Byzantine Heirmologion

Shota

Παλαιό Μέλος
#1
I was wondering whether there exists a digital version of some ms of the Byzantine Heirmologion (preferably from the same family as mss H and G). There is a copy of one ms from Leimonos monastery, but it's not a very good and the ms is also not in the best shape, it seems. I have some heirmoi from various sources, but I'd prefer to have more than that. Here is one little illustration why I need this: in this example we see an MMB transcription of the heirmos Ἰταμῷ θυμῷ τε καὶ πυρί (Mode 1). The two verses I put in red squares, τῇ τῶν ὁσίων and ὁ δεδοξασμένος, carry the same melody. This is a characteristic melodic turn of Mode 1 (well, better to say the neumatic text behind the MMB transcription is). There is a theta appearing in the phrase, which is not transcribed, although C. Hoeg recognises it did perhaps imply some action ("some special nuance in the execution"). Now if we look at the Georgian version of the same heirmos from a X/XI c. ms, we see that its division into verses (dots are used for that) matches the Greek one (from ms H) and so do the numbers of syllables per verse:

Ἰταμῷ θυμῷ τε καὶ πυρί
θεῖος ἔρως ἀντιταττόμενος
τὸ μὲν πῦρ ἐδρόσιζε
τῷ θυμῷ δὲ ἐγέλα
θεοπνεύστῳ λογικῇ
τῇ τῶν ὁσίων
τριφθόγγῳ λύρᾳ ἀντιφθεγγόμενος
μουσικοῖς ὀργάνοις ἐν μέσῳ φλογός
ὁ δεδοξασμένος
τῶν Πατέρων καὶ ἡμῶν Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἶ.

გულისწყრომასა მძლავრისასა
შური საღმრთოჲ რაჲ წინა-აღუდგა
და გარდაცვალა ცეცხლი
იგი შემწველი ცუა[რა]დ
და რისხვაჲ სიხარულად
და სამძალითა
შემასხმელითა ღმრთისა ებანთა თანა
გალობით იტყოდა სახიობასა
ამას ღაღადებდა
მამათა ჩუენთა ღმერთო მარადის
კურთხეულ ხარ.

Syllable counts:

Grk.: 9.10.7.7.7.5.11.11.6.14.
Geo.: 9.10.7.7.7.5.12.11.6.10.4.

Because of this the translation is not literal. Georgian heirmos carries neumes. It is most peculiar that the verses corresponding to τῇ τῶν ὁσίων and ὁ δεδοξασμένος are notated in exactly the same way (see the red boxes). Although I have in no way studied the matter in detail, I discovered a number of other coincidences like this one (but also some differences). Whether I eventually want to write something formal on this subject? No :D This I leave to professionals. As an amateur I prefer to have my own fun.
 

Attachments

Shota

Παλαιό Μέλος
#2
As another example, let us consider the heirmoi Ἡ δημιουργική and Ῥήσεις προφητῶν (Mode 1). The Georgian translations again match the Greek heirmoi rhythmically (by this I mean division into verses and number of syllables in them):

Ἡ δημιουργική
καὶ συνεκτικὴ τῶν ἁπάντων
Θεοῦ σοφία καὶ δύναμις
ἀκλινῆ ἀκράδαντον
τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν στήριξον Χριστέ
μόνος γὰρ εἶ ἅγιος
ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις ἀναπαυόμενος.

ყოვლისა მპყრობელი
და დამბადებელი ყოველთაჲ
სიბრძნე იგი და ძალი ღმრთისაჲ
განმაძლიერებელი
ეკლესიათაჲ შეურყეველად
შენ თავადი ხარ ქრისტე
ღმერთი ყოველთაჲ რომელი წმიდა ხარ.

Grk.: 6.9.9.7.10.7.11.
Geo.: 6.9.9.7.10.7.11.

Ῥήσεις προφητῶν καὶ αἰνίγματα
τὴν σάρκωσιν ὑπέφηναν
τὴν ἐκ Παρθένου σου Χριστέ
φέγγος ἀστραπῆς σου
εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν ἐξελεύσεται
καὶ φωνήσει ἄβυσσος ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει
τῇ δυνάμει σου δόξα Φιλάνθρωπε.

იგავმან წინაჲსწარმეტყუელთამან
განკაცებაჲ შენი ქრისტე
ქალწულისაგან ქადაგა
ნათელი ბრწყინვალე
კაცთა ნათესავსა აჩუენა
და უფსკრული ღაღადებს
და გალობით იტყჃს
ძალსა შენსა დიდებაჲ კაცთმოყუარე.

Grk.: 10.8.8.6.9.13.11.
Geo.: 10.8.8.6.9.7.6.11.

The translations are, unsurprisingly, not literal. Looking at the MMB transcription, we see that the verses μόνος γὰρ εἶ ἅγιος and φέγγος ἀστραπῆς σου employ a similar, but not identical (at least from the transcription) melodic formula (theta is not reflected in the transcription). The Georgian translation of the heirmos Ῥήσεις προφητῶν poses some problems, as neumes are not clearly visible, but it is certainly true that the last two neumes of the Georgian verses corresponding (in their position, not in meaning) to μόνος γὰρ εἶ ἅγιος and φέγγος ἀστραπῆς σου are the same; see here.
 

Attachments

Shota

Παλαιό Μέλος
#3
A further example deals with the heirmoi Σοῦ ἡ τροπαιοῦχος and Χριστὸς γεννᾶται (Mode 1). The Georgian Heirmologion I am taking my examples from does not contain the heirmos Χριστὸς γεννᾶται. Instead it contains its clone Πικρᾶς δουλείας. The Georgian translations closely follow the division into verses and syllable count of the Greek originals (some verses are divided into smaller ones, or conversely, combined, but firstly, variations of this type we see in Greek mss as well, and secondly, the Georgian neumator perhaps wanted to highlight musically this or that part of the heirmos).

Σοῦ ἡ τροπαιοῦχος δεξιά
θεοπρεπῶς ἐν ἰσχύϊ δεδόξασται
αὔτη γὰρ ἀθάνατε
ὡς πανσθενὴς ὑπεναντίους ἔθραυσε
τοῖς Ἰσραηλίταις
ὀδὸν βυθοῦ καινουργὴσασα.

მარჯუენაჲ შენი
უძლეველი
ღმრთივშუენიერი
{და} ღირსად საგალობელ არს
რომლითა შენ უკუდავო ძლიერებით აოტენ მტერნი იგი
და ისრაელთათჃს
განჰმზადე გზაჲ ზღუასა მეწამულსა.

Grk.: 9.11.7.12.6.10.
Geo.: 5+4.5+7.7:11.6.10.

Χριστὸς γεννᾶται δοξάσατε
Χριστὸς ἐξ οὐρανῶν ἀπαντήσατε
Χριστὸς ἐπὶ γῆς ὑψώθητε
ᾄσατε τῷ Κυρίῳ πᾶσα ἡ γῆ
καὶ ἐν εὐφροσύνῃ
ἀνυμνήσατε λαοί
ὅτι δεδόξασται.

მონებისა მისგან მწარისა
ჴსნილმან ისრაელმან განვლო ქუეყანაჲ
დაულტოლველად და იხილნა
მტერნი მისნი დანთქმულნი
და გალობით უგალობდა ღმერთსა
საკჃრველთმოქმედსა რამეთუ დიდებულ არს.

Grk.: 9.11.9.11.6.7.6.
Geo.: 9.11.9.7.4:6.6:7.

If we look at the MMB transcriptions (here and here), we see that the verses τοῖς Ἰσραηλίταις and καὶ ἐν εὐφροσύνῃ carry a similar melody: they start differently, but end in the same way, and moreover, in ms H they feature a theta (not transcribed in the staff notation transcription, but nevertheless indicated). The corresponding verses in the Georgian versions in both cases are notated in exactly the same way (three neumes are employed). Now the Georgian notation (I'll talk about its basic features another time) is unlike the Middle Byzantine one not analytic, but mnemonic, so that the same combination of neumes could very well correspond to related, but nevertheless different melodic formulae. Thus in this case as well we have an instance of an interesting coincidence. What is more, is that the last two neumes are long wavy lines going upwards (graphically this is the most "complicated"-looking neume of the Georgian notation). If we go back to the examples I started this thread with, we see that one such neume occurs there as well, while the second one is obtained through its reflection around the horizontal axis. And then we also have that the Greek Heirmologion has theta there.
 

Attachments

Shota

Παλαιό Μέλος
#4
One commonly used combination of Georgian neumes is a group consisting of a "stroke", a "stair" and a "stair". This seems to usually occur at the end of the verse and is worth examination due to its frequency. Below I will give a large number of examples together with the corresponding Greek heirmoi. The verses where the combination occurs will be coloured in red and I will also colour in red the corresponding verses in the Greek heirmoi.

1)

Τὸ θεῖον καὶ ἄρρητον κάλλος
τῶν ἀρετῶν σου Χριστὲ διηγήσομαι
ἐξ ἀϊδίου γὰρ δόξης
συναΐδιον ἐνυπόστατον λάμψαν ἀπαύγασμα
παρθενικῆς ἀπὸ γαστρός
τοῖς ἐν σκότει καὶ σκιᾷ
σωματωθεὶς ἀνέτειλας ἥλιος.

ბრწყინვალედ შუენიერებასა
ღმრთეებისა შენისასა ქრისტე მიუთხრობთ
დიდებაჲ ბუნებითი
დაუსაბამოჲ
სამარადისოჲ
მის თანა გამოჰბრწყინდი
საშოჲსაგან ქალწულისა
მზე იგი სიმართლისაჲ
მსხდომარეთათჃს ბნელთა და აჩრდილთა.

Grk.: 9.12.8.16.8.7.11.
Geo.: 9.13.7.5+5+7.8.7.11.

The notated Georgian version is here and the MMB transcription is here.

2)

Σοῦ ἡ τροπαιοῦχος δεξιά
θεοπρεπῶς ἐν ἰσχύϊ δεδόξασται
αὔτη γὰρ ἀθάνατε
ὡς πανσθενὴς ὑπεναντίους ἔθραυσε
τοῖς Ἰσραηλίταις
ὀδὸν βυθοῦ καινουργὴσασα.

მარჯუენაჲ შენი
უძლეველი
ღმრთივშუენიერი
{და} ღირსად საგალობელ არს
რომლითა შენ უკუდავო ძლიერებით აოტენ მტერნი იგი
და ისრაელთათჃს
განჰმზადე გზაჲ ზღუასა მეწამულსა.

Grk.: 9.11.7.12.6.10.
Geo.: 5+4.5+7.7:11.6.10.

The notated Georgian version is here and the MMB transcription is here.

3)

Χριστὸς γεννᾶται δοξάσατε
Χριστὸς ἐξ οὐρανῶν ἀπαντήσατε
Χριστὸς ἐπὶ γῆς ὑψώθητε
ᾄσατε τῷ Κυρίῳ πᾶσα ἡ γῆ
καὶ ἐν εὐφροσύνῃ
ἀνυμνήσατε λαοί
ὅτι δεδόξασται.

The Georgian Heirmologion I am taking my examples from does not contain the heirmos Χριστὸς γεννᾶται. Instead it contains its clone Πικρᾶς δουλείας. Neumes are not very well visible here, so I will use yet another clone of Χριστὸς γεννᾶται (or Πικρᾶς δουλείας) that is found in the Georgian Heirmologion.

აზღუდნეს წყალნი სიღრმეთანი
და დაინთქა ფარაო მჴედრებითურთ
ხოლო ისრაელი განვიდა
მოსეს მიერ კუერთხითა
მაქებელად
და მგალობლად ღმრთისა
საკჃრველთმოქმედისა რამეთუ დიდებულ არს.

Grk.: 9.11.9.11.6.7.6.
Geo.: 9.11.9.7.4:6.7:7.

The notated Georgian version is here and the MMB transcription is here.

4)

Σπλάγχνων Ἰωνᾶν
ἔμβρυον ἀπήμεσεν
ἐνάλιος θήρ οἷον ἐδέξατο
τῇ Παρθένῳ δέ
ἐνοικήσας ὁ Λόγος καὶ σάρκα λαβών
διελήλυθε φυλάξας ἀδιάφθορον
ἧς γάρ
οὐχ ὑπέστη ῥεύσεως
τὴν τεκοῦσαν κατέσχεν ἀπήμαντον.

პირველ იონა
შთანთქმული მჴეცისაგან
განმხრწნელისა წარმოიგდო უხრწნელად
და ქალწულისა
მუცელსა სიტყუაჲ ღმრთისაჲ განჴორციელდა
და მშობელი თჃსი დაიცვა უჴრწნელად
ხოლო
ბუნებანი შეცვალნა
ვითარცა ინება
და გუაცხოვნნა ჩუენ.

Grk.:5.7.11.5.12.13.2.7.11.
Geo.: 5.7.11.5.12.12.2.7.6+5.

The notated Georgian version is here and the MMB transcription is here.

5)

Ἐκύκλωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐσχάτη ἄβυσσος
οὔκ ἐστιν ὁ ῥυόμενος
ἐλογίσθημεν ὡς πρόβατα σφαγῆς
σῶσον τὸν λαόν σου ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν
σὺ γὰρ ἰσχύς τῶν ἀσθενούντων καὶ ἐπανόρθωσις.

მომიცვნა ჩუენ სიღრმემან ღელვათამან
და არავინ არს მჴსნელ ჩუენდა
და ვიქმნენით ჩუენ
ვითარცა ცხოვარნი კლვადნი
არამედ იჴსენ ერი შენი უფალო
შენ ხარ სასოჲ
და ნუგეშინისმცემელი განწირულთაჲ.

Grk.: 12.8.11.11.15.
Geo.: 11.8.5+8.12.4+12.

The notated Georgian version is here and the MMB transcription is here.

6)

Ἅλιον ποντογενές
κητῷον ἐντόσθιον πῦρ
τῆς τριημέρου ταφῆς σοῦ προεικονίσματι
οὗ Ἰωνᾶς ὑποφήτης ἀναδέδεικται
σεσωσμένος γὰρ ὡς καὶ προυπέποτο
ἀσινὴς ἐβόα
θύσω σοι μετὰ φωνῇς αἰνέσεως Κύριε.

ცუდ იქმნა სიმჴურვალე
იგი განმხრწნელი მუცლისაჲ
სიღრმეთა მათ ვეშაპისათა და სახედ გამოჩნდა
აღდგომისათჃს შენისა
იონა ჴსნილი
შთანთქმისა მისგან და ღაღატყო ჴმითა
საგალობელითა
შევსწირავთ შენდა მსხუერპლსა
ქებისასა უფალო.

Grk.: 7.8.14.13.11.6.14.
Geo.: 7.8.15.8+5.11.6.7+7.

The notated Georgian version is here and the MMB transcription is here.

The conclusions we can draw from the above examples is that in most of the cases the Greek heirmoi also employ one and the same formula. Other times it appears to be some variation on the basic formula, or in the exceptional case of Σπλάγχνων Ἰωνᾶν something significantly different. But the manuscript H forming the basis for the MMB transcriptions does not represent the entire Byzantine Heirmologion tradition and a possibility of existence of variant melodies cannot be discarded.

There is another interesting conclusion as well: I could not identify an example of the combination of a "stroke", a "stair" and a "stair" used at the end of Georgian heirmoi in Mode 1: there some different combinations (although typically beginning with a "stroke") are used. This is not so in the Greek Heirmologion, where the formula e.g. at the end of the verse "Χριστὸς γεννᾶται δοξάσατε" can function as a cadence at the end of the heirmos as well. This is so in mss H and G. However, if I look at the examples (heirmoi of the Resurrectional kanon in Mode 1) from mss Sa, Sb and Y in the MMB transcriptions (these are the 14th c. mss), there too I see a tendency to avoid the above-mentioned cadence at the end of the heirmoi. I don't know whether these three mss are consistent in this (i.e. systematically apply this stylistic feature in all Mode 1 heirmoi).

I also spotted a few more interesting coincidences in the heirmoi I just considered above, but I will not give more details (enough is enough).

P.S. I use the MMB transcriptions as a useful reference tool, without agreeing with the transcriptions as such.
 

Attachments

Shota

Παλαιό Μέλος
#5
Some details about the Georgian notation: about ten notated mss from the 10th and 11th c. survive. The earliest is dated on the paleographical grounds to the 1st half of the 10th c. After the 11th c. we encounter notated mss only from the 18-19-20th c. The notation is different, though.

The neumes are written in red ink and are positioned both above and below the lines of text, however not above every syllable (just as in the case of the mss written using the ekphonetic notation). The list of neumes is given here (taken from a paper by a Georgian musicologist Shalva Aslanishvili). Three signs (used only in one ms though) have exact graphical correspondences in the ekphonetic notation: these are the apostrophos, apostrophoi and oxeia (Georgian "oxeia" is written in black ink and Aslanishvili thinks it must have been added some time after the ms was coped; the "apostrophos" and "apostrophoi", he writes, occur both below and above the text line; "oxeia" occurs only above the text line). There is also another sign that Aslanishvili thinks resembles parakletike (but in the end concludes it is just a graphical variation of another Georgian sign), but to my eyes it's rather an inverted parakletike, thus I don't see a link here. One could perhaps argue that some Georgian neumes evolved graphically from the signs of the ekphonetic notation, see here, but I don't have a hard proof for that. Most signs are obtained from the graphical modification ("complication") of a few basic signs.

Very interesting is a comparison of Georgian neumes to Armenian ones (but these latter from the oldest, 9th c. ms only). The outer appearance of notated texts is similar and many signs look the same. Of course, except graphical similarity, no conclusions can be drawn on the functions of signs.
 

Attachments

Shota

Παλαιό Μέλος
#6
Either in the mss themselves or in other historical sources from the 10-11th c. the notated Georgian mss are called "mekhuri" mss, while the chants contained in them are called "mekhuri" chants. The translators of the Greek hymnography into Georgian and simultaneously chanters and composers are called "mekheli". Both words have "ekh" as their stem, while the rest are prefixes and suffixes characteristic of Georgian. A famous Georgian liturgist and expert in ancient Georgian literature K. Kekelidze suggested to relate "mekhuri" and "mekheli" to the Greek word ηχος. The suggestion gained currency among Georgian philologists, although there have been and still are some dissenting voices among Georgian musicologists (alternative explanations largely belong to the realm of fantasies: e.g. one suggestion says "mekhuri" is a corruption of "somkhuri" (Armenian in Georgian), which was thoroughly refuted by Helen Metreveli; another suggestion claims "mekhuri" is related to the Georgian term for neumes, although a neume, as clear from colophons of various mss, is called "nishani" in Old Georgian (which, by the way, is a Persian borrowing in Georgian)). I found what I think is a simple argument in favour of Kekelidze's version: a Georgian ms Sin. Geo. O. 34 copied in the 10th c. by an erudite monk Iovane Zosime contains an encomium meant as a colophon for Iadgari (Tropologion). The name "Georgi" is read in the acrostich, who must be the author of the colophon. The text contains a term "khmeani galoba", which can be rendered in English as "modal chant" ("khma" = voice, sound, mode), and which here is probably used as a synonym of "mekhuri" chant. If this reasoning is correct, we immediately see a link between "khma", "mekhuri" and "ηχος".
 

Laosynaktis

Παλαιό Μέλος
#7
In my village (Evia) "κρατάου τουν αχμό" means "I hold the ison" (i.e. a continuous voice). It may be a mere coincidence though with the Georgian "khma"
 

Dimitri

Δημήτρης Κουμπαρούλης, Administrator
Staff member
#8
Maybe far fetched but "ήχημα" also sounds phonetically similar.

Shota, welcome back, although I know you never left :)
 

Shota

Παλαιό Μέλος
#9
I continue with what appears to be another interesting example. This time this is an automelon Ὢ τοῦ παραδόξου θαύματος in Mode 1. I will use its Georgian prosomoion given for the Sunday before the Nativity from one 10th c. ms.

Ὢ τοῦ παραδόξου θαύματος
ἡ πηγὴ τῆς ζωῆς ἐν μνημείῳ τίθεται
καὶ κλῖμαξ πρὸς οὐρανόν ὁ τάφος γίνεται
εὐφραίνου Γεθσημανῆ
τῆς Θεοτόκου τὸ ἅγιον τέμενος
βοήσωμεν οἱ πιστοί
τὸν Γαβριὴλ κεκτημένοι ταξίαρχον
Κεχαριτωμένη χαῖρε
μετὰ σοῦ ὁ Κύριος
ὁ παρέχων τῷ κόσμῳ διὰ σοῦ τὸ μέγα ἔλεος.

ეჰა დიდებული საკჃრველი
რამეთუ მეუფეჲ
ყოველთაჲ და უფალი
პირველ საუკუნეთაჲ
მამისაგან შობილი
დღეს ქუეყანასა ზედა
ვითარცა კაცი ბეთლემს ქალწულსა შობად მოჰყავს
შევწიროთ მორწმუნენო
ძღუნად პირველი დღესასწაული და ვიტყოდით
გიხაროდენ სახარულევანო უფალი შენ თანა რომელი მოსცემს სოფელსა
შენ მიერ დიდსა წყალობასა.

A literal translation, closely observing the order of Georgian words, would be:

O glorious wonder!
For the King
of All and the Lord
before the ages,
born from the Father,
today on the earth
as a man is brought to Bethlehem by the Virgin to be born.
Let us sacrifice, o faithful,
as a gift the first feast and let us say:
rejoice, o full of joy, the Lord is with you, who gives the world
through you great mercy.

Grk.: 9.13.13.7.12.7.12.8.7.16
Geo.: 10.6+7.7+7.7.14.7.13.24.9.

The Georgian translation, up to combining or dividing some verses is rhythmically close to the Greek automelon.

Let us now examine the notation of the Georgian prosomion, which I copied, numbering the verses and some formulae for ease of reference. What we notice immediately is a certain repetitveness of melodic formulae. E.g. the formula γ occurs three times. A more interesting observation is a strong link with the melodies of Georgian heirmoi: formula α is exactly the one I analysed in this message; formula δ, which occurs three times, is a common final cadence of the 1st Mode heirmoi, while formula η is a relatively rare, but nevertheless existing cadence of the 1st Mode heirmoi.

A comparison to Byzantine sources is complicated by the fact that there the automelon occurs notated extremely rarely; the oldest, 11th c. written source of the prosomoion, the Chartres fragment, is written in the adiastematic Paleobyzantine notation, while the next oldest sources are from the 13th-14th c., e.g. ms. Vatopediou 1493 written in the Round Notation (which represents a different melodic tradition in comparison to the Chartres fragment). A hymn transmitted predominantly orally runs a great "risk" of changes in its melos. Nevertheless, it is highly peculiar that the Greek melody from the Chartres fragment (as reconstructed by Oliver Strunk) corresponding to the position of formula α is the same (barring a little melisma on the last syllable, which could be secondary anyway) as the one found previously here to generally correspond to this formula in Greek heirmoi.

There are some little structural coincidences among a few other of the underscored formulae (either with the Chartres fragment or the Vatopedi ms; e.g. a common feature with the Chartres fragment is prominence of the finalis of the mode (Πα, say, for the Greek piece) in cadences; verses 4a and 5a are notated in exactly the same way), but what would be amazing is to discover that the final cadence of the Georgian automelon is used as a final cadence of the heirmoi of the Plagal 1st Mode. I can't check this at this time, but once I will, I'll let you know.
 

Attachments

Shota

Παλαιό Μέλος
#10
With the previous message we somewhat drifted from the Heirmologion to the Sticherarion, so let us consider a sticheron example now, namely Ὁ ἐν Ἐδὲμ Παράδεισός in Plagal Fourth. I do not have a notated Georgian version of the automelon itself, so I will use its prosomoion from the feast of the Forefathers (although not the one found in the printed Menaion).

Ὁ ἐν Ἐδὲμ Παράδεισός ποτε
τὸ ξύλον τῆς γνώσεως
ἀνεβλάστησεν ἐν μέσῳ τῶν φυτῶν
ἡ Ἐκκλησία σου Χριστέ
τὸν Σταυρόν σου ἐξήνθησε
τὸν πηγάσαντα τῷ κόσμῳ τὴν ζωήν
ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν ἐθανάτωσε βρώσει φαγόντα τὸν Ἀδάμ
τὸ δὲ ἐζωοποίησε πίστει σωθέντα τὸν λῃστήν
οὗ τῆς ἀφέσεως
κοινωνοὺς ἡμᾶς ἀνάδειξον Χριστὲ ὁ Θεός
ὁ τῷ πάθει σου λύσας τὴν καθ' ἡμῶν μανίαν τοῦ ἐχθροῦ
καὶ ἀξίωσον ἡμᾶς τῆς βασιλείας σου Κύριε.

დღეს განწყობილი მამამთავართა
და წინაწარმეტყუელთაჲ
ოხრის ჴმამაღლად
ეკლესიასა შინა
რომელსა შორის გალობს დავით
მამად ღმრთისა წოდებული
რომელსა იგი
პირველადვე ქადაგებდა
გარდამოჴდეს ვითარცა წჃმაჲ მდუმრიად საწმისსა ზედა
და კუალად ჴმაშუენიერად ესაია ღაღადებდა
ესერა ქალწული
მიუდგეს და შვეს ევმანოელ ჩუენ თანა ღმერთი
საუკუნეთა მთავარი რომელსა ანგელოზნი უგალობენ
და ჩუენ მათ თანა თაყუანის-ვსცემთ
ღმერთსა ჩჩჃლად შობილსა ჩუენთჃს.

Grk.: 10.7.11.8.8.11.17.16.6.14.17.7.9.
Geo.: 10.7.5+7.9.8.5+8.17.16.6.14.19.9.9.

The Georgian version has about the same structure as the Greek automelon.

A notated Greek version of the automelon can be found in Ioannis Arvanitis' doctoral thesis, where it is copied from the Sticherarium Ambrosianum copied in 1342. Arvanitis marks reoccurring melodic formulae by letters (a), (b), (d) and (e). Now the Georgian version (copied and annotated by me) has the formulae reoccurring at places where so do (b), (d) and (e). This is not so in the case of (a), but I think here explanation is simple: the two verses of the Greek version have 7 and 8 syllables, respectively, while in the Georgian version we have 7 and 9 syllables. So instead of squeezing the same melody, the Georgian neumator perhaps simply chose a different melodic formulae in two cases. As a final remark, I observe that the cadence of the Georgian version at the end of the verse corresponding to the Greek κοινωνοὺς ἡμᾶς ἀνάδειξον Χριστὲ ὁ Θεός appears to be in Plagal First; the third neume in this formula is a bit problematic, hence my reservations: if it were a straight line and not a slightly curved one, it would have been the Plagal First cadence (another Georgian prosomoion of Ὁ ἐν Ἐδὲμ Παράδεισός has an additional "stroke" in this formula, so four neumes, and that formula, provided the last sign is a straight line (which in this case it is not), does occur in the stichera of the Plagal First Mode).
 

Attachments

Shota

Παλαιό Μέλος
#11
A certain number of heirmoi in the Georgian Heirmologion I used for my examples are marked in the margin with a technical sign resembling Greek theta. According to Georgian researchers this sign is used to distinguish the oldest layer in the repertory of Georgian Heirmologion from later additions. My impression is that although the rest of the Georgian heirmoi use the same stock of combinations of neumes, it is only in the "theta"-heirmoi that we see structural parallels to Greek heirmoi. This appears logical: the Georgian New Iadgari/Tropologion was not translated at once and by one person; staying structurally close to the Greek originals is to be expected in the case of older translations more than in the case of more recent ones (in which we also often see literal, word for word reproduction of the Greek text, but not its metre).
 
Top