CC BY
25
DOI: 10.14529/ssh170410
autographic church-choral collections of the music theorist of the 17th century aleksander mezents
N. P. Parfentiev, South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation, parfentevnp@susu.ru
The author of the article considers all the known chanting manuscript collections, rewritten by Alexander Mezents, including those found among the manuscripts from the scriptorium of the Zvenigorod Savvo-Storozhevsky Monastery of the second half of the 40s — early 50s of the 17th century. The autographs are usually records of separate sections of collections. The half-running hand of the master (semi-uncial) is definitely the best among the hand styles of Storozhevsky scriptorium copyists, that is why Mezenets was used to making titles into books copied by other scribes. The autographs of the outstanding theorist of the 17th century are of great value; and the value increases as they alongside some znamenny neumatic manuscripts provide us with the additional information on the master's biography. This brings us to the conclusion that at least two decades earlier than it was supposed up to this moment the master not only lived in Zvenigorod monastery, but was actively involved in the writing of chant books alongside some other monastery copyists (as a rule, they were kliros (choir) singers, as well).
Keywords: Old Russian church chanting art, monastic scriptorium, chant manuscripts, Alexander Mezenets, Savvo-Storozhevsky Monastery.
The name of Alexander Mezenets can be met in the first works on the history of the Russian medieval culture of written music. It became known due to the acrostic ("Elaborated by Alexander Mezenets and others"), which is closing the "The Notice... to those wishing to study chant singing" [1, p. 208—209]1. As we know, the preface to this work dwells upon the calling of two Moscow commissions to revise "razdelnorechie" chant books2. That is why Mezenets came into history primarily as one of the commission participants and the author or one of the authors of The Notice. The range of sources on the life and activities of the didascalos has eventually been enlarged. Everything related to the name of Alexander Mezenets — documents, manuscripts and especially autographs — have always attracted researchers.
In a newspaper article dated by 1863 Peter A. Bes-sonov claimed, that he "has received from V Borisov a big and excellent manuscript verses book of the 17th century, all in kryuki (Russian musical neumes, so-named znamenny ones)" [2, p. 20]. The next year, the author of the article published more detailed information on the book: it was a collection, containing "Pokayanny na osm' glasov slezny i umilitelny" ("Penitential stich-era for eight echos — lacrimal and pathetic"). On the margins of some pages alongside with kryuk "additions" Bessonov discovered some notes in Latin alphabet:
1 Presumably, the first one to mention the master's name in the literature was V. M. Undolsky [21, p. 13]. The Metropolitan Evgeny Bolkhovitinov earlier quoted "The Notice", but he had not mentioned the name of Alexander Mezenets [6, p. 156—157]. The author either had the treatise text without the closing verses, or, if the verses were in place, he did not attempt to compose a phrase out of the first letters of the lines.
2 "Razdelnorechie" (separate speech) is a specific manner of verbal texts singing with insertion into the words of nonexistent in the usual speech vowels between consonants. That is why it is called "separate speech", which was predominantly the result of Ancient Russian semi-vowels t> and t voicing that had neuma above them, and also the result of replacing them with o and e in writing.
"Alexander monach", "Alexander monach Mezenec", "Monach Alexander pracewal dobre. Mapa". Considering these notes to be made by the "famous figure of the mid 17th century" Alexander Mezenets, the researcher assumed, that the master was educated in the schools of South-Western Russia, and that "it seems the text (of the manuscript — N. P) was written by the same person, whom the margin additions are attributed to" [3, p. VIII]; later on he directly called this manuscript Mezenets' "autographic" creation [4, p. 53].
In 1883 the treatise by Ivan D. Mansvetov "How the church books were revised" came out, which was executed "using the documents from the archive of the Moscow Printing house library". For the first time ever, this book mentioned documents (expenditure books of the Printing Office (Prikaz knigopechatnogo dela) containing information about the participants of the Second Moscow commission on chant books revision [9, p. 4 etc.]. Soon on the ground of same documents Dmitry V. Razumovsky published the names of all six members of this commission and their autographs; didascalos Alexander Mezenets became known as the "elder of Savva monastery in Zvenigorod" [11, p. 50].
Earlier in June 1880, Alexey E. Viktorov made up a description of manuscripts of the Nil Stolbenskiy Monastery. Among the chant books there was one, which was contributed in 1667 by the duke Yu. S. Urusov. The manuscript was prefaced with the verses containing some biographical information on Mezenets and a note "Monach Alexander Stremmouchow". In 1890 Viktorov's work was published with some notes and the full text of the verses [23, p. 201—202].
In 1899, while making an overview of chant manuscripts collected by the Moscow Synodal chant school, Stepan V Smolensky pointed at the "autographic sample by the famous theorist, elder Alexander Mezenets (№ 98, 1677)" [20, p. 60]. In the manuscript he also found an "autobiographic verse" by the master, which the scholar published later on in his next work [19, p. 35—36]. In the latter treatise he also reported about another chant manuscript from the same collection
(№ 728). The previously described book from the Nil Stolbensky Monastery library is easily recognizable in this historic document by the notes and verses contained in it. When publishing verses from this manuscript once more (after Viktorov), Smolensky expressed his doubts that "this is hardly an autobiographic verse by Alexander Mezenets": the two manuscripts were written in a different hand style, and the researcher failed to find the system of signs (priznaki) in the neumatic notation to the second manuscript, which could be elaborated only by this master. However, he proved the autobiographic authenticity of the first book using the records of it being sold four years later by the person who was presented with it by Mezenets himself [19, p. 36]1.
The scholars, who afterwards were dealing with the outstanding personality of the didascalos and citing his biography, primarily relied on the above-listed publications [for example: 5, p. 329]2.
As far as the previously mentioned expenditure books of the Printing Office, containing Mezenets's
signature for payments to, were introduced into circulation among the scholars, there was appeared an opportunity to compare the manuscripts attributed to the master with these books. This enabled to determine which of those manuscripts are autographic and to settle the authenticity problem concerning the biographic information on the didascalos, which was contained in the verses. Such overall study of the sources has never been carried out. The difficulty of the research lies in the fact that Mezenets used shorthand when putting records in the documents and half-running hand when creating manuscripts.
The book of penitential stichera mentioned in the treatises of Mansvetov, was found in the Manuscript Collection of RGADA3. Thanks to the fact, that the creation of this book took quite a time (probably the scribe worked on it occasionally and under different circumstances), its text contains peculiarities, which could be used as the starting point of our research. For instance, the chant at fol. 125 was probably inserted
fflA (И——-• ИД10- ri .
Ац l ? % f •«V 1
^ * --" C] 7Г?
& 'A
X- Xrt cttrc---—
Ш' ША
Ж.О /<ЛМ
-пл /~UL
ir^Jrl^ir Щ ШЩ k
r^ yd**
Ш
if'
sf«Q>
■
tr nun+cAr-
"Pokayanny na osm' glasov". XVII century. Alexander Mezents's kryuk (musical neumes) and shorthand (cursive) letter [12, fol. 125]
1 It should be pointed out that V. M. Metallov published the photocopies of some sheets of the both manuscripts [10, tables CIX—CXIII]. During the retouch the hand style on them had been altered.
2 For the most generalized information please refer to:
[22, p. 493].
m
HA
G6 FHf
4 ПГГ
А Л
елАГЬсч..ZZ r p^ai--* ,
AA в Хи ГГЬАА АЛ\А PO_
л t t ' и Я
çt^Lb- tU \mlOf ^
7г- - / .
MA rn* et , no АЛ* ЛЛГи.
t t^/МЫ •]'
И СПА С* НА—t-4 Д /в^,-"
1-.J* )
Жл
Ж-rt CM „ A A " ^
f"3
S*
LU
Hl
'r/f
"Pokayanny na osm' glasov". XVII century. Alexander Mezents's kryuk (musical neumes) and half-running hand (semi-uncial) letter [12, fol. 170]
3 "Pokayanny na osm' glasov", the last third of the XVII century, 175 fol. (sheets). The Znamenny notation; there are designations for razvods (explanations) of melodic formulae: slobodskoy, usolskoy. Among the verses: "Stikh voinskoy trekhglasnoy" ("Military verse for three lines") — fol. 96; "Ratnym zhe khrabornikom" ("By the brave military") — fol. 98, back side; "Vospamyanukh zhitie moe klirosskoe" ("Remembering my life at kliros (choir)") — fol. 170, back side. [12].
somewhat later than the others. It is written in shorthand and in the same hand style and ink as the shorthanded remark "Alexander monach" left at the same page. Many cinnabar inserts in the margins — variants of the lines, neumatic formulae (fitas) or complex znamenny neumes, the whole chant (fol. 66, back side) — are also written in shorthand. All these, including the records in Latin alphabet, should be first of all compared to Mezenets' signatures in the book of expenditures of the Printing Office (Prikaz). The comparison shows that the same person made all records. The fol. 158—170 in the manuscript Pokayanny [12] are most prominent — they contain verses written in the shorthanded half-running hand1. Upon comparing the shorthand of Mezenets with this written piece we come to the conclusion that the latter was also created by the master. Besides, fol. 170 states: "Monach Alexander pracewal dobre. M. A. P. d."2. Finally, when we have identified the shorthanded half-running hand as belonging to Mezenets, we can compare it to the half-running hand of the rest of the manuscript Pokayanny [12]. One and the same person writes both pieces. Kryuk (Znamenny notation) text of the book is produced by one hand. The outline of neumes in all the parts of the book (including inserts and explanations (razvods) in the margins, additional chants written in shorthand) is unified having an identical slant. The same is true for the cinnabar signs. Pagination is done by one hand, as well, and the hand style and ink in it change in accordance with the changes in the body text. Consequently, the book Pokayanny [12] was entirely written by one scribe — the outstanding master of the chanting art and didascalos Alexander Mezenets3.
The manuscript from the library of Nil Stolbensky Monastery is now stored at GIM4. At the beginning of the book there is an inserted (pasted in) folio with some verses containing the biographical information on Mezenets, with a few lines written in a small half-running hand almost like the rest of the manuscript. The fact that the verses and the body text of the book are written by one person becomes obvious when we compare them to the chants, which were apparently included in the book later, but simultaneously with the verses (for example, at fol. 402, back side). The headline at fol. 283 is also written by the same copyist (in some places the titles were written by another scribe): the same half-running hand, the same Greek-style outline of the initials and the capital letter in the word "Alexander" in the verses and in the letters of the word "Stichera" in the headline. Therefore, one scribe created the verses and the major hymnographic texts of book. The comparison of this book with the manuscript Pokayanny [12] makes us come to the conclusion that it is Mezenets
1 These sheets differ also in watermarks.
2 In this record letters "M. A. P. d.", which Peter Bessonov published as one word "Mapa" and translated as "map" [3, p. VIII], are merely the initial letters of the a foregoing words.
3 We do not take into account the hand styles of the further copyists (fol. 118, 174—175). Remarkably, our conclusion coincides with Bessonov's suggestion.
4 Kryuk book. 1666, 403 fol. The Znamenny notation. Contents: Verses — fol. 1; Heirmologion — fol. 2; Rozniki (heirmoses) — fol. 160; Octoechos — fol. 170; Stichera Evangelical — fol. 276; Stichera Evangelical in Great rospev — fol. 283; Obikhod — fol. 304—402. [8].
who was the copyist. For example, the hand style of the verses in book [8] is absolutely identical to that of the contents (the list of initial lines of the verses with page numbers) in manuscript Pokayanny [12].
In book [8] there are some records made in shorthand, as well. The style of shorthand remarks "Monach Alexander Stremmouchow" and others (fol. 1, back side; 26, back side; 64, back side; 106, back side; 282 back side) is identical to the style of similar remarks in manuscript Pokayanny [12]. Consequently, the records made in Latin alphabet in book were made by Mezenets. At the end of the book there are concluding remarks to the singers (fol. 403). The comparison of the shorthand style of the remarks with Mezenets' signatures in the expenditure book of the Printing Office (Prikaz), as well as with the margin remarks and some chants from manuscript Pokayanny [12] (which were also made in shorthand) allows us to state, that the concluding remarks were written by Alexander Mezenets himself. He also wrote some additional notes in book [8] (for example, the note "In Great chant" ("Bol 'shim rospevom") in the margin of fol. 402, back side).
B, , / M / _ , <
^HAMtHU едино moнил7 и аиомьпи:
/ , • ■*» / о«* tCl «X*
cafBuuHo&HHinfiucu (ОТЛАСНЫ пвимкт^
Л/ / / ■> / ' Ai£4н^уллахша^А fOftya и
KAUjlOttÎeH ПрбдПАНМ гпАрожит^ско^ Ojjd> IAMXI^4 i'fjopocijt*: tik afeauA Tip А мм уыишигй НЛШ'ЙЛО}|<Н
,, / / I / •V.J'«*' I/ fa
> аыи^МАМШыыпигмА\ни нбдчннрат^ш;
d> С Mb reiki CAslpLHA ГО п/^Л MX ¿7flvM£i ы ra^w •
pfênui^jtyigdM/ffS ччшуХаон i
nb^HAUAH Tidtiijibiu cnéetiujclyàmbt*. ^ j UA pÎtCàYXAÙtKfluttlO ^(ГА7П4ГО :
cri спгвшипшх^н* TtiflIàHAfiitAjfjo.
£3 Art то Ш сбЗ^А MI tek f O^ :
f
Ш П6ПА6Ц1еМ1А-.ЯKf 6ГА (ÀОНА
■monAc.il jfiexocnJ&r ft^mtuu.
-(itn>
Kryuk book. 1666. Alexander Mezenets'.
Verses [8, fol. 1, back side]
As far as the kryuk (znamenny neumatic) text is concerned, it was also created by one copyist, including some chants, written in shorthanded half-running style. The comparison of neumes and signs outlines to the neumatic texts from book Pokayanny [12] shows that they were also written by Mezenets.
As we see, manuscript [8] is created by Alexander Mezenets almost single-handedly. However, there are some pieces of writing in it, which could not be attributed to this outstanding didascalos. The cinnabar titles and initials might have been inserted in the book by another copyist (he missed out the headline before the Stichera evangelical (fol. 283) and it was written by
Kryuk book. 1666. Alexander Mezenets'. Heirmologion [8, fol. 2]
Mezenets himself). The titles are made with the use of ornamental script and elegant shorthand (fol. 2, 170), which differs greatly from Mezenets' shorthand. The initials of the second copyist also vary from the didas-calos's initials, which the former left in chants or added somewhat later to the basic text, and in the concluding remarks to the singers. The second copyist's style could be traced in the record mentioning Duke Iury Urusov's contribution. The verses inform that the book was created "in the house" of Duke Urusov, which allows for the suggestion that this copyist was a duke's "domestic" one. Probably he or any other of the duke masters drew the miniatures in the book.
S. V. Smolensky's doubts regarding the autobiographic character of the information contained in the verses of this manuscript are groundless. The researcher reasoned his doubts by the specific signs (priznaki) which were absent in the neumatic notation of the book, which, in his opinion, "due to the date of the verses (1666) contradicts the direction of Mezenets' reformative activity" [19, p. 36]. Firstly, as we have proved, the verses were written by the master himself. Secondly, on the scrupulous examination one can easily see the priznaki in manuscript [8]. At the beginning of the book, in Heirmologion (Irmologiy) they are quite rare, then are more numerous (fol. 54, 97, back side, etc.) and starting from the Octoechos (fol. 170) the signs are met throughout the whole text. Thirdly, the system of signs was finally settled and introduced in general use by the Second Moscow Commission, which was completing the chanting art reform together with Alexander Mezenets.
After the book of corrected istinnorechie ("true language") chants was accomplished, Mezenets prob-
ably made a final revision of the kryuk text using cinnabar. Upon completion, the master left his Latin signatures after some chapters of the book, wrote verses and concluding remarks at the end of the book1. From our point of view, that was the process of working at manuscript [8].
The third manuscript related to the name of Mezenets and considered his "autographic specimen" by Smolensky is also stored at GIM2. The styles of three scribes could be singled out in this manuscript. The first one is the copyist of the basic text of the book — the Menaia. The comparison of his style (half-running hand, neumes, signs) with the style of manuscripts [8; 12] authored by Mezenets demonstrates, that manuscript [7] is not didascalos's autographic creation3. The second copyist inserted a page (fol. 1) with verses, which among other things mentioned that this book was Mezenets' present to his apprentice — podyachy (minor clerk) of Yam-skoy prikaz (Mail office) Pavel Chernitsyn. The same copyist (whose occupation was rather connected with clerical duties than with writing books) made a record mentioning the selling of the book by Chernitsyn in 1681. Therefore, Chernitsyn could most likely rewrite the verses composed by Mezenets. It was also he, who made cinnabar explanations (razvods) of complicated neumes (znamyas) in the margins and some corrections in the text (for instance, fol. 9, 17, 21, 32 etc.). Finally, the third copyist authored the small final part of the manuscript — Trezvon, a book of minor and mid church festive services chants (fol. 125—144), that was bound to the Menaia later (which is proved by the filigree). The style of half-running hand and kryuk pieces of this copyist are identical to Mezenets'.
To sum everything up, the detailed analysis of the manuscripts, which were related to the name of the outstanding music theorist of the 17th century as early as in pre-revolutionary historiography, showed that only two of them [8; 12] were in full written by Alexander Mezenets; in the third manuscript [7] only a few inserted chapters were created by the master. Consequently, the authenticity of the information about Mezenets, which is conveyed in the verses prefacing book [8] and written by the master himself, raises no doubts. In our opinion, the details about the master mentioned in the verses of manuscript [7] are quite trustworthy as well, though they were not written by Mezenets himself. The book was given by the didascalos to one of his apprentices
1 The text of the record: "Dear concerned one, if you start to sing or re-write heirmoses in this Heirmologion, you should mind the cinnabar corrections above the black znamyas, because the previous copyist lacked skills and knowledge of the black znamyas, but if there happens a mistake right in the line, that will be a sin" (fol. 403).
2 The Menaia, kryuk tipe. Last quarter of the XVII century, 144 fol. The Znamenny notation. Contents: verse "Predmovlenie" — fol. 1; The Menaia — fol. 2; The prayer of worship to the Placing of the Honorable Robe of the Lord — fol. 125; The prayer of worship to the transition of Holy Mandylion — fol. 133—144. [7].
3 There are differences in both — the overall graphic style and the outlines of some characters. For instance, Mezenets' letters are straight as a rule, sometimes with a slight slant to the left or right. The manuscript [7] demonstrates more stretched letters with a distinct slant to the right, and the writing is tighter.
as a present and this fact was recorded in a fashionable form of verses; however it was the apprentice (Pavel Chernitsyn) who rewrote the verses on a single page and inserted it into the book. He was unlikely to have some reasons to make any changes in the verses, let alone his teacher's biography. It should be pointed out that the contents of manuscripts [7; 8] do not contradict each other and are very close stylistically, compositionally and verbally. Therefore, both verses could be considered Mezenets' autobiographic creations.
As we have already noted, during his correction work in the Second Moscow Commission (1669—1670) the outstanding didascalos Alexander Mezenets was the elder of Savva-Storozhevsky monastery in Zvenigorod. The nine kryuk [znamenny neumatic] books from the library of this monastery, which have survived till the present day and are now stored at RGADA, in the Manuscript Collection of Synodal Printing House (F. 381), could not but draw our attention. Their analysis has shown that Mezenets participated in the writing of six of them.
Let us focus on five books [14—18], which were apparently written in the second half of the 1640s — early 1650s. These manuscripts are unified not only by Mezenets' hand style, but also by the hand style of the second major copyist (the rest hand styles are randomly seen). His hand style is easily recognizable — a distinctive shorthanded half-running style with a quite distinctive outline of Znamenny neumes. In manuscripts there are records of these books contributed to the "Storozhevsky monastery" by the elder Feodosy Panov on January 30, 1653 [15, fol. 1—13; 16, fol. 8—28; 17, fol. 230; 18, fol. 1—15.]1. Such record is missing in the one manuscript [14]. Probably it was lost. However, a certain Misail, who apparently was a monastery treasurer, put a remark in all the books that on February 24, 1659 "with the blessing" of Storozhenvsky archimandrite Nikonor they (books) have been given to the "cathedral church choir masters" [14, f. 420; 15, fol. 552; 16, fol. 766; 17, fol. 231; 18, fol. 521). Due to the fact that the above-mentioned second hand style could be seen only in the elder Panov's manuscripts, we can justifiably assume that it belongs to the elder himself. If it is true, than Panov was a brilliant expert and an authority in the field of chant art. Obviously, he was the teacher of Mezenets and some other monastery kliros (choir) singers, which is proved by his multiple corrections and inserts of kryuk pieces into the pages written by other copyists, including Alexander Mezenets.
The first manuscript is a book composed on Oc-toechos, theoretical musical guide — Fitnik, and selected chants2. Mezenets' hand style is the fourth in
1 No doubt, Feodosy Panov was the elder of Savva-Storozhevsky Monastery. Otherwise the record would have mentioned the location or monastery in which the contributor lived.
2 Kryuk book. Late 40s — early 50s of the XVII century, 420 fol. Four semi-uncial handwriting styles (including Alexander Mezenets' — fol. 370, 372—373, 375—375, 376, 378, 379, 380—381). The Znamenny notation. Contents: Octoechos — fol. 1; Sunday and the Holy Week stichera, troparia, etc. — fol. 169; "The extract of the Feasts and Trezvony for the whole year. Fity and mudrye stroki ('wise
i(eatt-m«vc^ra pA ^fa vvm
aAedaA*
U a/ a' :'*
/KrtEfl«M^DfMf .HtHOHrAa/t noXnura-
/- & / a ;<' /• m' f
C6fr\e ten at haw fnt tf«H/<s c aaero / * / /
lu^M/KHird rtAffTXf ««hi/Mn ^«ViiMyfiMrt
/' J s /j a; ^fi'/t *
j(f)um(iiiMn«^/(fli{(H rn«ri,c<<MM net
yetrrxHe ^rtPdff/imii ae^Krt
/Si _ j. i- _ »>i., t* , /KKAocrxxh» /Hi^ jt4n/K ■ 4i .Cmn-inxl.
' 7 f I'CV ^ a H -M-
KA6&6A*'HaAtHAUM • HAfyHtia .e g . \ .
> i a t\/r> * // k * f ¿/ft a / //To £
toctvfti tlT<*\cnA AC6 fyAVjA MKd(i(H«J f j
iV rrt rt fNH As HPHfnPffkf HABAA CfyiAOk.
¿tt^inil^tovHfmitM.nsri.irjoacrtX'tierTA
x : {(iff* ¡'j.
r a $ aa o n a it ke a. a n r e a h f rx et r\ o artA ar -
.e
a3 p: s f
¿10 A,rTAl>l HftyfiAtin
/ f >A ; w*. ft wf
uenetiHweMMt tHtma 6Wnrn€Aticu*CAAX
_________ACifiArtXHtAO
* A ; ¡si?
'Anna* efcenpHfcfAsecH
at« ficH«»
Collection of chants. 40s — 50s of the XVII century. Alexander Mezents's kryuk (musical neumes) and half-running hand (semi-uncial) letter [14, fol. 381]
this book. It is a fine, even and delicate (semi-uncial) letter. The "wise lines" from the stichera in honour of Ivan Suzdalsky and Alexander Nevsky are written in this hand style, as well as a number of doxasticons.
The next chant books [15; 16] are, respectively, the second and first part of the Sticheron Book "for the whole year"; in the inserted records they are called "Trezvony' (minor and mid festive services). Each part contains chants appointed for three months3. In manuscript [15], the master wrote the list of contents4, prayers of worship of Vsevolod Pskovsky (fol. 475)
lines')" — fol. 353; Stichera from Trezvony — fol. 371;
Hymns of light from the Feasts and Trezvony — p. 382; The prayer service "To Yaroslavl" — fol. 411—419. [14].
3 1. The Book of Sticheron (September through November). Late 40s of the XVII century, 766 fol. Half-running hands of six styles (including Alexander Mezenets'—fol. 1—6, 7—8, 10, 23—33, 37, 50—62, 117—124, 202—211, 233—253, 289—291, etc., cinnabar titles before all prayers of worship). The Znamenny notation. Remarks included: Little znamya (fol. 30, back side); In the old perevody (variants) (fol. 253); Interpretation of the ancient (fol. 293), etc. The manuscript comprises many chants to Russian praise feasts and saints. [16]; 2. The Book of Sticheron (December through February). Late 40s of the XVII century, 552 fol. Half-running hands of two styles of (including Alexander Mezenets' — fol. 1—4, 6, 475—482, 548—551, all titles). Remarks included: In rospev (another variant), Little znamya, Great znamya. [15].
4 The hand style is absolutely identical to the hand style in the list of contents in manuscript Pokayanny [12].
and Sergiy Radonezhsky (fol. 548, back side), the pre-Christmas troparion "Napisashasya inogda" (Written sometimes) (fol. 551) and the titles to all prayer chapters. In manuscript [16], Mezenets also wrote the list of contents and titles, but far more prayers of worship, many of which are authored by the Russian hymnographers and chant composers in honour of Russian feasts and saints1. Mezenets is one of the major copyists of this manuscript.
However the master's contribution in manuscript (which is called "Tsari-Stikhf' ("Tsar verses") in an inserted record) is quite different2. The whole book is written and obviously compiled by Feodosy Panov; only a few subtitles are written by a half-running hand of Mezenets.
The fifth manuscript comprises Triodia, Octoechos and several chants3. Its beginning — Triodion of the Lent till the Passion Week (fol. 1-85, back side) — was written by Alexander Mezenets. The master also wrote the first page before the chapter Triodia stichera of the Passion week and the first chant "From now on" ("Ot veka denese" — fol. 181). The major copyist of this book was also Panov.
Finally, one more chant book, connected with the name of Mezenets, is manuscript Obikhod and the Feasts4. As the records prove, the book came to the monastery library "from the lumber of senior choir singer, hierodeacon Iakov" (fol. 2—21, 307, back side). The main text of the book is written in one (the first) hand style, which has no repetitions in other books. Probably, the copyist was the senior choir singer Iakov himself. Mezenets wrote the titles in the Feasts chapter (fol. 159, 170, 180 etc.) and the last section in Stolp
1 The following Prayers of worship are included: to Ioann Novgorodsky (fol. 31, back side), Iosif Volotsky (fol. 50), Savva Solovetsky (fol. 190), Grigory Vologodsky (fol. 202), Savva Vishersky (fol. 233), Roman Uglichsky (fol. 238), Andrey Yurodivy (fol. 248), Ivan Rylsky (fol. 305, 325), Dmitry Uglichsky (fol. 346), Yakov Borovitsky (fol. 367), Andrey Smolensky (fol. 398), Merkury Smolensky (fol. 674) etc.
2 "Tsari-stikhi", kryuk. Late 40s of the XVII century, 230 fol. Half-running hands of two styles (including Mezenets' one — titles to some chapters). The Znamenny notation. The following variants of chants are mentioned: In [different], Great. Contents: selected slavniki from the Trezvony, four-echos and eight-echos chants; in the end — "Stichera sung during the Crucession near the monastery of town", "Rozniki peschnye". [17].
3 Lent and Flowery Triodia and the Octoechos, kryuk. Second half of the XVII century, 520 fol. Half-running hands of six hand styles (including Mezenets' one — fol. 1—85, 181, back side). The Znamenny notation. Contents: Lent and Flowery Triodia — fol. 1—371; Octoechos — fol. 372— 504; Three stichera "na khvalitekh" (Octoechos) of Usol'e style — fol. 505; Svetilni (Hymns of light) — fol. 507; Notes to the stolpy of echos— fol. 517. [18].
4 Obikhod and the Feasts, kryuk. Mid 50s of the XVII century, 307 fol. Half-running hands of two hand styles (including Mezenets' one — fol. 296—307, as well as the subtitles before the chapters of services in the Feasts section). The Znamenny and Putevaia' notation. Notes given: In rospev (different variant of chanting) , Put, Great variant. Contents: Obikhod (including the Many years wishing (Acclamation) to Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich, Tsaritsa Maria Ilyinichna, Patriacrh Nikon) — fol. 1; Feasts — fol. 159; Zadostoyniki in Putevaia notation— fol. 296—307. [13].
neumes notation which contains "Zadostoyniki putnye" (Festal hymns in Put' style neumatic notation) (fol. 296—307).
So, the newly discovered Mezenets' autographs from the Savva-Storozhevsky library (which raise no doubts as such) are records which vary from whole chapters (in five manuscripts) to only cinnabar titles before several chapters (written by another master) — in one manuscript. The half-running hand of the master is definitely the best among the hand styles of Storozhevsky scriptorium copyists, that is why, as we have seen, Mezenets was used to making titles. The autographs of the outstanding theorist of the 17th century as well as those mentioned above are of great value; and the value increases as they alongside some znamenny neumatic manuscripts give a new turn to the research in the field of Russian musical paleography (in particular, concerning the appearance of priznaki) and provide us with the additional information on the master's biography. Nikolay Uspensky points to the fact that Mezenets became the elder of this monastery starting from 1668 [22, p. 493]. However the analysis of the extant znamenny neumatic books of the Savva-Storozhevsky library shows that Mezenets participated in their rewriting as early as late 1640s — early 1650s. This brings us to the conclusion that at least two decades earlier than it was supposed up to this moment the master not only lived in Zvenigorod monastery, but was actively involved in the writing of chant books alongside some other monastery copyists (as a rule, they were kliros singers, as well).
References
1. Alexander Mezenetz i prochii. Izveschenie... zhelaiuschim uchit'sia peniiu (1670) [Alexander Mezenets and others. Notification. to those who wish to learn singing (1670)]. Publ. N.P. Parfentiev, Z.M. Guseynova. Cheliabinsk, 1996, 584 p.
2. Bessonov P.A. Ob izdanii russkikh dukhovnykh stikhov [About the publication of Russian liturgical verses]. Den' [Day], 1863, № 21.
3. Bessonov P.A. Kaliki Perekhozhie [The Wandering Cripples]. Issue 6, Moscow, 1864.
4.Bessonov P.A. Znamenatelnye gody i znameniteyshie predstaviteli poslednikh dvukh vekov v istorii tserkovnogo russkogo pesnopeniya. [Significant years and famous representatives of the last two centuries in the history of the Russian church chant singing]. Moscow, 1872.
5. Brazhnikov M. V. Drevnerusskaya teoriya muzyki [Old Russian theory of music]. Leningrad, 1972.
6. Evgeny, mitrop. O Russkoy tserkovnoy muzyke [About Russian church music]. Otechestvennye zapiski [Fatherland records]. St. Petersburg, 1821.
7. GIM. Sinod. pevch. № 98.
8. GIM. Sinod. pevch. № 728.
9. Mansvetov, I.D. Kak u nas pravilis' tserkovnye knigi. [How the church books had been revised]. Moscow, 1883.
10. Metallov V. M. Russkaya semiografiya. [Russian semeiography]. Moscow, 1912.
11. Razumovsky D.V. Bogosluzhebnoe penie pravoslavnoi greko-rossiyskoi tserkvi [Liturgical singing of the Orthodox Greek-Russian Church]. Moscow, 1886, 172 p.
12. RGADA. F. 188. № 947.
13. RGADA. F. 381. № 286.
14. RGADA. F.381. № 291.
15. RGADA. F.381. № 317.
16. RGADA. F.381. № 318.
17. RGADA. F.381. № 319.
18. RGADA. F.381. № 324.
19. Smolensky, S.V. O drevrerusskikh pevcheskikh notatsiyakh. [On the Old Russian chant notations]. St. Petersburg, 1901.
20. Smolensky S. V. O sobranii russkikh drevne-pevcheskikh rukopisey Moskovskogo sinodalnogo uchilischa tserkovnogo peniya [On the collection of old Russian chant manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal chant school]. Russkaya muzikal'naya gazeta [Russian musical newspaper]. Moscow, 1899.
21. Undol'sky V. M. Zamechaniya dlya istorii tserkovnogo peniya v Rossii [Notes for the history of church chanting in Russia]. Moscow, 1846.
22. Uspensky N. D. Mezenets (v miru Stremoukhov) Al-exandr [Alexander Mezenets (secular name Stremoukhov)]. Muzikal'naya entsiklopediya[Musical encyclopedia]. Vol. 3. Moscow, 1976, p. 493.
23. Viktorov A. E. Opisi rukopisnykh sobraniy v knigokhranilischakh Severnoy Rossii. [Inventories of manuscript collections in the book depositories of Northern Russia]. St. Petersburg., 1890.
Received September 04, 2017
Bulletin of the South Ural State University Series «Social Sciences and the Humanities» 2017, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 77—83
УДК 783(470.5) + 94(470.5) DOI: 10.14529^170410
ББК Ч611.3 + Т3(2Р36)-7 + Щ313(2)
автографические рукописные певческие сборники музыкального теоретика XVII в. Александра мезенца
Н. П. Парфентьев
Автор рассматривает все известные на сегодня певческие рукописные сборники, переписанные Александром Мезенцем, в том числе выявленные среди рукописей из скриптория Звенигородского Савво-Сторожевского монастыря второй половины 40-х — начала 50-х годов XVII в. Автографы обычно представляют собой записи отдельных разделов сборников. Полууставной почерк мастера, несомненно, лучший среди почерков книжников скриптория, поэтому Мезенцу приходилось иногда вписывать заголовки в книги, переписанные другими писцами. Автографы выдающегося музыканта XVII в. представляют большую ценность сами по себе, но их ценность тем значительнее, что они дают нам дополнительную информацию к биографии мастера. Так, мы можем утверждать, что по крайней мере на двадцатилетие раньше, чем было принято считать, мастер не просто жил в звенигородском монастыре, а наряду с другими монастырскими писцами (они же, как правило, были певцами-клирошанами) активно занимался письмом певческих книг.
Ключевые слова: древнерусское певческое искусство, монастырские скриптории, певческие рукописные книги, Александр Мезенец, Савво-Сторожевский монастырь.
Литература и источники
1. АлександрМезенец и прочие. Извещение... желаю-щимучиться пению (1670 г.) /публ., перев., историч. исслед. Н.П. Парфентьева; коммент. и исслед. памятникаЗ. М. Гусейновой. — Челябинск, 1996. — 584 с.
2. Бессонов, П. А. Об издании русских духовных стихов / П. А. Бессонов //День. — 1863. — № 21.
3. Бессонов, П. А. Калики перехожие / П. А. Бессонов. — Вып. 6. — М., 1864.
4. Бессонов, П. А. Знаменательные годы и знаменитейшие представители последних двух веков в истории церковного русского песнопения /П. А. Бессонов. — М., 1872.
5. Бражников, М. В. Древнерусская теория музыки / М. В. Бражников. — Л., 1972.
6. Евгений, митр. О русской церковной музыке /митр. Евгений // Otechestvennye zаpiski. — СПб., 1821.
7. ГИМ. Синод. певч. № 98.
8. ГИМ. Синод. певч. № 728.
9. Мансветов, И. Д. Как у нас правились церковные книги /И. Д. Мансветов. — М., 1883.
10. Металлов, В. М. Русская семиография / В. М. Металлов. — М., 1912.
11. Разумовский, Д. В. Богослужебное пение Православной греко-российской церкви / Д. В. Разумовский. — М., 1886. —172 с.
12. РГАДА. Ф. 188. № 947.
13. РГАДА. Ф. 381. № 286.
14. РГАДА. Ф. 381. № 291.
15. РГАДА. Ф. 381. № 317.
16. РГАДА. Ф. 381. № 318.
17. РГАДА. Ф. 381. № 319.
18. РГАДА. Ф. 381. № 324.
19. Смоленский, С. В. О древнерусских певческих нотациях /С. В. Смоленский. — СПб., 1901.
20. Смоленский, С. В. О собрании русских древне-певческих рукописей Московского синодального училища церковного пения /С. В. Смоленский //Русская музыкальная газета, 1899.
21. Ундольский, В. М. Замечания для истории церковного пения в России /В. М. Ундольский. — М., 1846.
22. Успенский, Н. Д. Мезенец (в миру — Стремоухов) Александр / Н. Д. Успенский // Музыкальная энциклопедия. — Т. 3. — М., 1976. — Стб.493.
23. Викторов, А. Е. Описи рукописных собраний в книгохранилищах Северной России / А. Е. Викторов. — СПб., 1890.
Поступила в редакцию 04 сентября 2017 г.
ПАРФЕНТьЕВ Николай Павлович, заведующий кафедрой теологии, культуры и искусства, доктор исторических наук, доктор искусствоведения, профессор, заслуженный деятель науки Российской Федерации, Южно-Уральский государственный университет (Челябинск, Росия). E-mail: parfentevnp@susu.ru
