Some biographical information: Ivan Kaikov was born in 1874 in Pınarhisar, vilayet of Kırklareli (Σαράντα Εκκλησιές), which is currently in the European part of Turkey. He studied singing with Atanas Dolapchiev. Kaikov became a teacher in Adrianople and eventually got involved in the revolutionary movement. For this he was arrested and spent 7 years in confinement in Asia Minor. After his release, Kaikov emigrated to Sophia and served several years as a chanter there, also operating a chanting school. He was a member of the Macedonian-Adrianopolitan Volunteer Corps during the Balkan Wars. In 1918 Kaikov moved as a teacher to Constantinople and sang in the parekklesion of the then Bulgarian Exarchate, and also St. Stephen’s church. He retired in 1938 and returned to Sophia, but continued to sing in various churches. The recordings were made in 1956. Kaikov died in 1965 in Sophia.
This Voskresnik contains an insert with several Axion estin compositions in Kaikov’s hand. Here is one example. The title, if I read it correctly, mentions “Zargyum Hidiets”. I don’t know who that is (if it is a name, of course...).
Do not get me wrong about the makams. If Petros reminds "sabah" in a cherubic hymn for 1-2 beats, it does not mean that we are chanting Turkish music in the Church and that the musical taste of the Bulgarians can bear a whole cherubic hymn to be composed in "sabah". This is the East, but in his liturgical compositions, Petros (and other classical composers) uses these instruments (makams as a part of the secular music) carefully and moderately. It is a creativity technique, it is carefully measured, and most often there is some theological meaning. In the same way, the church's Fathers have used the techniques of pagan philosophy to clarify important aspects of theology. This does not mean that our faith is polluted by pagan philosophy. Similarly, the moderate and creative use of secular motives (makams) does not mean that psaltic tradition is polluted by the Turkish music. There is a music for entertainment, the other is a music for prayer.
Don't you worry, I have never been a purist (it was what attracted early research in my Italian field, but this ideological obsession hunting after the Byzantine music “untouched by the Ottomans” seduced them to care about it quite early, when it had hardly caught anyone's attention).
I am rather amazed that the Phanariotes did visit the synagogue and the tekke and did not just pay reciprocal respect for their fellow-musicians, but they had also a fine memory for other traditions. Petros was definitely not very popular at the Patriarchate, but he had an outstanding musical talent and together with a certain arrogant attitude he was also one of the best feared musicians of the Ottoman empire, which explains Papadopoulos’ ironic remark that musicians asked him for his permission before publishing their own compositions... We must be very grateful for his wide interests, because as a transcriptor Petros was an excellent informant of Ottoman music (no rhythmic nuances or changes escaped his fine ear).
We also must bear in mind that certain experiments by Balasios and Petros Bereketis in the genre of kalophonic heirmoi was due to the fact, that it was para-liturgical and therefore more innovative than kalophonic stichera (using makam intervals for temporary changes in order to change between different echoi in a rather unexpected way). Thus, even oktoechos melopœia did change on a long-term perspective.
Thank you for keeping the memory of Otec Stilian. He was a modest monk. This also affects his chanting style.
I agree... Although Otec Stiliyan was a very shy person, he could be very funny and even cheerful. While we recorded him singing, the cock in the courtyard also started and interrupted Stiliyan. Stiliyan turned around, smiled and said: “There is the devil in this cock!”
For an ethnologist he was always an upright informant whose honesty helped to improve things within the Bulgarian church. It seems that he was never bothered by any kind of fear...
Thank you for sharing all these useful links and the biographic background of Ivan Kaikov. It is most appreciated! When I visited Istanbul my last time, the iron church was still under renovation...
Psaltikiynen Miney by Ivanov
The first print is the chantbook miney (Psaltikiynen Miney) edited by Angel Ivanov (usually the movable cycle was published as an own volume). It is not a Doxastarion, since the title says that it also includes the other genres (the doxastika were usually taken from Petros Peloponnesios’ Doxastarion). There are actually three editions, all printed in Constantinople, in the collection (which is the one of the Academy of Sciences in Sofia):
1) 1864 called “slavnik” (in possession by Ivan Kaikov) http://unicat.nalis.bg/Record/DSpace.365
The book includes “Slavniy” (doxastika) of the miney, stichera na hvalite, stichera with preceding “Slava otcu” or “I niyne”.
2) 1868 called “stichirar” http://unicat.nalis.bg/Record/DSpace.369
The book includes the “tipik” (euchologion) without any chant, troparia, akrosticha by Gregorios Protopsaltes, doxastika and kontakia of the triod and the pentikostar.
3) 1869 called “miney” http://unicat.nalis.bg/Record/DSpace.368
The book includes the miney with troparia, doxastika and kontakia, and a tipik about the miney and the books of the moveable cycle.
Chantbooks by Ikonomov
And then there is a book which has bound together a theoretikon, the Voskresnik, the Utrenna (Orthros Anthology), and the Liturgiya (Anthology for the Liturgies) according to the edition by Todor Poppetrov Ikonomov (Constantinople 1872): http://unicat.nalis.bg/Record/DSpace.745
Also this anthology has notes by its owner Ivan Kaikov and a handwritten appendix with some Dostoyno (Ἄξιον ἔστιν) settings.
Well, the title page of the volume seems to say Slavnik ( = Doxastarion) containing all the festal doxastika of the 12 months of the year. I didn’t look into the actual contents.
P.S. Kiltzanides’ Doxastarion also contains a lot of additional material not found in Petros’ original. But it’s still called Doxastarion. Just as Konstantinos Protopsaltes’ Anastasimatarion is called Anastasimatarion, even though it includes things like liturgy chants etc.
The Miney or Mineynik is more rooted in a Slavonic tradition of miney (it contains also prosomoia, kontakia and troparia, not just the doxastika) and is closer to the textbook menaion. Hence, the triod (Lenten triod) and pentikostar (Flower triod) also include troparia and kontakia. Likewise the Utrenna... The Bulgarian Orthros anthology also does not exclude the chant of heirmologion (as well Petros Vyzantios as Petros Peloponnesios).
Iakovos’ (argon, 1836) and Konstantinos' (argosyntomon, 1841) were alternative print editions to the first one based on Petros’ doxastarion which was published by Petros Ephesios in 1820. Sarafov for instance published also versions from the other editions.
I added some more information in my description. Yesterday, I had to catch my flight and had no time to have a better look at the books.
Everything I said above about the Mineynik comes from my experience of singing for the Bulgarian community in Berlin. The common edition used nowadays is the “Psaltikiyna mineynik” by Todorov (1922), but it is always very useful and nice to look for the older editions.
By the way, I just copied the lifedates from Nikola, but they are wrong: Ivan Kaikov died in 1965, and 1956 was the year, when the Academy of Science organised the recordings in Sofia (it went into the footsteps of Odeon who did one of their first recordings with many oriental musicians, but also with Iakovos Nafpliotis).
If one believes the biographer Ivaylo Borisov from the Theological Faculty, Sarafov’s edition (1912) of doxastika taken from Iakovos’ Doxastarion argon (1836) were inspired by Ivan Kaikov’s performances, obviously when he taught at the Metropolitan School at Sofia since 1910. You can compare it to the Greek edition and you will find that they are quite close to the print edition which published Chourmouzios’ transcriptions according to the New Method. The truth is that Chourmouzios tried something impossible...
Iakovos did not only refuse Petros Peloponnesios’ innovations and his school for personal reasons (since the latter occupied a position that belonged to Iakovos), but also for their different attitude to the tradition of psaltic chant. Iakovos refused notation, but his student Georgios of Crete did transcribe his Doxastarion argon for his teacher, but far from the reduction to 45 signs common for the exegetic notation used by Petros and his followers. He strongly refused the rhythmic style of Petros’ Doxastarion syntomon. Manolis Giannopoulos has proved that Petros’ Heirmologion argon (Katavasies) is very close to the edition of Balasios’ Heirmologion, but Petros’ school corrected the so-called “wrong accentuation” of the text. Chrysanthos who was clearly a follower of Petros Vyzantios and the latter’s teacher Petros Peloponnesios even wrote that Iakovos had a weakness that he was not able to perform the liturgical language according to the prosody of the language, but I think it was a fundamental change, since they did not agree here with the older generation and their way to set the texts into music!
Thanks to you I added an article about Ivan Kaikov and the links to the recordings to my handout, since I have to teach in November students and we could establish a collaboration with the Bulgarian community in Berlin (therefore the Bulgarian school is particular important for us, even if I use also this as an opportunity to underline the differences between Bulgarian and Greek protopsaltes). I understood that Ivan Kaikov was rather a contemporary than a student of Iakovos Nafpliotis, but he did experience the last period of the long era of him as an Archon Protopsaltis, while he lived in Constantinople. One should also mention that Bulgarian singers were present there in Fener due to the Bulgarian exarchate and the “iron church”, which partly explains the evident influence.
Thank you for your serious academic interest in the Bulgarian reception of Byzantine church music. My observations and conclusions are based on 27 years of experience as a psalt, chorister and soloist in some of the best Bulgarian choirs for both kind of music - monodic and polyphonic, as well as a member of a Greek choirs. I am very well acquainted and have a deep understanding of the whole Bulgarian psaltic tradition and practice in Bulgarian churches nowadays. If you have questions, I am available. This is not a bragging I write it only to know that my remarks and comments are based on years of experience and observation.
It is so nice to meet you here. From my experience there is no doubt that Nikola Antonov’s contribution to the Bulgarian tradition of church music (whether psaltic or not) merits an own documentation by fieldwork, not less than Neofit (right now the Patriarch of Bulgaria) or Stiliyan, the tipikar of Bačkovo who is still vivid in our memory and who was documented by Deniza’s fieldwork during many years.
Right now I am very busy with so many other things (the fact that you could meet me here is not only that I was looking for recordings made of Nikola, but also due to my need for distraction). Despite the fact that this “distraction” helped us to improve our seminary in Berlin and to get prepared for it, I have many many questions concerning your experience!
I hope we can continue our exchange here soon (maybe within the thread of your youtube account), and hopefully also personally in Bulgaria (probably next year).
You are right that the situation in Bulgaria is serious (and always was, since I started fieldwork in 2002), but I also have seen much worse. At the same time, chanters we could meet, were very generous and in their character very unique, firm, but at the same time also laid back. In their very particular way they do miracles and they get never tired to share their experience. When I met Stiliyan, he was already old and weak, and sometimes we needed to protect him and to care that he did not exhaust himself too much.
Being within a tradition is always oriented between the past (learning from experienced chanters, their unique and their local way, and human beings who are aware of their skills, will never stop learning), the present (the daily practice) and the future (passing on the own skills to the younger generation). But from what I saw I know that one can find so much pleasure in it.
Ivan Kaikov who must have had so much hope in the founded state Bulgaria, must have suffered from so many disappointments (especially from people in his own circle). But despite the important role he had within Bulgarian history between the patriarchate in Sofia and the exarchate in Constantinople. It is my work experience that every cultural heritage always goes beyond borders defined by nation or religion, even in case it has an ethnic marker, but cultural heritage is always defined by the people within the field and not by the ethnologists. This is also the official definition made by the UNESCO.
We will stay in touch, see you soon and thank you so much for using the internet in such a generous way!