis, quia sunt alii fratres et sorores grecolatini, qui latine exponunt eis" (lg~rie, Journal, 3 I4). Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels, I46.

9 "Inclusi, qui sedent per cellulas, eorum, qui Greca lingua psallent, xi, Georgiani iv, Syriani vi, Armeni ii, Latini v, qui Sarracenica lingua psallit i." The original Latin text was published as "Commemoratorium de Casis Dei vel Monasteriis," in Titus Tobler and Auguste Molinier, Itinera Hierosolymitana et descriptiones Terrae Sanctae bellis sacris anteriora et latina lingua exarata, Publications de la Societe de l'Orient Latin, Serie g ographique I-II: Itinera Latina Bellis Sacris Anteriora (Geneva: J.-G. Fick, 1879), 1:299-305, quote from p. 302. It is translated as "Commemoratorium (or Memorandum) on the Churches in Jerusalem," in John Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades (Jerusalem: Ariel Publishing House, 1977), 136-38; see also pp. 12 and 215 on the date and the alleged link to Charlemagne. In fact the historical origins of this document remain to be determined. For one thing, despite the titles under which it has been published, the text identifies itself as a "Breve commemoratorii," a brief or summary of a (presumably longer) memorandum not otherwise known: "Breve commemoratorii de illis casis Dei vel monasteriis, que sunt in sancta civitate lerusalem vel in circuitu eius, & de episcopis & presbyteris, diaconis & monachis vel cuncto clero per illa loca sancta Dei servientibus seu monasteriis puellarum" (Tobler and Molinier, Itinera, 3or). In addition, the original manuscript containing the text has yet to be dated, or even located. The nineteenth-century editors Tobler and Molinier described it simply as "Membrana in bibliotheca publica Basileensi asser- vata, saec. IX sive X" (Itinera, 300). Perhaps it is now in the collections of the Universitiitsbibliothek Basel, but I have not found it listed in any of the catalogues that have been published by this library.

'?A convenient listing will be found in Otto F. A. Meinardus, The Copts in

Jerusalem (Cairo: Commission on Ecumenical Affairs of the See of Alexandria, I960), 9-46. See also Bernard Spolsky and Robert L. Cooper, The Languages of Jerusalem (Oxford: Clarendon Press, i99i).



astrian) and then Arab (Muslim) conquerors, and was thus perma- nently lost from Byzantine Christian control.'" Inevitably, each of the liturgical traditions of Jerusalem began to develop in an independent direction, each in a different language, and each subject to a different range of influences from the other Christian liturgical centers. As the Greek-speaking population of Palestine declined, Greeks who remained came under the hegemony of Constantinople, the only Eastern patriarchate that remained free of Muslim domination. Hence the Greek stational liturgy of Jerusalem began to be eclipsed by the traditions of the Greek-speaking monasteries of Palestine. This Pal- estinian monastic rite, introduced into the monasteries around Con- stantinople, would eventually cross-fertilize with the stational liturgy of the imperial city to produce the hybrid Byzantine rite as we know it today.12

Those who spoke Syriac gradually coalesced into four main traditions, some of which can be further subdivided into smaller groups. Many of those who accepted the Byzantine construction of orthodoxy, known as Melchites or "Royalists," eventually assimilated their liturgy to the Byzantine tradition, until it amounted to little more than a Syriac translation of the Byzantine rite. The monasteries in the mountains of Lebanon, however, managed to preserve a more distinctively Syrian synthesis that has come to be known as the Maronite rite. But in Palestine and Syria proper, there were many other Syriac speakers who rejected some of the doctrines recognized as orthodox in Constantinople, and followed the West Syrian or "Jacobite" tradition, which apparently preserves many translations of originally Greek texts from the defunct local rites of Jerusalem and Antioch. Both the Maronite and West Syrian rites also make use of the rich treasure of Syriac hymnody, a literary and musical repertory shared with the East Syrian or Assyro-Chaldean rite that developed outside the Roman Empire, in Sassanid Persia.'3

" An interesting survey of the interrelationships among the Latin, Greek, and Arab worlds during this period is Judith Herrin, The Formation of Christendom (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987); on the two invasions of Jerusalem, see pp. 194-98, 2 1-I 3. Translated excerpts from primary sources of the period are given in Francis E. Peters,Jerusalem: The Holy City in the Eyes of Chroniclers, Visitors, Pilgrims, and Prophets from the Days of Abraham to the Beginnings of Modern Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), 170-250.

" For the roles of the Hagiopolite and Palestinian monastic liturgies in the historical formation of the Byzantine rite, see the publications listed in section II.A. of the Appendix.

13 For recent bibliography on the four Syriac liturgical traditions and their relationship to Jerusalem, see section II.B. of the Appendix; the East Syrian tradition



The rite of the Armenians, who to this day inhabit their own quarter of Jerusalem, developed in yet another direction, preserving some broad outlines of the Greek rite of Jerusalem, but filling them in with native Armenian hymns and other material. In time it experi- enced some Byzantine influence, followed by significant Latinization during the period of the Crusades.'4 In the West, liturgical traditions from Jerusalem and Palestine exercised much influence on the Galli- can and Ambrosian rites; some elements survived the process of Romanization that began in the Carolingian period, and a few survive even in the Western liturgies of today.'5

Once the original stational liturgy of Jerusalem ceased to be celebrated, the loss of sources was almost total, more severe even than the loss of Mozarabic liturgical books after the Roman rite was imposed on Spain beginning in the eleventh century. A Greek typikon dated in the year I I22 is the only liturgical book that survives in the original language, and the only one known to have been written in the city itself (source G in Table i).'6 Like a Western ordinale, this

has received by far the most research. For further bibliography on the chant, see Peter Jeffery, Re-envisioning Past Musical Cultures: Ethnomusicology in the Study of Gregorian Chant (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 57, 103-8, i16, 122.

'4 Though much work remains to be done on Armenian liturgy and chant, see the publications cited in section II.C. of the Appendix.

'5 See, for example, Johannes Quasten, "Oriental Influence in the Gallican Liturgy," Traditio I (I943): 55-78; many elements that Quasten described as Syrian are more likely to be Hagiopolite or Palestinian. Elements of Jerusalem origin in the Holy Week services of the modem Western churches are discussed in Kenneth Stevenson, Jerusalem Revisited: The Liturgical Meaning of Holy Week (Washington, D.C.: Pastoral Press, I988). My own publications on this subject include "The Sunday Office of Seventh-Century Jerusalem in the Georgian Chantbook (Iadgari): A Preliminary Report," Studia Liturgica 21 (I991): 52-75; "Jerusalem and Rome (and Constantinople): The Heritage of Two Great Cities in the Formation of the Medieval Chant Traditions," in Cantus Planus: Papers Read at the Fourth Meeting, Pics, Hungary 3-9 September i99o, ed. Liszl6 Dobszay, Agnes Papp, and Ferenc Seb6 (Budapest: Institute for Musicology, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1992), 163-74; "The Lost Chant" (see n. 6 above); "Rome and Jerusalem: From Oral Tradition to Written Repertory in Two Ancient Liturgical Centers," in From Rome to the Passing of the Gothic: Festschrift in Honor of David Hughes, ed. Graeme Boone (Cambridge: Music Department, Harvard University, forthcoming); "The Earliest Evidence of the Eight Modes: The Oktoechos of Jerusalem," in Three Worlds of Medieval Chant: Comparative Studies in Greek, Latin, and Slavonic Liturgical Music for Kenneth Levy, ed. Peter Jeffery (forthcoming); "The Oriental Background of the Easter Sepulchre Drama" (in progress); and "Eastern and Western Elements in the Irish Monastic Prayer of the Hours" (unpublished).

'6 Jerusalem, Library of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, Hagios Stauros MS 43, edited in 'A0avdtLos aII ra86wVoukoO-KEpapces, "TVuwLKbYv 'TfS lv 'IEpocroThXioLS 'EKKX1iraots" [Typikon of the church in Jerusalem; in Greek], in 'Av0AEKTa

'IEpoo'okuXVLTLKIT ~7raXoAo'yias [Collections of gleanings from Jerusalem; in Greek]


THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN CHANT REPERTORY 7 book gives us the texts of the entire liturgy: chants, readings, prayers, and ceremonial rubrics in the order they actually occur. The contents represent the latest period of development before the final collapse. But since the book as we have it covers only Holy Week and Easter Week, and evidently lacks musical notation, it inevitably leaves many of our most important questions unanswered.

Up till now, research on the liturgical traditions of Jerusalem has focused primarily on the nonmusical sources: biblical readings and sermons, the liturgical calendar, and the prayers.'7 Scholars who wondered what texts and melodies were sung at Jerusalem often had to hypothesize on the basis of limited evidence, because there were no complete liturgical chantbooks.'8 But this situation can now be

(St. Petersburg: B. Kirschbaum, 1894; reprint, Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1963), 2:1-254. A better edition is certainly needed; see the critique of this edition in AlekseI Afanas'evich Dmitrievskii, Drevnelshie patriarsbie Tipikony sviaitogrobskir ierusal- imskif i velikof konstantinopol'skof tserkvi: Kritiko-bibliograficheskoe izsledovanie [The oldest patriarchal typikon of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and of the Great Church in Constantinople: A critico-bibliographical essay; in Russian], offprint from Trudy Kievskoi Dukhovnoi Akademii [Transactions of the Kievan Ecclesiastical Academy] 25 (Kiev: I. I. Gorbunova, i907). See also Robert Taft, "A Proper Offertory Chant for Easter in Some Slavonic Manuscripts," Orientalia christianaperiodica 36 (1970): 437-43; Gabriel Bertoniere, The Historical Development of the Easter Vigil and Related Services in the Greek Church, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 193 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1972), 12-18; and Baldovin, The Urban Character, 80-82.

'7 See the works listed in section I.D. of the Appendix. For older bibliography on the liturgy of Jerusalem, see Bernard Capelle, "La F&te de la Vierge a Jerusalem," Le Musion 56 (1943): 1-33, reprinted in Bernard Capelle, Travaux liturgiques de doctrine et d'histoire, vol. 3, Histoire: Varie-L'Assomption (Louvain: Centre Liturgique--Abbaye du Mont Cesar, 1967), 280-3o1;Joseph Crehan, "The Assumption and the Jerusalem Liturgy," Theological Studies 30 (1969): 312-25; and Charles Renoux, "Hierosolymi- tana: Aperqu bibliographique des publications depuis I96o," Archiv far Liturgie- wissenschaft 23 (1981): 1-29, 149-75.

'8 Best known, perhaps, is the claim made by Egon Wellesz in his book Eastern Elements in Western Chant: Studies in the Early History of Ecclesiastical Music, Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae, Subsidia 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press for the Byzantine Institute, Boston, 1947; reprint, Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1967), 126: "We learn from the comparison of Byzantine melodies on one side, and Ambrosian and Gregorian on the other, that a great number of the formulae and cadences of which both are built up are identical, or, if identity cannot be proved, through lack of manuscripts of an earlier date than the end of the ninth century or from the fact that Byzantine notation of an earlier date than the twelfth century cannot be deciphered, the analysis of these formulae and cadences still makes it evident that they are closely related and that they must derive from a common source. The results of comparative liturgiology show this to have been the Church of Jerusalem." But this view is completely dismissed by Helmut Hucke in "Toward a New Historical View of Gregorian Chant," this JOURNAL 33 (1980): 438-39. Hucke's skepticism is based partly on the fact that the oldest extant notated sources date from centuries later than the early Christian period, and partly on his opinion that there was little continuity



completely reversed. Painstaking work by European and especially Georgian scholars has recovered the entire textual repertory of Jerusalem chant, along with some important information about the melodies. We can now trace the history of chant in Jerusalem from its origins in the fourth century to its demise in the twelfth, on the basis of documentation that is far richer than that which survives for Rome or Constantinople or any other center during the same period. In addition, we can determine the musical modes in which many of the texts were sung, and in some cases we even have neumes as well.

In these newly available sources, we can recover from near oblivion an almost completely unknown chant repertory, as extensive and interesting as the Gregorian or any other, but far better documented in its formative stages, the period between the fourth and eighth centuries. The fact that the documentation is so early and so extensive would be enough to make the Jerusalem sources crucial for the study of the "central problem" of medieval chant origins.'9 But the importance of this material is greatly augmented by the fact that

between early Christian music and medieval liturgical chant. Hucke is undoubtedly right that the relationship of Gregorian chant to ancient Jewish and early Christian music has been wildly overstated by many writers. Now that the liturgical books of Jerusalem are becoming accessible, however, it can be seen that many of the same texts were sung in Jerusalem and in other centers from as early as the fifth or even the late fourth century, and that the surviving medieval melodies for these texts, even though they come from very different places, frequently exhibit musical relationships suggesting that they share some common history. It is important to remember, however, that the fourth and fifth centuries (in which Jerusalem chant is first attested) represent an important watershed in church history, the beginning of the Christian- ization of the Roman Empire and of the formalized liturgical cult celebrated in the great basilicas by bishops who were also imperial officers. During the period before the fourth century, Christian worship was a more variegated and informal affair, often celebrated surreptitiously to evade persecution. Thus the present article is about the earliest chant repertory to emerge in the public imperial worship that would become the medieval liturgy. It is not about the earliest Christian music, sung in the house churches in the period of the martyrs, which was not a chant repertory in the medieval sense.

'9 The term is best known from Willi Apel, "The Central Problem of Gregorian Chant," this JOURNAL 9 (1956): I18-27; see also Apel, Gregorian Chant (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1958), 507. However, Oliver Strunk had already used the expression "the recurrent central problem of early Christian music" in an earlier publication, for the problem is not peculiar to Gregorian chant, but applies to all medieval chant traditions. See his "St. Gregory Nazianzus and the Proper Hymns for Easter," in Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr., ed. Kurt Weitzmann (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955), 82-87, reprinted in Essays on Music in the Byzantine World (New York: W. W. Norton, 1977), 55-67, quote from p. 60. For further discussion, see my Re-envisioning Past Musical Cultures, 6-io; and Prophecy Mixed with Melody: From Early Christian Psalmody to Gregorian Chant (in progress).


THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN CHANT REPERTORY 9 it comes not from some obscure and unimportant place, but from the very heart of Christendom. It was in fact the central chant tradition of the early Middle Ages, heard and sung for centuries by the innumer- able pilgrims who perennially thronged the city, who brought at least the more memorable texts and melodies back home with them to every corner of the known world. Jerusalem chant may have been the first repertory to be committed to writing, and tracing its historical development will teach us much about the processes by which the other Eastern and Western rites may have been formed, collected, and written down. It was at Jerusalem, again, that the eight-mode oktoechos was first extensively documented; the spread of this system to the Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian liturgies is one measure of the influence radiating from Jerusalem."2 Finally, the processes by which elements of Jerusalem chant were exported and imitated elsewhere, and ultimately absorbed into other local rites, offer instruc- tive parallels to the processes by which the Roman chant was adopted, adapted, and hybridized throughout western Europe. Thus the significance of the new Jerusalem material for almost every area of chant study, but especially for investigating the origins and early history of Eastern and Western chant, cannot be overstated. Yet the amount of work we will have to do to make use of it is no less staggering, for the texts survive only in medieval translations into little-known languages, and though we can know the modal assignments for most chants, the notated melodic evidence we have is always indirect, coming from places other than Jerusalem itself. These sources are all listed in Table i; they will be introduced here one by one.

The Armenian Lectionary (Source A in Table i) Though we have information about Jerusalem chant as early as the fourth century, preserved in sermons and in the reports of pilgrims,

the earliest known liturgical book dates from the early fifth century, in fact from between A.D. 417 and 439.~' It was a lectionary, containing

2o See my forthcoming article "The Earliest Evidence of the Eight Modes" (cited above, n. i5). 2" The text is edited from three manuscripts and translated into French in Athanase [now Charles] Renoux, Le Codex arminien Jfrusalem I2 , 2 vols., Patrologia Orientalis 35/1, 36/2 (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 1969-7 I). On the date, see most recently Paul Devos, "L'Ann&e de la d6dicace de Saint-tienne a Jerusalem: 439," Analecta Bollandiana 1o5 (1987): 265-79. One view of its relationship to Jerusalem traditions of the fourth century will be found in John F. Baldovin, "A


IO JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

TABLE I The Main Sources of Jerusalem Chant: Chronological Listing

A. A.D. 417-439: The Armenian translation (3 MSS) of the earliest Greek lectionary (lost), Athanase [Charles] Renoux, ed., Le Codex arminien JIrusalem 12I, 2 vols., Patrologia Orientalis 35/1, 36/2 (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 1969-71).

B. 6-7th centuries: The Georgian translation (7 MSS) of the earliest Greek tropologion or chantbook (lost), Elene Metreveli, Caca Cankievi, and L. Xevsuriani, eds., Uvelesi ia dgari [The oldest ladgari; in Georgian], Jveli kartuli mCerlobis jeglebi 2 (Tbilisi: Mecniereba, i98o). C. 8th century: The Georgian translation of the later Greek lectionary (from 4 of the many MSS), Michel Tarchnischvili, ed., Le Grand Lectionnaire de I'tglise de fJrusakm (V'-VIIF sidcles), 2 vols. in 4, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium I88-89, 204-5 (Louvain: Secretariat du CSCO, 1959-6o).

D. 8-9th centuries(?): The Georgian translation of the later Greek tropologion or chantbook, not yet edited. E. 8-ioth centuries(?): The early Georgian heirmologia, in Kanon Order (3 MSS) and Ode Order (8 MSS), Elene Metreveli, ed., Jflpirni da GmrtismIoblisani: Ori jveli redakcia X-XI ss. xelnaCerebis mixedvit [Heirmoi ind theotokia: Two old redactions according to manuscripts of the tenth to eleventh centuries] (Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 197 i). F. Io-I Ith centuries: The notated Greek heirmologion of St. Sabas. Facs. ed. J0rgen Raasted, Hirmologium Sabbaiticum: Pars Suppletoria, Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae 8/1 (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1968). G. 1122: Typikon of Holy Week and Easter Week, the last source of the Jerusalem rite, 'AOavcwaLoq lHaLabr86irovkos-Keppa e ;, ed., "TiUmLKbv -TS Ev 'Iepooorok6sots

'EKKklqoiLas" [Typikon of the church in Jerusalem; in Greek], in

'Av&AEKTa 'IEporoAv/ALT&KS; rTaXoAkoyias [Collections of gleanings from

Jerusalem; in Greek] (St. Petersburg: B. Kirschbaum, I894; reprint, Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1963), 2:1-254-

the complete series of biblical readings for the entire liturgical year, along with a complete cycle of alleluias and responsorial psalms (corresponding to the Byzantine prokeimena or to the graduals sung after the epistle in the Roman Mass), the earliest such cycle from anywhere in the early Christian world." Though the original Greek text no longer survives, we know the contents from an Armenian translation, made when the Jerusalem rite was imported into Arme- nia. This translation serves as the basis of the calendar and lectionary still used in the Armenian Orthodox Church today.23

Lenten Sunday Lectionary in Fourth Century Jerusalem," in Time and Community: In Honor of Thomas Julian Talley, ed. J. Neil Alexander, Nfational Association of] P[astoral] M[usicians] Studies in Church Music and Liturgy (Washington, D.C.: Pastoral Press, 199o), I15-22.

22 An attempt to recover vestiges of the melodic tradition for seven of the responsorial psalms in this book is my article "The Lost Chant" (cited above, n. 6).

23 Athanase [Charles] Renoux, "Le Codex Erevan 985: Une Adaptation armenienne du lectionnaire hierosolymitain," in Armeniaca: Melange d'itudes armeniennes publi6e a l'occasion du 25d anniversaire de l'entrie des pires Mekbitaristes dansm I'le de


THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN CHANT REPERTORY II

The Georgian Lectionary (Source C in Table x) After its adoption by the Armenians, the Greek lectionary in

Jerusalem continued to grow and develop along with the rest of the liturgy. In time it attracted to itself other chant texts besides the responsorial psalms and alleluias, and the book was expanded to include this newer material. Thus, by the eighth century, the lectionary typically included for each day the textual incipits of the main Proper chants for the Mass and certain chants of the Office. No Greek text survives of this more developed form of the Jerusalem lectionary, though some Arabic codices of the New Testament include liturgical rubrics that may be derived from it. 4 We know the later Jerusalem lectionary mostly from translations into the Georgian language, which were made when the Jerusalem liturgy was adopted by what is now the Georgian Orthodox Church in the former Soviet republic of Georgia.25s The Georgian language is the only written

Saint-Lazaire (1717-i967), [ed. Mesrob Gianascian] (San Lazzaro, Venice: [Casa Editrice Armena], 1969), 45-66; Charles Renoux, "Liturgie armenienne et liturgie hierosolymitaine," in Liturgie de I'Eglise particulire et liturgie de I'Eglise universelle, ed. Achille M. Triacca, Conf6rences Saint-Serge, XXIPI Semaine d'6tudes liturgiques, Bibliotheca > 7 (Rome: Edizioni Liturgiche, 1976), 275-88; idem, "'Ca'oc' et t6nakan: Dependence et complementarit6," Ecclesia orans 4 (1987): 169-2o1; and idem, Le Lectionnaire defirusalem en Arm nie: Le Cafoc', vol. i, Introduction et liste des manuscrits, Patrologia Orientalis 44/4 (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 1989). A medieval commentary on the Armenian lectionary is translated into French in Grigoris Ar'arouni, Commentaire du lectionnaire, trans. Lon M. Froidevaux, Bibliotheca Armeniaca: Textus et Studia i (San Lazzaro, Venice: [Casa Editrice Armena], 1975)-

4 Anton Baumstark, "Die sonntiigliche Evangelienlesung im vorbyzantinischen Jerusalem," Byzantinische Zeitschrift 30 (1929-30): 350-59; Aime-Georges Martimort, "Essai historique sur les traductions liturgiques," La Maison-Dieu 86 (1966): 75-105, reprinted with an additional note in Mens concordet voci: Pour Mgr A. G. Martimort 'a l'occasion de ses quarante annies d'enseignement et des vingt ans de la Constitution KSacrosanc- tum Concilium* (Paris: Desclee, 1983), 72-94; G6rard Garitte, "Les Rubriques liturgiques de quelques anciens tetraevangiles arabes du Sinai," Milanges liturgiques offerts au R. P. Dom Bernard Botte, O.S.B. de l'Abbaye de Mont Cisar a l'occasion du cinquanti me anniversaire de son ordination sacerdotale (4 juin 1972) (Louvain: Abbaye Mont Cesar, 1972), 151-66; idem, "Un I vangeliaire grec-arabe du Xe siecle (cod. Sin. ar. i 16)," in Studia codicologica, ed. Kurt Treu et al., Texte und Untersuchungen i24 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1977): 207-25; Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 257-68; and Sidney H. Griffith, Arabic Christianity in the Monasteries of Ninth-Century Palestine, Collected Studies Series 380 (Aldershot, Hampshire: Vario- rum Reprints, 1992).

2s The text is edited from four major manuscripts and some fragments, with a Latin translation, in Michel Tarchnischvili, Le Grand Lectionnaire de l'Mglise deJ&rusalem (Ve-VIIF sicles), 2 vols. in 4, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 188-89, 204-5 (Louvain: Secretariat du CSCO, 1959-60). But this edition cannot be regarded



member of the small Kartvelian language family, which is apparently unrelated to Indo-European or any other known group of languages. 6 Owing to the efforts of many Georgian-speaking monks, who lived side by side with speakers of other languages in the monasteries of the Holy Land and elsewhere, medieval Georgian literature preserves translations of a great many early Christian writings that did not

as definitive, for the reasons discussed in Renoux, "Hierosolymitana," 3-7. Among other things it does not take account of all the extant manuscripts. To Renoux's bibliography should be added Akaki anije, ed., Xanmeti lekcionari: Pototipiuri reprodukcia [The lectionary in the khanmeti alphabet: Photographic reproduction; in Georgian], Jveli kartuli enis jeglebi i (Tbilisi: Sak.SSR Mecnierebata Akademiis Gamomcemloba, I944); Hieronymus Engberding, "Das Verzeichnis von Lesungen und Psalmenversen im Sin. georg. 39, fol.

129r--I32r und seine Beziehungen zur

vorbyzantinischen Liturgie von Jerusalem," Oriens christianus 53 (i969): 89-197; G6rard Garitte, "Un Fragment d'6vang61iaire g6orgien

' la Bodl6ienne," Le Musion 85 (1972): 167-40; idem, "Un Index georgien des lectures 6vang61iques selon l'ancien rite de Jerusalem," Le Musion 85 (1972): 337-98; idem, "Un Fragment d'evangeliaire georgien selon l'ancien rite de Jerusalem (Cod. Sin. g6o. 63)," Bedi kartlisa: Revue de kartvilologie 32 (1974): 70-85; Sebastil Janeras, "Notes sur les lectures liturgiques du ms. georgien Tbilisi H-2o65," Orientalia christiana periodica 53 (1987): 435-37; Bruce Metzger, Early Versions of the New Testament, 182-214; Bernard Outtier, "Un Feuillet du lectionnaire georgien hanmeti ' Paris," Le Musion 85 (1972): 399-402; idem, "Un Fragment d'6vang61iaire liturgique de Saint-Sabas? (Doc. Sinai geo. 63)," Bedi kartlisa 36 (1978): 53-55; idem, "K. Kekelidz6 et le lectionnaire g6orgien," Bedi kartlisa 38 (1980): 23-35; idem, "Un T6moin partiel du lectionnaire g6orgien ancien (Sinai georgien 54)," Bedi kartlisa 39 (i98I): 76-88; idem, "Un Nouveau T6moin partiel du lectionnaire georgien ancien (Sinal georgien 12)," Bedi kartlisa 41 (1983): 162-74; J. Neville Birdsall, "Georgian Studies and the New Testament," New Testament Studies 29 (1983): 306-20; and idem, "Introductory Remarks on the Pauline Epistles in Georgian," in Studia Patristica, vol. 18, no. i, Historica-Tbeologica-Gnostica-Biblica: Papers of the Ninth International Conference on Patristic Studies, Oxford 1983, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone (Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1985), 281-85. A study of the chant texts in Tarchnischvili's edition of the Georgian lectionary is Helmut Leeb, Die Gesiinge im Gemeindegottesdienst von Jerusalem (vom 5. bis 8. Jabrhundert), Wiener Beitriige zur Theologie 28 (Vienna: Herder, 1970), reviewed by Bernard Outtier in Bedi kartlisa 29-30 (1972): 335-38.

26 Meritt Ruhlen, A Guide to the World's Languages, vol. i, Clasification (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987), 71-75. Basic to the study of the Georgian tongue are two works by Kita Tschenk61i: Einfihrung in die georgische Sprache, 2 vols. (Zuirich: Amirani-Verlag, 1958); and Georgisch-Deutsches Worterbuch, ed. Yolanda Marchev, 3 vols. (Zirich: Amirani-Verlag, 1965-74). Materials for a dictionary focused on the medieval language are found in Ilia Abulaje, Jveli kartuli enis lekrsioni (masalebi) [Lexicon of the old Georgian language (materials); in Georgian] (Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 1973); see also Michel van Esbroeck, "Un Nouveau Dictionnaire de la langue ancienne georgienne," Bedi kartlisa 32 (1974): 86-108. Recent graminars include Hans Vogt, Grammaire de la langue giorgienne (Oslo: Universitetsvorlaget, 1971); Ren6e Zwolanek and Julius Assfalg, Altgeorgische Kurzgrammatik, Orbis Biblicus et Orien- talis, Subsidia Didactica 2 (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires; G6ttingen: Vanden- hoeck und Ruprecht, 1976); and Heinz Fdihnrich, Kurze Grammatik der georgiscben



survive in their original languages.27 Thus the early liturgy of Jerusalem is only one of many treasures that were saved through the zeal of these monks to make this material available in their homeland.

The Georgian Chantbook (Sources B and D) While the Jerusalem lectionary was developing and being ex-

panded with chant incipits, another book began to form alongside it, incorporating the complete texts of chants cited in the lectionary as well as much other chanted material. This became the Jerusalem chantbook, which like the lectionary survives only in a Georgian translation, where it is called ladgari, a name of uncertain deriva- tion.'8 Like the Ambrosian and Mozarabic antiphonalia, the Geor- gian ladgari includes all the Proper chants of both the Mass and the Office, but lacks the psalms and the Ordinary chants, which were doubtless sung from memory.'29 Most of the recent scholarly discussion of the chantbook has been published in modern Geor- gian, with only limited amounts of material in Western languages.30

Sprache (Leipzig: Enzykopidie, 1986). Throughout this article, all Georgian translit- erations follow Howard I. Aronson, Georgian: A Reading Grammar, corrected ed. (Columbus, Ohio: Slavica, 1990), 15-27.

27 For general information on the role of Georgian translations in preserving early Christian literature, see Gerard Garitte, "G6orgienne (littbrature spirituelle)," Dic- tionnaire de spiritualitt 6 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1967), 244-56, updated in the unsigned article

"G6orgie," Dictionnaire d'histoire et de gographie ecclisiastiques 20 (Paris: Letouzey et Ant, 1984), 681-83; Julius Assfalg and David Marshall Long, "Georgien," Theologische Realenzyklopidie I2 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984), 389-96; and Michel van Esbroeck, "Georgian Language and Literature," Encyclopedia of the Early Church, ed. Angelo Di Berardino, trans. Adrian Walford (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), i:345. Recent articles on more specific topics include Maurice Briere, "Limitations of Georgian in Representing Greek," in Metzger, Early Versions of the New Testament, 199-214; Elgudsha Chintibidse, "Die georgische Literaturschule vom Athos," Georgica 5 (1982): 43-48; Detlef G. Miiller, "Georgien und der christliche Orient," Ostkirchliche Studien 35 (1986): 168-75; and Richard B. Rose, "Jerusalem and Jihad: The Devotion of the Iberian Nation to Jerusalem; A Footnote on the Role of the Georgians in Late Medieval Jerusalem," Proche-Orient chritien 41 (i991): 10-24. 28 See Jeffery, Re-envisioning Past Musical Cultures, 64.

29 The text of the Georgian psalter and canticles, however, has been published in Mzekala Sanije, Psalmunis jveli kartuli redakciebi X-XIII saukuneta xelnaCerebis mixedvit [Old Georgian redactions of the psalter according to manuscripts of the tenth through thirteenth centuries; in Georgian], Jveli kartuli enis jeglebi i i (Tbilisi: Mecniereba, I960). See also Gerard Garitte, "Une Idition critique du psautier g6orgien," Bedi kartlisa 11-12 [= 36-37] (1961): 12-20.

30o But see my article "The Sunday Office," cited above, n. 15. For the most part, Elene Metreveli and other Georgian scholars have published only summaries of their Georgian publications in Western languages, which are cited throughout the present article. Most of the other Western publications on Georgian hymnography were



There are in fact two recensions of the ladgari. The earlier one has been edited twice, but never translated into any other language (source B, Table I).3' Liturgical and hymnological evidence shows that this recension represents a more primitive state of liturgical development than the eighth-century lectionary (source C, Table i); it may therefore date from the seventh century, though its primitive liturgical calendar suggests the sixth. The kan6ns of the morning office include series of stanzas for all nine of the odes, the original number; even the earliest Byzantine sources omit the series for the second ode. It is particularly interesting that fewer chants have modal assignments in the ladgari than in the lectionary, pointing to a period before the entire repertory had been made to conform to the modal oktoechos. In short this is the earliest complete repertory to survive from any medieval chant tradition, as well as the earliest substantial witness to the eight modes.32 The later recension, apparently reflect- ing the work of the great eighth-century hymnodists at the Palestinian monastery of St. Saba, perhaps represents a stage of liturgical

written before the new editions had been published: Michael Tarchnilvili, trans. and ed., with Julius Assfalg, Gescbicbte der kircblicben georgiscben Literatur auf Grund des ersten Bandes der georgischen Literaturgeschichte von K. Kekelidze, Studi e Testi 185 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1955), 449-58; Michel Tarchnischvili, "Die geistliche Dichtung Georgiens und ihr VerhMiltnis zum byzantinischen," Oriens christianus, ser. 4, 5 [= 41] (1957): 76-96; and Elie M'lia, "Notes sur l'hagiographie et l'hymnographie georgiennes," in Liturgie de I'Eglise particulire, ed. Triacca, 21-44.

3' An edition based on the earliest (tenth-century) manuscript is Aal.ki Sanije, Aram Martirosov, and A. Jisiasvili, eds., (il-etratis iadgari [The papyrus-parchment ladgari; in Georgian], Jveli kartuli enis jeglebi 15 (Tbilisi: Mecniereba, I977). See the review by Bernard Outtier in Bedi kartlisa 37 (1979): 336-4I. The more recent edition, based on seven manuscripts, is Elene Metreveli, Caca Cankievi, and L. Xevsuriani, eds., Ujvelesi iadgari [The oldest ladgari; in Georgian], Jveli kartuli mCerlobis jeglebi 2 (Tbilisi: Mecniereba, I980). The i98o edition included French and Russian resumes; the French was also published as H. Metr6;~li, Ts. Tchankieva, and L. Khevsouriani, "Le Plus Ancien Tropologion georgien," Bedi kartlisa 39 (1981): 54-62. An abridged table of contents for the 198o edition was published in English in Andrew Wade, "The Oldest ladgari: The Jerusalem Tropologion, V-VIII c.," Orientalia cbristiana periodica 50 (1984): 45 1-56.

3 The arguments for the date of the Iadgari are spelled out in detail in my article "The Sunday Office." Some manuscripts of the Georgian homiliary, an anthology of sermons read at the Office, also preserve features of a liturgical calendar more primitive than that of the Georgian lectionary. See Michel van Esbroeck, Les Plus Anciens Homiliaires gtorgiens: ttude descriptive et bistorique, Publications de l'Institut Orientaliste de Louvain io (Louvain: Universit6 Catholique de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, 1975), reviewed in H6lne M'tr6v~li, "Une Nouvel Ouvrage sur le


development more recent than the Georgian lectionary, but this recension has yet to be edited at all (source D).33

By the twelfth century, apparently, the new hybrid Byzantine rite had supplanted not only the Greek rite of Jerusalem, but also the derived rite used within Georgia, the last stronghold of the Jerusalem liturgy.34 During the thirteenth century, as the entire region sought to recover from the ravages of the Crusades, the Byzantine synthesis overwhelmed even the old local rite of Constantinople itself3s and

33 See H6lkne M'tr'v'li, "Les Manuscrits liturgiques georgiens des IXe-Xe siecles et leur importance pour l'&tude'de l'hymnographie byzantine," Bedi kartlisa 36 (1978): 43-48, esp. 48; Helene Metreveli, "Die georgischen Liturgie-Handschriften des 9. und io. Jahrhunderts und ihre Bedeutung fiir die Erforschung der byzantinischen Hymnographie," in XX. Deutscber Orientalistentag vom 3. bis 8. Oktober i977 in Erlangen: Vortrage, ed. Wolfgang Voigt, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlindischen Gesellschaft, Supplement IV (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, i980), i61-66, esp. I65-66; H6l6ne Metrev6li, "Du nouveau sur l'hymne de Joasaph," Le Musion 00oo (1987): 251-58; and H6l8ne Metrevli and Bernard Outtier, "La Comprehension des termes hymnographiques paraptoni et mosartavi," Bedi kartlisa 37 (1979): 68-85. More detailed descriptions of the manuscripts are published in Elena Metreveli, Caca Cankievi, L. Xevsuriani, L. Jgamaia, and R. Gzarania, Kartul xelnaCerta agqeriloba: Sinuri kolekcia [Catalogue of Georgian manuscripts: Sinai collection; in Georgian], 3 vols. (Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 1978-87), reviewed by Michel van Esbroeck in Bedi kartlisa 39 (I98 ): 316-I7. A facsimile of one of these manuscripts can be seen in Ilia Abulaje, Kartuli Ceris nimuiebi: Paleograpiuli albumi [Specimens of Georgian script: A paleo- graphical album; in Georgian] (Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 1973), pl. 56, p. I13; transcription into modern script, p. 112; commentary, pp. 350-51.

34 The historical shift of the Georgian church from a Hagiopolite to a Byzanti- nized rite has not yet been investigated systematically. One significant primary source will be the Georgian menaion at the Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies in Washington, D.C. Its calendar of liturgical feasts has been studied but not yet its chant texts: G~rard Garitte, "Le Men'e g'orgien de Dumbarton Oaks," Le Musion 77 (1964): 29-64; and Hieronymus Engberding, "Das Fest aller alttestamentlichen Patriarchen am 3. Januar im georgischen Mendum von Dumbarton Oaks," Le Musion 77 (I964): 297-300. Other monuments of the Byzantinization of the Georgian liturgy are discussed in Andre Jacob, "Une Version georgienne in6dite de la liturgie de Saint Jean Chrysostome," Le Musion 77 (1964): 65-1 I9; and Gerard Garitte, "Analyse d'un lectionnaire byzantino-georgien des 'vangiles (sin. georg. 74)," Le Musion 91 (1978): 105-52, 367-447-

3s See the important article by Oliver Strunk, "The Byzantine Office at Hagia Sophia," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 9-Io (1956): 175-202, reprinted in Strunk, Essays, I I2-50; and Peter Jeffery, "The Sunday Office." Since Strunk wrote, the two most important primary sources of the original rite of Constantinople have become more widely available. The typikon of Hagia Sophia, the "Great Church," has been published with a French translation in Juan Mateos, Le Typicon de la Grande tglise: Ms. Saint-Croix no 40, XY sieck, 2 vols, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 165-66 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1962-63). The commentary of Simeon of Thessalonike, who continued to celebrate the rite of Constantinople even after it had ceased at Constantinople itself, is now available in an English translation: Saint Symeon of Thessalonike, Treatise on Prayer: An Explanation of the Services Conducted in the Orthodox Church, trans. H. L. N. Simmons, The Archbishop Iakovos


I6 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

became the international liturgy of Greek Orthodox Christianity, comparable to the Frankish-Roman liturgical synthesis that domi- nated in Roman Catholicism. But the old chant repertory of Jerusalem did not disappear completely; many of its texts passed into the Byzantine synthesis by way of the Palestinian monastic Office and thus were absorbed into the medieval repertory of Byzantine chant. Five percent of the texts in the ladgari have been located so far in the standard Byzantine liturgical books, where they survive with melodies that are often in the same mode as, and thus may perhaps have been related to, the lost melodies that were once sung in Jerusalem.36 A much smaller but still significant number of Iadgari texts also have concordances in the Latin chant traditions, especially the Ambrosian repertory of Milan, the Western rite exhibiting the most frequent and interesting parallels with Jerusalem.37

Example I illustrates a chant that is prominent in Georgian, Byzantine, and Latin sources. It is the Easter troparion or stanza "XpLorbs &rvxonrl K VEKp)(v," one of the most famous chants of the Eastern Orthodox liturgy: "Christ is risen from the dead, by death trampling down death, and bestowing life upon those in the tombs." The Georgian sources tell us that in Jerusalem this text served as the introit for the Mass at the end of the Easter vigil on Holy Saturday

Library of Ecclesiastical and Historical Sources 9 (Brookline, Mass.: Hellenic College Press, I984). In the architectural history of the "Great Church" and other edifices of Constantinople we can see more clearly than in either Rome or Jerusalem how the church buildings shaped and were shaped by the liturgies celebrated within them; see Hans Joachim Schulz, The Byzantine Liturgy: Symbolic Structure and Faith Expression, trans. Matthew J. O'Connell (New York: Pueblo Publishing Co., 1986); and Vincenzo Ruggieri, Byzantine Religious Architecture (582-867): Its History and Structural Elements, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 237 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Studio- rum Orientalium, i99i). The process by which the hybridized Byzantine synthesis replaced the original tradition of Constantinople is traced in Robert Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West: The Origins of the Divine Office and Its Meaning for Today (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1986), 273-91, 384-87; idem, The Byzantine Rite: A Short History, American Essays in Liturgy (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1993); and idem, "Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of the Byzantine Rite," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 42 (1988): 179-94. The literature of Greek typika that do not conform to the later Byzantine synthesis is surveyed in Abraham- Andreas Thiermeyer, "Das Typikon-Ktetorikon und sein literarhistorischer Kon- text," Orientalia christiana periodica 58 (I992): 475-513.

36 Seventy-two Georgian chant texts that have been identified with known Greek heirmoi, and 129 Georgian chant texts that have been identified with known Greek troparia, are indexed in Metreveli et al., Ujvelesi iadgari, 643-66 and 646-50.

37 Many Latin chants with connections to Jerusalem will be discussed in my book in progress, Liturgy and Chant in Early Christian Jerusalem: The Sources and Influence of a Seminal Tradition.



Example I The introit of the Easter Vigil Mass at Jerusalem: medieval Byzantine and Ambrosian notations "Chartres" notation:

Vatopedi 1488, fol. 129r, lines 6-7 DD Vatopedi 1488, fol. 129v, line 5 DD / Vatopedi 1488, fol. 129V, lines 11-12 XDD

"Coislin" notation: Paris gr. 242, fol. 207v, line 3 / X Paris gr. 242, fol. 207v, line 10 / D

.

L Paris gr. 242, fol. 207', lines 17-18 L-

..J . 3D D L XQL- oTbg d- v- om x Ve- XQOV

[Chri- st6s a- ne'- stt ek ne- kr6n]

"Ambrosian" or Milanese melody: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- _ _ _

-_

Milan, Trivulziana A. 14, fol. 2v Chri- stus domi- nus re- sur- re- xit Sources: "Chartres" notation. Mount Athos, Vatopedi MS 1488, fols. I27v-I3or, as published in the facsimile edition: Enrica Follieri and Oliver Strunk, eds., Triodium Athoum, Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae 9, Pars Principalis (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, i975)-

"Coislin" notation. Paris, Bibliothbque Nationale, MS fonds grec 242, fol. 2o7v, as published in Oliver Strunk, Specimina notationum antiquiorum, Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae 7, Pars Principalis (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1966), pl. 97.

Ambrosian chant. Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, MS A. 14, fol. 2v.

and was sung in the plagal D mode.38 It survives with few modifica- tions in at least three of the liturgical traditions that are the most closely related to Jerusalem-the Armenian,39 Byzantine, and Am- brosian or Milanese rites--and apparently also circulated in the much more distantly related Ethiopic rite.40 In the modem Byzantine rite, wherein Hagiopolite and Constantinopolitan traditions have cross- fertilized under monastic auspices, the Vigil service of Holy Saturday has become rather truncated. Our troparion text is therefore sung at two comparable locations during the services of Easter Sunday itself: at the morning office, after reading one of the gospel accounts of the Resurrection, and at the beginning of the Easter Mass. In both places it is still assigned to the plagal D mode, as at Jerusalem, and it serves

38 Tarchnischvili, Le Grand Lectionnaire 1/2 [= 189], p. I 3, section 737 n. 3. Metreveli et al., Ujvelesi iadgari, 215. See also Wade, "The Oldest ladgari," 455.

39 Divine Liturgy of the Armenian Church, [trans. Tiran Nersoyan], 3d ed. ([New York]: Armenian Church of America, 1974), 70-7oa.

4o The Ethiopian text and its musical notation are published, but without information about the liturgical context, in Marcel Cohen, "Sur la notation musicale 6thiopienne," in Studi orientalistici in onore di Giorgio Levi della Vida, Pubblicazioni dell'Istituto per l'Oriente 52 (Rome: Istituto per l'Oriente, 1956), I:I99-2o6, esp. 205-6. A Greek text transliterated into Ethiopian characters is published in Murad Kamil, "Les Manuscrits 6thiopiens du Sinai," Annales d'lthiopie 2 (1957): 84. I have not yet located either form of the text in an actual Ethiopian liturgical book, however.



as a refrain in antiphonal psalmody: thus it is sung three times by the priest and repeated three times by the choir, and then repeated again after each psalm verse.4' In the Ambrosian rite, which often exhibits a close resemblance to the Jerusalem tradition, a variant of the opening phrase of this text is sung in essentially the same place as at Jerusalem, at the beginning of the Mass that closes the vigil on Holy Saturday. As the bells peal and the organ sounds, the priest sings "Christus Dominus resurrexit" three times, with the choir responding "Deo gratias" each time.42

The melody sung in the rite of Milan is well preserved in many of the manuscripts of Ambrosian chant (see Ex. i). The Byzantine melody is not nearly so well preserved. No medieval Greek manuscript of this text survives with complete music notation, for it was among the chants that every Byzantine singer learned to perform by heart. The rare manuscripts that contain any part of the melody notate only the incipit, and only in adiastematic neumes that do not accurately indicate pitch.43 Nevertheless, these sources confirm that the Byzantine modal assignment was the same as at Jerusalem: D plagal.

4' See, for instance, Isabel F. Hapgood, ed. and trans., Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church, 4th ed. (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese, 1965), 226-27, 238; Euthyme Mercenier, ed. and trans., La Priire des iglises de rite byzantin, vol. 2, Les Fites, part 2, L'Acathiste, La Quinzaine de Piques, L'Ascension et la Pentec6te (Chevetogne, Belgium: Iconographie, 1948), 283, 268; The Pentecostarion, Translated from the Greek (Boston: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1990), 27-28, 39-40o. On the history of the text in these services, see Juan Mateos, Le Typicon 2:94-95, 98-99; idem, La Cilbration

de laparole dans la liturgie byzantine: btude bistorique, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 19I (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Studio- rum Orientalium, i971i), I8; and Bertoniere, Historical Development of the Easter Vigil, 67, 94, 159, 197-201, 239-43, 251-52, 266-67, 271-73, 281, 290-92.

42 Marco Magistretti, ed., Beroldus, sive ecclesiae ambrosianae mediolanensis kalendar- ium et ordines saec. XII, ex codice ambrosiano (Milan: Josephi Giovanola et Soc., I894; reprint, Farnborough: Gregg International Publishers, I968), 114, 218 n. 240. Missale Ambrosianum Duplex (Proprium de Tempore): Editt. Puteobonellianae et Typicae (r751-1902) cum critico commentario continuo ex manuscriptis schedis Ant[onii] M. Ceriani, ed. Achille Ratti [later Pope Pius XI] and Marco Magistretti, Monumenta Sacra et Profana: Opera Collegii Doctorum Bibliotecae Ambrosianae 4 (Milan: R. Ghirlanda, 1913), 225. The practice fortunately survived the liturgical reforms following Vatican II, and thus can still be found in Missale ambrosianum iuxta ritum sanctae ecclesiae mediolanensis ex decreto sacrosancti oecumenici concilii vaticani II instauratum, auctoritate loannis Colombo sanctae romanae ecclesiae presbyteri cardinalis archiepiscopi mediolanensis promulgatum (Milan: Centro Ambrosiano di Documentazione e di Studi Religiosi, 1981), 249.

43 See Oliver Strunk, "A Further Note on the Proper Hymns for Easter," Classica et mediaevalia 22 (i961): 176-81, reprinted in his Essays, 202-7.



Though the Ambrosian rite never adopted the eight modes, the Milanese melody is one we would readily assign to the same D plagal mode, for it remains within the limited range D-G.44 More strikingly, if we attempted to re-notate the Milanese melody in early Byzantine neumes, the result might look rather like the ambiguous notation that actually survives in the Byzantine manuscripts. Examples in the two early kinds of notation, called "Chartres" and "Coislin" after the French libraries in which modern scholars first discovered them,45 are illustrated above the Milanese melody in Example I. The Milanese pattern D-G-F on the first word could have been represented by oxeia and apostrophos, as in the first two versions in Coislin notation. The double apostrophoi on the same word in the Chartres notation also suggests a descent on the second syllable of "XpLuTorb." A new ascent on the second word, corresponding to F-G-F-G-G in the Ambrosian melody, may have been signaled by the kentema-oxeia in the second Chartres version,46 by oligon and kentema-oligon in the first two Coislin versions, and by kentema-petasthe in the third Coislin version. The Greek melody clearly emphasized the middle syllable of the second word, "&vo'rr," as indicated by the ouranisma in the first and third Chartres versions, and the kratema in the first two Coislin versions. This may have corresponded to the Ambrosian repeated G on the last syllable of "dominus," which corresponds in position to the Greek word

""

&vEn," or again to the Ambrosian repeated G in "resurrexit," which corresponds to "&dvrwarlq" in meaning. The Ambrosian descent of a fourth to D, at the beginning of the word "resurrexit," could have been represented by apostrophos- chamele as in the first Coislin version, though the third version (from lines I7-18) seems to indicate a stepwise descent across the words "&v 'rrIl EK VEKptDv." The ouranisma at this point in the second

44The pitch names used in this article are those of the familiar letter notation of the medieval Western gamut: capital letters A-G for the lowest octave, lower case letters a-g for the next octave, with c for middle C, and double letters aa-ee for the upper fifth. See Example III-2 in Richard H. Hoppin, Medieval Music (New York: W. W. Norton, 1978), 63-

45s Good introductions to this topic include Oliver Strunk's classic article "The Notation of the Chartres Fragment," Annales musicologiques 3 (1955): 7-37, reprinted in his Essays, 68-i 1 ; and idem, "The Menaia from Carbone at the Biblioteca Vallicel- liana," Bollettino della Badia greca di Grottaferrata 27 (1973): 3-9, reprinted in Essays, 285-96. See also Max Haas, Byzantinische und slavische Notationen, Paliographie der Musik I/2 (Cologne: Arno Volk-Verlag, 1973)-

46 Compare Egon Wellesz's remarks on this sign in A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography, 2d ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 281, with reference to the musical example on p. 279.



Chartres version is not inconsistent with this, for it has been associated in other instances with melodic descents.47

Clearly the Ambrosian and Byzantine melodies were not identical note for note, or even nearly so. What they shared were, at most, three common features: (i) the same general range, classifiable in the plagal D mode; (2) a relatively syllabic style of text setting, most syllables being set to only one pitch; and (3) a similar melodic shape: an initial leap upward from D to G or a; a tendency to remain in the vicinity of this higher pitch for several syllables; and then a descent. The relative stability of these three characteristics in the melodic tradition for this particular text can be seen in the two melodies given in Example 2. Both of these melodies come from twentieth-century

Example 2

The introit of the Easter Vigil Mass at Jerusalem: modern Byzantine and Ambrosian melodies

A 3 3

Byzantine onME I ,

XQL- t69bg - v a- onq x vE- XQCOv [Chri- stbs a- n6- ste ek ne- kr6n]

Ambrosian -

Chri- stus domi- nus re- sur- re- xit Sources: Byzantine melody. Transcription from the recording identified as "'Byzantine Hymns of the Epitaphios and Easter' (Simon Karas), Society for the Dissemination of National Music I12," in Reinhold Schl6tterer, "Geschichtliche und musikalische Fragen zur Ison-Praxis," in XVI. internationaler Byzantinistenkongress, Wien, 4.-9. Oktober 1981: Akten 2/7: Symposion fir Musikologie: Byzantiniscbe Musik 1453-1832 als Quelkl mruikaliscber Praxis und Theorie vor 1453, ed. Jorgen Raasted, Jahrbuch der 6sterreichischen Byzantinistik 32/7 (Vienna: Verlag der ister- reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1982), 20.

Ambrosian melody. Antiphonale missarumjuxta ritum sanctae ecclesiae mediolanensis, [ed. Gregorio M. Sunyoll, (Rome: Descl6e, 1935), 202.

sources, yet they were produced absolutely independently of each other, with texts in different languages, and even by differing means of transmission. The Latin melody is taken from Dom Sunyol's edition for the modern (i.e., pre-Vatican II) Milanese rite.48 Though it was derived from medieval manuscripts of Ambrosian chant, we do not know exactly which ones or by what editorial methods.49 In any

47 See Haas, Byzantinische und slavische Notationen, p. 2.86. 48 Antipbonale missarum juxta ritum sanctae ecclesiae mediolanensis, [ed. Gregorio M.

Sunyol] (Rome: Desclke, I935), 202. 49 Sunyol's own account of how he prepared his editions was published as

Gregorio M. Sufiol, "La restaurazione ambrosiana," Ambrosius 14 (1938): 145-50,



case it presumably represents a type of transmission in which written, text-critical processes predominate. The Greek melody, transcribed from a recording, illustrates one way that this chant can be sung in the Greek Orthodox church today (only the beginning is shown in the example).50 Though the choir may have learned the chant from a printed book using modem Byzantine or modern Western notation (many such editions are available), its performance stands within a living tradition in which oral or performance-related processes are more significant than in early twentieth-century Milan, where the chant had to be revived and restored from medieval manuscripts.

The melodies in Example 2 exhibit more or less the same three features isolated in Example I. Both fit the range of the D modes. Though one could arguably classify the Greek melody as authentic rather than plagal, because it goes as high as e6, Byzantine liturgical books consistently preserve the plagal assignment dating back to medieval sources. The average number of pitches per syllable is still relatively small, though the Greek melody might be described as more neumatic than syllabic. Each melody begins with an opening leap on the first syllable, this time D-a in Sunyol's edition or D-G-a in the Greek chant. Both melodies tend to proceed by alternating between G and a, with one descent to F and (in the Greek melody only) one leap to c on the accented second syllable of "'&vorrl." Both melodies eventually come to rest on a, though the Greek will remain and ultimately end on this pitch whereas the Latin falls back to the final, D. The two melodies are hardly the same. Yet even after many centuries of complete isolation from each other, they both have managed to preserve the most basic features shared by their medieval antecedents, each of which points further back to the liturgical usage of the same Holy City.

174-77, I96-200, 297-304; 15 (1939): 113-16; 16 (I94o): 12-16, 1o8-12, but without discussing this chant specifically. Some manuscript sources of "Christus Dominus surrexit" are cited in Michel Huglo, Luigi Agustoni, EugLene Cardine, and Ernesto T. Moneta Caglio, Fonti epaleografia del canto ambrosiano, Archivio Ambrosiano 7 (Milan: [Scuola Tipografica San Benedetto], 1956), i , 27, 6o, 72, 105.

50so This transcription was published in Reinhold Schl6tterer, "Geschichtliche und musikalische Fragen zur Ison-Praxis," in XVI. internationakr Byzantinistenkongress, Wien, 4.-9. Oktober i98i: Akten 2/7: Symposaion fir Musikologie: Byzantinische Musik 1453-1832 als Quelle musikalischer Praxis und Theorie vor 1453, ed. Jorgen Raasted, Jahrbuch der 6sterreichischen Byzantinistik 32/7 (Vienna: Verlag der 6sterreichi- schen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1982), 20. Schl6tterer identified the recording in English as " 'Byzantine Hymns of the Epitaphios and Easter' (Simon Karas), Society for the Dissemination of National Music 12." During my own visits to Greek Orthodox churches I have heard similar melodies sung with this text.



This situation is typical of what happens when we compare the surviving non-Jerusalem melodies of texts that were sung at Jerusa- lem.5' These melodies are generally assignable to the same or almost the same mode as the one indicated in the Jerusalem sources. One can often detect certain similarities in melodic shape, in the sequence of rises and falls, in the degree of conjunct or disjunct melodic move- ment, and in the relatively syllabic or melismatic character of the text setting. But the preserved melodies are also too different to allow us to reconstruct note by note the melody that was actually performed at Jerusalem; nor do they permit us to abstract an ancestral or archetypal original from which all the extant melodies can be asserted to have been derived. But the comparison of these melodies and their liturgical contexts with the texts of the Jerusalem liturgy does enable us to conclude that as early as the seventh and eighth centuries a tradition already existed that linked particular texts to particular modes and melodic styles, and that medieval melodies faithful to this tradition can still be recovered, even though they are preserved in manuscripts written at a great chronological and geographical remove from the traditions of the Holy City.

5' Some of these have already received much attention from musicologists: "Adorna thalamum" for the feast of the Presentation of the Lord, also known as the Purification of the Virgin (Metreveli et al., Ujvelesi iadgari, 97), in Oliver Strunk, "The Chants of the Byzantine-Greek Liturgy," in his Esays, 304-6; "Coenae tuae" for Holy Thursday (Metreveli et al., Ujvelesi iadgari, I89) in Kenneth Levy, "A Hymn for Thursday in Holy Week," this JOURNAL 16 (1963): 127-75; "O quando in cruce" for Good Friday (Metreveli et al., Ujvelesi iadgari, 201) in Wellesz, Eastern Elements, 68-77; "Crucem tuam" for Good Friday and Holy Cross (Metreveli et al., Ujvelesi iadgari, 463) in Rosemary Dubowchik, "A Chant for Feasts of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, Byzantium, and Medieval Europe" (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1993); and many others in Michel Huglo, "Relations musicales entre Byzance et l'Occident," in Proceedings of the XIIItb International Congress of Byzantine Studies: Oxford, 5-to September 1966, ed. J. M. Hussey, D. Obolensky, and S. Runciman (London: Oxford University Press, 1967), 267-80; Christian Troelsgird, "The Musical Structure of Five Byzantine Stichera and Their Parallels among Western Antiphons," Universite de Copenhague, Cabhiers de l'Institut du moyen-age grec et latin 6 i (i991): 3-48; and Jeffery, "The Lost Chant." While it is probable in most of

these cases that the Latin text is derived from the Greek text, it is usually uncertain from which Eastern center the Greek original came to the West: the cities of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Constantinople and the monasteries of Egypt, Palestine, and southern Italy are all possibilities, though not the only ones. Now that these texts have been found in the Georgian Iadgari, however, we can say that their earliest known use was in seventh-century Jerusalem, a fact that I am inclined to view as tipping the scale in favor of Jerusalem origin. For an example of a Greek chant that circulated in the West but seems not to have come from Jerusalem, see my article "Hltapiboov pwwxrrilpLov: The Thought of Gregory the Theologian in Byzantine and Latin Liturgical Chant," forthcoming in Greek Orthodox Theological Review.



The Georgian and Greek Heirmologia (Sources E and F) The early eighth century witnessed a new wave of Greek hym-

nody, whose leading poets (who were also composers, presumably) included John of Damascus or John Damascene (died ca. 749), Andrew of Crete (ca. 66o-ca. 740), and Kosmas Melodos, also known as Kosmas of Jerusalem and of Maiuma (died ca. 760). All three were natives of Damascus who had become monks in the monastery of St. Saba near Jerusalem.5" Their most important genre was the kanon, which Andrew is traditionally credited with inventing. It originally consisted of nine series of stanzas, one for each of the biblical odes of the morning office, though at an early date the number was reduced to eight by omitting the second series.53 Each series of stanzas would be sung to the melody of an older stanza or troparion known as a heirmos, and each stanza duplicated the poetic form of the heirmos so that it could be fit to the heirmos melody. Gradually these heirmoi or model stanzas came to be collected into a book, the heirmologion, arranged by the eight modes. Within each mode, the individual heirmoi were sometimes arranged so that the individual kan6ns were kept together (an arrangement scholars customarily designate by the abbreviation KaO); at other times the kan6ns were broken up and the heirmoi arranged in the order of the odes (OdO). It was only fitting that these collections of melodic models should include music notation, and thus the earliest surviving Greek heirmologia (mid- to late tenth century) are important sources for the study of the earliest Byzantine neumes.54 One of them (source F, Table i), which has been preserved in the library of St. Saba itself, is especially interesting because its original twelfth-century "Archaic Coislin" notation was

5s2 On the work and historical significance of these hymnodists, see my article "Jerusalem and Rome (and Constantinople)," and my forthcoming articles, "Rome and Jerusalem" and "The Earliest Evidence of the Eight Modes," cited above, n. 15.

s3 The odes or canticles are psalmodic texts that come from books of the Bible other than the Psalter. The most famous such texts in the Western liturgy are the "Magnificat," sung at Vespers, and the "Nunc dimittis," sung at Compline. For more on the odes see Jeffery, "The Sunday Office"; Heinrich Schneider, "Die biblischen Oden im christlichen Altertum," "Die biblischen Oden seit dem sechsten Jahrhun- dert," "Die biblischen Oden in Jerusalem und Konstantinopel," and "Die biblischen Oden im Mittelalter," Biblica 30 (1949): 28-65, 239-72, 433-52, and 479-500.

54 A good introduction to the study of the heirmologion is Milos M. Velimirovid, "The Byzantine Heirmos and Heirmologion," in Gattungen der Musik in Einzeldarstel- lungen: Gedenkschrift Leo Schrade, vol. i, ed. Wulf Arlt et al. (Bern and Munich: Francke, 1973), 192-244. The closest thing to a critical edition of the Greek text is oap6ovLos EiorparTaL'l8s, Elcp1%oA6ywov, 'AyLopELTLKTj BLBtLO0TKTI 9 (Chenne-

vieres-sur-Mame: L'Ermitage, 1932).



extensively modified by a late thirteenth- or fourteenth-century scribe seeking to bring it into conformity with the newer diastematic "Round" notation.5s

But the oldest manuscripts of the Georgian heirmologia are even earlier (see source E, Table I).56 The early history of the formation and dissemination of the heirmologion is an ex- tremely complex subject, which must take into account not only Greek, but also Slavonic,s7 Armenian,s8 and Syriacs9

ss It was published in a facsimile edition in Jorgen Raasted, ed., Hirmologium Sabbaiticum: Codex Monasterii S. Sabbae 83 phototypice depictus, Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae 8, 2 vols. in 3 (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, i968-70).

56 An edition prepared from three early KaO and eight OdO manuscripts is Elene Metreveli, ed., flispirni da 6mrtisrmoblisani: Ori jveli redakcia X-XI ss. xelnaCerebis mixedvit [Heirmoi auid theotokia: Two old redactions according to manuscripts of the tenth to eleventh centuries; in Georgian] (Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 1971). A French translation of the introduction was published as H61ine Metr6v61i and Bernard Outtier, "Contribution A l'histoire de l'hirmologion: Anciens hirmologia georgiens," Le Musion 88 (1975): 331-59. See also the review by Bernard Outtier in Bedi kartlisa 29-30 (1972): 338-39.

57 See Christian Hannick, "Aux Origines de la version slave de l'hirmologion," in Christian Hannick, ed., Fundamental Problems of Early Slavic Music and Poetry, Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae, Subsidia 6 (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1978), 5-120.

s8 The transmission of Greek heirmoi in Armenian has not received much study, but see Alice Ertlbauer, Gescbicbhte und Theorie der einstimmigen armenischen Kirchenmusik: Eine Kritik der bisherigen Forscbung, Musica Mediaevalis Europae Centralis: Disserta- tionen und Schriften der Universitit Wien aus historischer Musikwissenschaft 3 (Vienna: Anton Riegelnick, 1985), 3-I5.

A much older study is Nerses Ter- Mikailian, Das armenische Hymnarium: Studien zu seiner gescbicbtlichen Entwicklung (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1905). Research on Armenian chant, including the search for Greek concordances, will be helped considerably by the publication of the German translation of the Armenian chantbook that is now in preparation. See Armenuhi Drost-Abgarjan and Hermann Goltz, "Saraknoc': Buch der Scharakane armenisch- deutsch I: Kanons 1-4 fibersetzt und mit einer Nachbemerkung versehen," Handes Amsorya io0 (1987): 333-65; Hermann Goltz, "Zu Theologie und Theogrammatik armenischer Hymnen, ein Beispiel: Das Magnificat aus dem Kanon auf die Geburt der Gottesmutter im Saraknoc'," in Studia Patristica, vol. 20, Papers Presented to the Tenth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford 1987: Critica, Classica, Orientalia, Ascetica, Liturgica, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone (Louvain: Peeters Press, I989), I76-8I.

s9 See Joseph Molitor, "Byzantinische Troparia und Kontakia in Syro-Melchiti- scher Oberlieferung," Oriens cbristianus 25-26 [= 3d ser., 3-41 (1928-29 [recte 193o]): 1-36, 79-99; 27 [= 3d ser., 5](1930): 191-201; 28 [= 3d ser., 61 (1931): 43-59; 30 [= 3d ser., 8] (1933): 72-85, 164-79; the first installment was also published, with the same title, as an inaugural dissertation, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitit, Bonn (Leipzig: Offizin Haag Drugulin Ag., 1929); Odilo Heiming, Die cEninibirmen der Berliner Handscbrift Sacb. 349, Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung der Doktor- wiirde genehmigt von der Philosophischen Fakultit der Rheinischen Friedrich- Wilhelms-Universitit zu Bonn (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1930); idem, "Die cEniane- hirmen der Berliner Handschrift Sach. 349," Oriens cbristianus 27 [3d ser., 5] (1930):



sources.6 The Georgian heirmologia offer us a completely new perspec- tive on this development at some of its earliest stages, however.

The earliest Georgian collections, from the mid-tenth century, are small--only one or two kan6ns per mode-and at first exclusively devoted to the works of John and Kosmas. Within each mode they are arranged in order of the kan6ns (KaO), the most common Greek arrangement, yet there is no notation, and indeed the Georgian prose translations would have been difficult to fit to the Greek melodies. By the late tenth century these small collections have been replaced by much larger ones arranged in the order of the odes (OdO). This arrangement occurs in a minority of Greek manuscripts and in all the Slavic ones, but only in Georgia is it attested before the twelfth century. As we move into the eleventh century the Georgian collections more than double in size, from about 400 to about 900 heirmoi. This trend is the opposite of what we observe in the Greek manuscripts, which grow steadily smaller, from about 340 to about 72 heirmoi.6' In these manuscripts the Georgian translations imitate the

19-55; idem, Syrische cEniant und griechiscbe Kanones: Die HS. Sach. 349 der Staatsbib- liothek zu Berlin, Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen und Forschungen 26 (Miinster: Aschendorff, 1932); Anton Baumstark, "Der jambische Pfingstkanon des Johannes von Damaskus in einer alten melchitisch-syrischen Clbersetzung," Oriens christianus 36, no. 2 [3d ser., 14] (1941): 205-23; Heinrich Husmann, Ein syro-melkitisches Tropologion mit altbyzantinischer Notation, Sinai Syr. 261, 2 vols., G6ttinger Orientfor- schungen, i Reihe: Syriaka 9 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1975-78); and Michael Breydy, Kult, Dichtung und Musik bei den Syro-Maroniten, vol. 3, Rishaiqole: Die Leitstrophen der Syro-aramaiscben Liturgien: Repertorium und Kommentar (Kobayath, Lebanon: no publisher, 1979).

6 A rare example of a series of Latin chants derived from Greek heirmoi is discussed in Oliver Strunk, "The Latin Antiphons for the Octave of the Epiphany," in Recueil de travaux de l'Institut d'itudes Byzantines, vol. 8, Milanges Georges Ostrogorsky, ed. Franjo Barisii (Belgrade: Nau'no delo, I963-64 [recte 1965]), 2:417-26; reprinted in Strunk, Essays, 208-19. Unfortunately these heirmoi have not been found in the Georgian heirmologia.

6 Velimirovid, "The Byzantine Heirmos," 216. For further bibliography on the transmission of the heirmologion see Milos Velimirovi6, "Struktura staroslovenskikh muzikikh irmologa" [Structure of early Slavic heirmologia with musical notation; in Serbo-Croatian], Khilandarski zbornik / Recueil de Chilandar I (1966): i39-61; Oliver Strunk, "Byzantine Music in the Light of Recent Research and Publication," in Proceedings, ed. Hussey et al., 245-54, esp. 248-51, reprinted in Strunk, Essays, 240-54, esp. 245-49; Giuseppe Schir6, "Problemi heirmologici," in Proceedings, ed. Hussey et al., 255-66; Jorgen Raasted, Hirmologium Sabbaiticum; idem, "A Newly Discovered Fragment of a Fourteenth-Century Heirmologion," in Studies in Eastern Chant, vol. 2, ed. Milos M. Velimirovid (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), ioo-i 1 I; idem, "Observations on the Manuscript Tradition of Byzantine Music II: The Contents of Some Early Heirmologia," Universite de Copenhague, Cabhiers de l'Institut du moyen-age grec et latin 8 (1972): 35-47; Enrica Follieri, "The 'Living Heirmologion' in the Hymnographic Production of John Mauropus, Metropolitan of



original Greek poetic form so that they fit the original Greek melody. The earlier ones even include a transliteration of the Greek textual incipit as a further reminder of what this melody was. Most interest- ingly, in some manuscripts the Georgian texts are also supplied with neumes, though unfortunately we do not know how to read them.62

In 1957 and 1962 the prominent Georgian linguist Pavle Ingoroqva published his proposed "solution" to the problem of deciphering the neumes. Though it received some publicity in the West at the time, it seems never to have been given a detailed explanation in any Western-language publication.63 In any case Ingoroqva's hypothesis was evidently based on at least three dubious premises. First, he supposed that each type of neume consistently represented one specific pitch, a notion that is inconsistent with what is known about other traditions of neumatic notation. Second, he envisioned these pitches anachronistically, as being organized into a series very like a modem scale, even though the limited amount of surviving theoretical literature does not confirm the existence of such a concept in medieval

Euchaita," in Studies in Eastern Chant, vol. 4, ed. Miloc M. Velimirovid (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1979), 54-75-

62 The most famous manuscript with neumes, written by Mikael Modrekili between the years 978 and 988 (MS S-425 of the Georgian Institute of Manuscripts in