El canto mozrabe y su entorno

Estudios sobre la msica de la liturgia

viejo hispnica
Edita:
Sociedad Espaola de Musicologa
c/ Torres Miranda 18. 28045 Madrid
sedem@sedem.es/ Tel.: 915 231 712
www.sedem.es

Seccin C: Estudios, n. 24
ISBN: 978-84-86878-29-0
Depsito legal: M-33549-2013

Edicin a cargo de: Ismael Fernndez de la Cuesta, Rosario lvarez Martnez y Ana
Llorens Martn

de la edicin: Sociedad Espaola de Musicologa

de los artculos: los autores

Imagen de cubierta: Miniatura del folio 103 del Antifonario de Len

Impreso en Espaa / Printed in Spain

Maqueta e imprime: Imprenta Taravilla, S.L.- Mesn de Paos, 6-28013 Madrid

Cualquier forma de reproduccin, distribucin comunicacin pblica o transformacin

de esta obra solo puede ser realizada con la autorizacin de sus titulares, salvo excep-
cin prevista por la ley. Dirjase a CEDRO (Centro Espaol de Derechos Reprogrficos,
www.cedro.org) si necesita fotocopiar o escanear algn fragmento de esta obra.

COLABORA:

Proyecto de Investigacin El canto llano en la poca de la polifona

Ministerio de Economa y Competitividad HAR2010-17398
 Observations on a lost language: the Armenian neumatic notation

Observations on a lost language: the Armenian

neumatic notation
Aram KEROVPYAN

Resumen: En la segunda mitad del siglo XIX, el pionero de los estudios modernos
sobre el canto litrgico armenio, Yeghia Dndessian, realiz una meticulosa comparacin
entre manuscritos antiguos con neumas y la prctica del canto de su poca. Cuando el
Padre Komitas intent continuar el proyecto de Dndessian a finales del siglo XIX, el
escaso conocimiento que el primero posea acerca del significado de los neumas haba
desaparecido completamente.
La situacin no ha mejorado a lo largo del siglo XX, especialmente debido a que la
prctica tradicional de esta msica decay incesantemente bajo la influencia del auto-
orientalismo de los armenios. Hoy en da, cualquier investigacin sobre la modalidad y
la interpretacin del canto litrgico armenio debe estar necesariamente basada en la
prctica que pervive en un pequeo nmero de cantantes, y asimismo en los vestigios
que se pueden detectar en las lecturas minuciosas de documentos de los siglos XII a XIX.
El artculo propone un breve estudio de este tema.
Palabras clave: neumas armenios, khaz, sharagan, oktoechos armenio, patrones me-
ldicos, canto litrgico armenio.

Abstract: In the second half of the 19th century, the pioneer of the modern studies
of Armenian liturgical chant, Yeghia Dndessian, undertook a meticulous comparison
between ancient manuscripts with neumes and the practice of the chant of his time.
When Father Komitas attempted to continue Dndessians project at the end of the 19th
century, the little knowledge of the meanings of the neumes that the former had
possessed had disappeared entirely.
The situation has not improved during the 20th century, especially because the traditional
practice of this music has steadily declined under the influence of self-Orientalism of
Armenians. Today, any research on the modality and interpretation of Armenian liturgical
chant must necessarily be based on the practice which survives in a small number of singers,
as well as the remnants that can be detected in close readings of documents from the 12th
to 19th centuries. The article proposes a brief survey of this subject.
Keywords: Armenian neumes, khaz, sharagan, Armenian oktoechos, melodic patterns,
Armenian liturgical chant.

The present paper is my first attempt to examine the Armenian neumatic

notation in relation with the living tradition of Armenian liturgical chant,

121
 ARAM KEROVPYAN

especially with its modal and melodic structures which are my main fields
of research. I have never worked on the neumatic notation system in a
methodical way although I use, like many master singers and cantors of the
Armenian Church, the remnants of this system during offices. Over the
years, the singing practice has allowed me to recognize some fundamental
aspects of this notation and made me reticent about theoretical speculations
which can be read in musicological literature, as they remain cut off from
the practice itself. I often have the impression that cookbooks are being
written without entering the kitchen. This is why I prefer to start at ground
zero. I will set the context briefly, using a few examples.
Armenian liturgical chant is a modal and monophonic tradition. In
that respect, it has features similar to other modal music traditions of the
Near East. The modal system of Armenian liturgical music contains many
intertwined layers of historic developments and changes. This music is
presently somewhat obscured by elements introduced during the 19th and
20th centuries which led to a decline in the knowledge of the traditional
system and its practice. On the other hand, a new notation system cre-
ated at the beginning of the 19th century, and a reformation movement
started during the second half of 19th century contributed to saving tra-
ditional melodies and transmitting the singing tradition, and made pos-
sible its continuation after the 1915 rupture. Yet the documentation on
theoretical matters being so scarce, modern musicology has difficulty in
bringing to light the numerous little-known aspects and disparities of the
modal system and its practice.
This situation has been one of the reasons why the dominant topics of
research on Armenian liturgical music have for a long time been the neumatic
notation and building historiography, using numerous bits of information
contained in manuscripts. The second reason is that in Soviet Armenia, re-
ligious music was banned until the 1980s, and musicologists had to shift to
historical subjects; studying neumatic notation perfectly fitted the politi-
cal situation. The result is that fundamental topics like modal theory, the
melodic patterns system, style, local traditions and transmission, have not yet
become shared fields among researchers. On the other hand, the neumatic
notation is still the great mystery of Armenian liturgical music. There is too
much speculation on this subject, which remains perfectly unknown although
it is still used by church singers.

122
 Observations on a lost language: the Armenian neumatic notation

Some historic facts and characteristic features will be enumerated be-

fore embarking on the subject of the neumatic notation and its relation-
ship with oral transmission.
The historical survey will be brief. We only need to keep in mind a
number of characteristics, some of which are specific to this music, while
others can be considered as general features of the world of modal mu-
sic or church music.
1) Most of the lyrics of Armenian liturgical chants are in prose. As
is the case for the whole liturgy, the language is classical Armenian.
2) Although Western forms and techniques have been introduced
during the 20th century, the structure of this music remains modal. The
modal system can be considered as part of the Near Eastern modal family.
Nevertheless, a specific oktoechos system is used; it is a formal grouping
of sharagan modes rather than a rational classification.
3) The drone is always present in Armenian liturgical chant, even when
its not sung. Being monophonic, the chanting is based on unequal tem-
perament and tends to use natural intervals, especially in relation with the
drone.
4) A large part of the repertoire is based on melodic patterns. This fea-
ture brings together a system of melodic variation according to the lyrics,
and a system of tempo variation which is used for liturgical purposes.
5) Although notation systems have been used throughout history, the
main transmission method has remained the oral tradition.
These characteristics allow us to understand the musical system of the
Armenian liturgy. However, the predominance of the oral tradition is the
most important characteristic to consider for the study of the neumatic
notation.
From the point of view of their structure, there are three sorts of
chants:
1) Recitative singing. Simple psalmody, litanies, Bible reading, etc.
2) Melodies that can be sung by a group. Most of these songs are of
rapid or moderate tempo, but some slow tempo songs can also be included
in this category.
3) Melismatic songs, only for solo singing.
Neumatic notation has not been systematically applied to recitative
singing. In this repertoire, a few neumes, especially those indicating long

123
 ARAM KEROVPYAN

syllables, can be seen along with some intonational marks, like stress
or baris.
Group melodies and melismatic songs are always written with neumes.
Both groups can be reclassified according to another structural charac-
teristic:
1) use of melodic patterns
2) specific melodies
Neumatic notation has been used for both groups. Nevertheless, re-
peated neume combinations can be found only in songs using melodic
patterns, and this is the repertoire which has come down to us without
a break as a melodically homogenious group. The songs of this repertoire
are called sharagan. Sharagan songs, grouped in canons according to the
liturgical calendar, are organized in an oktoechos system. The Armenian
oktoechos is a rather conventional system, as several different modes are
grouped under one or the other of the eight modes. Few of these songs
have specific melodies. The majority are based on melodic patterns which
lengthen or contract according to their lyrics. Without resuming the his-
tory of sharagan songs, I will only mention that the oldest attested song
in the present repertoire is from the 7th century and the oldest surviv-
ing manuscript in which we find the term sharagan is from 11th century.
We need to consider the history of Armenian manuscript tradition in
order to understand the present difficulties. Armenia, as a geographic
region, has been a battlefield for neighbouring empires: Byzantium, Per-
sia, Arabic invasions, Ottoman and Russian empires, not to mention the
devastating Mongolian and Northern Caucasus invasions. Also, numer-
ous rebellions during the Ottoman period made Anatolia an unstable
region. This is the main reason why very few old manuscripts have sur-
vived. For example, there is only one New Testament manuscript from
the 7th century. Armenian manuscript colophons are full of a specific kind
of testimony: Armenian manuscripts were taken as hostage and sold back
to Armenians in exchange for considerable amounts of gold. Musicologi-
cal studies on Armenian liturgical chant have to deal with conditions
resulting from History. Thus, the surviving chant tradition gains a cru-
cial importance in all research fields, for the study of neumatic notation.
There is a common consensus that Armenians used the neumatic
notation from the 9th-10th century on. It is also accepted that the first

124
 Observations on a lost language: the Armenian neumatic notation

period is that of an ekphonetic notation, but some manuscript fragments

found in book bindings and attributed to 10th and 11th centuries con-
tain a rather developed notation (figure 1). This is one of the fundamental
questions which require research, but I must say that paleography is still
not a well-established field in the study of Armenian neumatic notation.
The Armenian neumatic notation
was especially developed during the
period of the Cilician kingdom, be-
tween the 12th and 14th centuries.
Cilician music manuscripts contain
many melismatic songs with complex
and extended neumatic formulae. In
manuscripts, there are also lists com-
posed of numerous melodic pattern
names, classified under the names of
oktoechos modes. As for the shara-
gan repertoire, some editions be-
came a reference and were copied
until the 18th century. Meanwhile
neumatic notation gradually became
a system transmitted with difficulties,
as the political and social situation
FIGURE 1.Fly-leaf from Madenataran,
degraded in almost every region
Institute of Manuscripts in Yerevan,
where Armenians lived. Armenia. First two syllables of Alleluia.
While neumatic notation was still Probably from the 11th century.
taught in certain monasteries accord-
ing to the remaining knowledge of them, Istanbul, the capital of the
Ottoman Empire, became during the 18th century the political center of
the Armenians. This also meant that the city became the center from
which modernity and its intellectual production spread. In Istanbul, nu-
merous ordained church singer groups retained the liturgical chant tra-
dition, and the main transmission system was oral transmission, from
master to student. Apparently, neumatic notation was little taught, and
each master-singer had his own interpretation of it.
From the beginning of the 19th century, modern studies on neumatic
notation appear periodically. The first book which includes explanations

125
 ARAM KEROVPYAN

of neumes is The Book of Music of the church singer Krikor Kabasakalian

(1740-1808), published in 1803. The book is a mirror of its time:
Kabasakalian describes briefly the Armenian oktoechos, makes modal
comparisons with Classical Ottoman music, and compares Armenian and
Greek neumes. Nevertheless, his neume descriptions are so brief that one
might think that, compared to us, church singers knew much more about
them in the 1800s. Kabasakalian carried out another more detailed work
on neumes, but it was not published and was later lost. We only have a
description of the manuscript in a review1.
The second document is a notebook of the minutes of the meetings
of the Musical commission established by Istanbul Armenian Patriar-
chate2. The meetings were held from 1873 to 1875 in Istanbul. During
these meetings dedicated to the examination of sharagan melodies, Yeghia
Dndessian (1834-1881), the first modern Armenian musicologist, ex-
pressed his views on sharagan melodies taking as reference their neumatic
transcriptions. The minutes contain some information which shows that
eighty years after Kabasakalians book, musicians still knew a lot more than
us about neumatic notation.
Three decades later, Father Gomidas (1869-1935) having carried out
research for several years on neumatic notation, had found clues to read-
ing this notation, but he never had the opportunity to write down his
findings, having been deported in 1915 and having lost his intellectual
abilities as a result.
All three were interpreting the neumes according to the knowledge
of their time. Kabasakalian belongs to the old school which was not
acquainted with the scientific mind of the West, and his explanations
remain in an abstract sphere, with no concern about the readers knowl-
edge. On the contrary, Dndessian and Father Gomidas apply a methodical
approach. They know the melodic patterns and bring them to the fore-
front, although their aim is not the same. Dndessian is studying the
neumes in order to correct melodies and to ensure the coherence of the
sharagan repertoire, while Father Gomidas is using his knowledge of the

1 Hantes Amsorya, 3 (1895), pp. 65-68; 4 (1895), pp. 123-124; 12 (1895), pp. 353-
354 (Review of Vienna Mekhitarist congregation, in Armenian).
2 In preparation for publishing.

126
 Observations on a lost language: the Armenian neumatic notation

repertoire to research the neumatic notation system itself. Notwithstand-

ing, we understand from their work that the significance of the neumes
and the neumatic system is literally unknown to them. So, when I say
they knew more than us, we can imagine how little we know about the
Armenian neumatic notation today.
As for the traditional church singers, probably not every one of them
was able to recognize this system but, as learning by memorizing was
much more widespread than it is today, the neumes signified much more
than they do in our days.
The question which remains is: what was lost?
The use we make today of neumatic notation is mainly based on our
knowledge of present melodic patterns. Two contemporary scholars, Robert
Atayan and Nigoghos Tahmizian, have studied the history of Armenian
neumatic notation, made inventories of neumes, and tried to explain some
of them by melodic motifs taken from a still used official edition of sharagan
melodies3. All these efforts havent been enough to modify our question-
ing: what was lost? What was the key? In fact, was there a key?
It is obvious that the first thing we would think of is our perception
of the system itself. From the point of view of semantics, we could prob-
ably say that the inner meaning is present, since the music to which the
neumatic notation refers is still alive for a considerable part, both in prac-
tice and in transcriptions. I say probably, considering the strong possi-
bility that the changes in, for example, sharagan repertoire, as global as
they might have been, have caused a shift in the structure of melodic
patterns comparing to the structure which was rendered by neume se-
ries. Therefore we could be encountering two systems running alongside
each other, one of them remaining invisible to us.
Having studied the modal system, the oktoechos, and performed the
melodic patterns for a long time, I am tempted to examine the system
as something new, never studied. Nevertheless, some historic elements,
especially information related in the 19th century accounts, remain valu-
able. Here, I will note some basic observations.

3 Robert Atayans and Nigoghos Tahmizians numerous articles have been published
in several scientific reviews of Armenian SSR, as Panper Madenatarani, Lraper,
Badmapanasiragan Hantes, etc.

127
 ARAM KEROVPYAN

Both manuscript and printed sharagan books provide a single piece of

information concerning the mode of the song: the abbreviated name of
the mode, written in Armenian characters according to the oktoechos
system, placed next to the songs. This means, of course, that we must
know the modes with their interval structures. Another abbreviated men-
tion gives the place of the song in the given canon.

FIGURE 2.Ms. 1576 of Madenataran (Erevan), fols. 142b, 143a (dated from 1328). Ca-
non of the Sunday of the Tabernacle. On the left, inside the motif, mentions of Third
Voice and Patrum. On the right, in the margin, downwords, mentions of opera,
miserere and de clis. All belong to the same canon and are in the same mode.

Once we know which mode is used, we look at the neumes. As the

oktoechos is conventional and each name contains more than one mode,
we also need to distinguish visually the specific mode, because there is no
mention in the book for that. Some neumes are more specific to one mode
than to another; this is the only way to distinguish the modes. The next step
is to recognize the melodic pattern to use for a given song. We examine the
way the neumes succeed each other, and the situation of long syllables4. This

4 I am using a version of Sharagan printed in 1853 in Constantinople and reprinted

several times since then.

128
 Observations on a lost language: the Armenian neumatic notation

is the point where we can act only according to oral tradition. The accuracy
of our reading depends on the consistency of the transmitted melodic pat-
terns.
Figures 3, 4 and 5 show the first verses of three different sharagan, all
in the 1st Voice mode. Most of the neumes are common to the whole
oktoechos. In figure 4, on the second line, the the neume combination
shown with an arrow helps to deduce that the song is in tartzevadzk2
mode. These two neumes, used separately on the 3rd line of figure 5,
indicate that the song is in the 1st Voice principal mode. This is one of
the empiric methods to distinguish not only different modes of the
oktoechos, but also their modal variations.

FIGURE 3.First verse of a sharagan in the 1st Voice principal mode

and its rapid tempo melody.

Traditionally, final and intermediary final motifs are fixed for each
mode. The fact that the same neume series can be found for the final

129
 ARAM KEROVPYAN

motif of songs in different modes is to be considered according to this

feature. An inventory of motifs using the words God of our Fathers,
which is repeated in every Patrum sharagan and in every mode may help
us to see if there was a relationship between melodic motifs and corre-
sponding neumes.

FIGURE 4.First verse of a sharagan in the 1st Voice tartzevadzk

/ / (stroph/turning about) mode and its rapid tempo melody.

FIGURE 5.First verse of a sharagan in the 1st Voice principal mode.

There are specific neume combinations for each mode which are rec-
ognizable as such, but there are also similar combinations which are, of
course, sung differently according to the mode. Examples 6 and 7 illus-
trate this situation. (Ex. 1st Side mode, 844 & 243).

130
 Observations on a lost language: the Armenian neumatic notation

FIGURE 6.Patrum end of a sharagan in the 1st Side principal mode.

FIGURE 7.Patrum end of a sharagan in the 1st Side tartzevadk mode.

Figure 8 shows the two tempo variations of a same song. There is a

unique neumatic combination. There is no need to have different neumes
to make tempo variation. Tempo is not a reference, as there is a tempo
variation system.

FIGURE 8.Patrum end of two tempo versions of a sharagan

in the 2nd Voice principal mode.

FIGURE 9.First verse of a sharagan in the 3rd Side mode.

131
 ARAM KEROVPYAN

There is another clue to establish the level of pertinence between the

neumes and the melodic patterns in use: in rapid tempo songs, we no-
tice sentences or syntagmatic units with a short syllable followed by a long
syllable and five short syllables. In numerous songs the neume composi-
tion corresponds to the known melody. The example below is entirely
composed of four such units.
Many sharagan songs have melismatic melodies which are sung as
solos. The neumatic notation of these songs in manuscripts can be ei-
ther complex or simple. In the present state of our knowledge, it is al-
most impossible to find indications in both cases. Figure 10 shows a
Patrum verse with a relatively simple neumatic composition, yet, the
melody is not a result of regular tempo variation.

FIGURE 10.Patrum verse in the 4th Side mode and the same verse
in Ms 1576 of Madenataran, fol. 172b (dated from 1328).

As in every tradition, melodic patterns of sharagan songs must have

undergone changes over the course of History. Merely the fact that the
repertoire is still based on a recognizable melodic patterns system shows
that the change has occurred slowly. This is the main element which al-
lows us to study such a little known system, as is the Armenian neumatic
notation.
All we know today about the khaz, or neume notation is to distin-
guish the signs which are to be sung on double time units, and neume

132
 Observations on a lost language: the Armenian neumatic notation

compositions which are sung even longer, without any idea of correspond-
ing melodic motifs. Yet, a century ago, the whole composition of neumes
in a verse was considered in order to distinguish the melodic patterns.
However, this situation brings forth a question which could be a research
topic: were the neumatic compositions/series read only according to
known melodic patterns? Or did the neumes signify formulae for mo-
tifs? Can we imagine the process that made some neumes gain similar
meanings over time? Or, did that happen simply because some melodic
motifs had changed to become similar? And, how can we take benefit
from the fact that numerous melismatic sharagan melodies exist with their
variants, although they are usually considered as useless for the study of
neumatic notation?
Many questions which, all put together, go far beyond the possibili-
ties of solitary researchers, as has been the case until now. Enduring and
persistent team work is necessary. In this particular case, the inventive-
ness of the individual remains of crucial importance, as it has been the
fundamental vehicle in the development of this art.

133
http://www.sedem.es