The Fifth International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony ...

ORNAMENTED STRUCTURAL FORMULAS IN THE
EASTER HEIRMOSES
475
NINO NANEISHVILI (GEORGIA)
Apart from Ioane Petritsi’s famous “Ganmarteba” (Interpretation) there is no direct answer to the question
of the existence of polyphony in Georgian chanting (Oniani, 2009: 1). Besides that, in E. Oniani’s opinion
the question is answered to some extent by the pure musical content of the chanting per se (Oniani, 2009: 1).
On having been introduced into the Georgian church for the first time, Byzantine monophonic chanting
could not have maintained its original texture for a long time, because, otherwise, in the course of its evolution,
Georgian chanting would have acquired the features characteristic of monophony. In Georgian chanting,
especially in the top voice, which includes the canonical tune, there are usually no ornaments. It seems to
be incompatible 1 with polyphonic texture 2 . As we know Georgia maintained close links with Byzantium
and presumably, all the phenomena present in Byzantine chanting must have occurred in Georgian chanting
as well. Despite this, the melismatics of this type, characteristic of Byzantine sacred music, is quite alien
to Georgian chanting. Collections like the Byzantine psalticon have never been used in Georgian chanting
practice either (no information has been obtained so far about them). <strong>The</strong> only type of chanting that may
be closest to such chants is Georgian decorated (improvised, “flourished” style of chanting), but even here,
the horizontal development of voices in the polyphonic musical texture is still limited. This fact gives us
grounds to suppose that as early as the tenth-eleventh centuries Georgian chanting was already polyphonic.
<strong>The</strong> specific character of decoration in Georgian multipart chanting is revealed in the following way: the
least ornamentation occurs in the top voice, which represents the canonical tune, but the middle voice is
comparatively free and in most cases it is the middle voice that uses ornamentation (Oniani, 2009: 2).
This conjecture cannot be applied to the material under consideration. In the specimens presented here, I
discuss the ornamentation formulas of the top voice (canonical tune) which are mainly the specimens where
“the voice deviates from the mode”.
When analyzing the Easter hymns included in Philimon Koridze’s collection and in the manuscript
collection of Euthymius the Confessor I have singled out certain stereotypical specimens (with variations)
of ornamentation 3 .
It is noteworthy that within the limits of the heirmas-troparion of the paschal canon common melodic
formulas can be distinguished not only in the plain mode of the tune, but in the ornamentation elements which
also reveal stereotypical elements 4 .
<strong>The</strong> plain mode melody is characterized by the movements on narrow intervals, nearest sounds and a
tight range (the broadest interval is an octave). In the ornamented variants of the tune the flow of the musical
idea is quite free. <strong>The</strong> range of melodic development is wider, reaching the interval thirteenth in some places.
In the analyzed material, in every case of ornamentation the melodic pattern of the top voice, tkma is
downward oriented (falling direction).
In the troparion Thy Resurrection the range of the melody in plain (undecorated) mode (here and
subsequently I mean the top voice, the so-called tkma) is the interval sixth, and that of the ornamented
(decorated) mode is the ninth.