The Fifth International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony ...

454
Ekaterine Diasamidze
2. Christ Has Risen – demestvennoe polyphony. <strong>The</strong> manuscript (RGB F. 218 N343) dates to the 1690s,
transcribed by E.A. Smirnova.
3. Cherubic Hymn – znamenny polyphony. <strong>The</strong> manuscript (GIM Sin. Pevch. 182 l. 2) dates to a ‘later period
of the seventeenth century,’ transcribed by E.E. Shavokhina.
Strochnoe polyphony in two parts has the following combinations of the voices: put’ (middle), and niz (lower);
in three-part harmony the verkh (upper) voice is added. <strong>The</strong> definition troestrochnoe is sometimes used for threepart
chants. <strong>The</strong> melody on which strochnoe polyphony is based is called the putevoi raspev, and Smirnova has
compared it in significance to the cantus prius factus. In the example No.1, To Your Cross, we bow Lord, the
middle voice part is the leading voice. Together with the outer voices, the polyphonic structure is characterized
by widespread dissonance and the resolution of the final cadence is particularly unusual, ending on an interval of
a second between the lowest voices and the interval of a third in the outer voices. <strong>The</strong> simultaneous concordance
of a fourth and fifth interval above the lowest voice is a quite frequent sonority. When the text is pronounced
simultaneously by three voices and all the voice parts move in parallel motion, their vertical structure is more
coordinated than in places where there is no parallel movement.
Demestvennoe polyphony contains chants from two to four voice parts in the following combinations: Twopart
variants contains demestvo (upper) and niz (lower); in three-part variants the put’ (middle) is added, and in the
four-part variants the verkh (highest) is added above the demestvo part. This type of multi-part singing is defined by
the demestvo because it is the leading voice part. Because example No. 2, the Easter Troparion, Christ is Risen, is
in three voices, the upper voice demestvo is the leading voice. Characterized by dissonance and imitation between
the voices, this example displays complex counterpoint between the voice-parts, which obscures the coordination
of the vertical structure. Similar to Example No. 1, To Your Cross, the simultaneous sounding of the fourth and fifth
intervals are also frequently heard.
Example No. 3, Cherubic Hymn, is an example of znamenny multipart chant. With its homophonic structure
and parallel motion in the upper voices, this example clearly represents a different form of musical thought. <strong>The</strong>
dominant tonal centers oscillate between the minor third of G and B flat, and the major tenth of low B flat and D.
Because the lower two voices often overlap, the three-voiced texture sometimes feels like two-part harmony. This
process anticipates partes singing in which the interchange of large and small choirs provides a similar effect.
<strong>The</strong> most significant common feature between examples 1 and 2 are the tone clusters. <strong>The</strong> linear development
of the voice-parts also seems to be one of the main characteristics of early Russian polyphonic chant. Example 3
is essentially very different from the structure of first two examples and cannot be considered similar in any way.
<strong>The</strong>se three examples at least problematize the stereotypical view that Russian polyphony is entirely consonant and
homophonic. Rather, in the same period of the seventeenth century, several different types of polyphonic singing
abounded including those versions that were not homophonic.
For some church chanters and parishioners, these types of early Russian polyphonic forms are unusual. In a
discussion on putno-demestvennoe with the chanters of a Russian church, the following comments were made. “It
is strange to listen to… these dissonances interrupt the peace [of the service] and push it away… When the mode
is divorced from the chant, the spirituality leaves us. It is the same with Western Georgian chanting, when you
sing fifths and ninths in parallel it is simply irritating.” 1 Variations on this attitude are prevalent among chanters
and parishioners who are used to nineteenth century Russian chant. But matters of musical taste and performance
practice do not reflect the canonicity of the chant form. Strochnoe and Demestvennoe chant forms have an equal
place in the services of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Together with the gradual revival of the earliest strata of Russian monophonic znamenny chant, it is hoped