WHAT IS THE TRUE BULGARIAN CHURCH SINGING (THE SLAVIC BALKAN CHURCH SONG TRADITION AND THE NATIONAL IDEA)*

Elena Toncheva, Senior Research Associate First Degree, Doctor of Science

*Paper read at the Conference "Dobri Hristov and the Bulgarian XX century", Sofia, March 2001.

KEY WORDS: Bulgarian Medieval Chant, Bolgarskii rospev, Bulgarian National Revival, Psalmody, Stichera, Dobri Hristov

 

“What Is the True Bulgarian Church Singing?” is the title of an important article by the most significant representative of the 1st contemporary Bulgarian composers’ generation (from the end-19th century till the first third of the 20th century) Dobri Hristov1 (1875-1941). The article provides a detailed critical analysis (with music examples) by Atanas Manov, a defender of the so called “psaltic chanting” (psaltikijno peene). (In Bulgaria this term refers to the Balkan chanting adapted to the Church-Slavonic after the Reform in 1814 by Chrisantos of Madytos and Churmuzios Chartophylax). The well-grounded answer of Dobri Hristov to this question is: The true Bulgarian church singing is the so called “Old-Bulgarian church chanting” preserved in Southwest Russia, where “it was written in the heirmologia of this Northern nest of Orthodoxy in the 17th and the 18th century”2.

I will not interpret the ideas of Dobri Hristov, I have repeatedly done this before3. But I am not yet ready for a new reading of his works, because in this field of problems and issues Dobri Hristov is the one, whose ideas are the least “surmounted” (I use the definition of Kristina Yapova)4. This means that his convictions, his historical ideas, his value visions are almost thoroughly accepted in the musical circles even today. This state of affairs deserves a special interpretation, because it means preserving a mythological cultural text almost without translation in the course of 75 years. It is true that the musical-theoretical insights of D. Hristov in the field of our folklore song are still valid 5. But this happens in the context of the progressive development of our musical-theoretical science, precisely as a science, as a contemporary science. Still, as far as the Eastern Orthodox music is concerned, the situation is quite different. The contemporary scientific achievements of the musical mediavistics (I mean the contemporary research of the Eastern Orthodox church music) remain entirely, or almost entirely, outside our publicity. It is true that this type of Bulgarian scientific research emerged as a contemporary science too late, not until the end-60-ies of the 20th century6. It is true that it had no basis in the Bulgarian research traditions7. And in order to identify itself as a science, it had to go along with the West-European and American Byzantology, which had gained knowledge and experience in the course of more than half a century8. The Bulgarian musical mediavistics had to accept their priorities to mark its presence and afterwards to define its contributions. This is why a number of private investigations started on separate musical problems in the aspects of paleography, semiography, of archeography and typology of the chant books, genres and genre stylistics9; these were some very specialised studies entirely remaining outside the Bulgarian historical knowledge, even in the established medieval subjects in the fields of literature, the fine arts, the history. Communication was only initiated towards the foreign Byzantology, which was able to assess the Bulgarian professionalism, the strength of insight, the adequate methodology according to the subject: it has done it, it does it... But these qualities have not received the deserved critical assessment in Bulgaria, they were noted just as activities, and sometimes were treated with the benevolent respect towards the incomprehensible, but probably valuable, knowledge... thus, the myths remain inexplorable for the science, the myths shared and established by Dobri Hristov about the national distinctive (original, individual) church music, which is also a folklore music in the sense that it is close (influenced!) by the Bulgarian musical folklore10.

I will not comment on this strange stagnation in time of the mythologemes of the early national period of our new cultural self-definition. I have to do it, and I know how hard it will be, hard and dramatic on a personal level, because it presupposes many and different interpretations, which affect me personally, not only as a researcher, but also as a carrier of the same mythologemes, which as a professional I am against11 (I should be ...)…

Because of that and in honour of Dobri Hristov I want to do something else: I want to share those scientific results of the last years which are related to the important problem stated by Dobri Hristov. Back to the problem of the “Old Bulgarian church chatnting” or to the so called “Bolgarskij rospev”.

The ethnonym “Bulgarian” (boulgarikon) appears in the late Byzantine musical manuscripts (with late Byzantine notation) as early as in the first half of the 14th century.12 It permanently accompanied two Greek melodies (in the 4th authentic and the 6th plagal mode) of the polyeleos repertory to psalm 135, neumated in the new type of chant books (whose compilation is ascribed to John Koukouzeles)13 – the so called Akolouthiai – Order of Services: orthros, vespers, lithurgy. The new chant books witness a process of enlargement and enrichment of the church chant characteristic of the late Byzantine time, or the time, when the so called “mixed” Jerusalem Typikon was established.14 The appearance of the ethnonym is related to the one of the main forms of enrichment of the song repertory in the late Byzantine time, the so called “multiple singing” or the inclusion into the repertory of more than one melodic version of a liturgical song text, where different authors’ and local attributions were used, as for example agioreitikon (in Month Athos), agiosophiticon (of the Great Church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople) or thessalonikaion (in Thessalonike ), etc.

To these two melodies related to the ethnonym “Bulgarian” (boulgarikon) we have to add the famous polyeleos melody called “e boulgara” (“the Bulgarian woman”); this melody belongs to a song cycle of psalm 134, in the 1st authentic mode. The result of comparative studies showed that a unique melodic episode was used in the repertory of psalm 134 (modulating in the second authentic mode), which supposedly represents an interpolation of a Bulgarian epic melodic motive.

The comparative analysis of the three melodies showed relations with the strophic type of psalmody. Discovering them in cycles of the region of Thessalonike led to the hypothesis that the melodies were connected to an earlier Athonite chant tradition.15

The melodies “boulgarikon” and “e boulgara” were studied in the context of late Byzantine chanting and of its characteristic authors’ and local attributions, which some “programme” denotations have to be added to, (connected with “making-the-melody-sound-like” /mimesis of/ melodic realia). The conclusion is that these denotations, which bring the melodies out of the anonymity stay under the influence of the main value attitude of the late Byzantine time expressed in the key term “kallos” (kallophony or sweet voices, angel voices): the recognition of mastership, of exemplariness, is a recognition of “truthfulness” (towards the archetype).

Two centuries later, from the end-16th century, during the 17th-18th centuries, in Ukraine and Byelorussia, and later on in Moscow Russia, the ethnonym “Bulgarian” appears again in the manuscripts - “Bolgarskij napel”, ”Bolgarskij rospev”, which was included permanently in the music-line Heirmologia noted with the so called Kiev staff notation; these chant books have common characteristics with the chant books of the Balkan akolouthiai type. The discovery of the three Heirmologia of “Bolgarskij napel” is well-known; the manuscripts identify the existence of a music school of the “Bulgarian Chant” in the Great Skit Monastery near the Manyava village in the Carpathians (now Ivanovo-Frankovska area in Ukraina) 16. A number of main characteristics of the Bolgarskij napel repertory have still to be studied, i.e. the repertory scope, the composition and the structure of the chant books called “Heirmologia of “Bolgarskij napel” (it was found out that their structure differs from the structure of the Ukrainian Heirmologia, according to the eminent Ukrainian archeograph Yurij Yassinovskij)17. Also in Ukraina the ethnonym “Bulgarian” (“bolgarskoe penie starodavnoe”) appears under the conditions of “multiple singing” connected with different local attributions (Greek, Kievan, Serbian, etc.). 18

Nevertheless, the ethnic identification here is not supported by the idea of the local, but by the idea of the national realised as an entity, as a community. As such, it defines also a “different”, “other” song convention “external” to the region. The definition has again an important “value” meaning: Bulgaria, the Bulgarian in the musical cultural tradition in Ukraine has the value of the purest one in its orthodoxy, respectively a true Old Slavonic singing; a value, which serves as a basis for legalisation of the “other”, the “foreign” tradition in the traditional culture of the region.

In the historical science there are different hypotheses about the origin of this “Bulgarian chant”19. In Bulgaria there are publications stating that this is still a Ukrainian, Kievan singing20.

My recent research concentrates on restoring the development of the Slavonic Balkan singing. This is a hard work, because the written sources (the neumated musical manuscripts) are very few. The sources bear witness to two main stages in the Slavic Balkan chant tradition21. The first stage encompasses a period of an almost entirely oral tradition (until the 13th – 14th century); an evidence hereto is the so called brief, shortened or melisma Theta notation22 studied and systematised by Stefan Kozhuharov; he has repeatedly discovered it in hymnographic books of that time. (The notation bears this name due to the fact that the uncial Greek letter Theta written over certain syllables of the text denotes the places of melodic tropes, melismas. The melodies and the repertory of the melismas had to be learned by heart and were reproduced orally.

The big cultural transition from oral to written practice in the Slavonic chant tradition begins with the establishment of the Jerusalem Typikon: Evidence of the acceptance of the late Byzantine neumatic notation and of the late Byzantine chant repertory are the so called Rila Musical Marginal Notes of the 15th century (a valuable musical record directly related to the Rila monastery) – these are musical notes done by a Slavonic scribe written in the margins and between the lines of the text of the famous Macedonian Glagolic Sheet of the 9th-10th centuries25); the same evidence bears the so called Papadice of Skopje, the manuscript 93 of the Belgrade library26, which is bilingual, Slavonic-Greek). But a very valuable evidence of this transition is the manuscript 928 in the national Library, Athens, of the 15th century27 , which I repeatedly analysed in my papers of the last years, or the so called Anthology of Zhegligovo prepared in the Slavonic monastery “Mateice” in Crangora near the village of Zhegligovo, Macedonia. This is a bilingual Greek-Slavic manuscript, rich in content, of the akolouthiai type. And exactly this manuscript turned out to be the most valuable record for the attempts to restore the Slavonic Balkan chant tradition, and more specifically that of the Slavonic hymnody, whose existence was richly evidenced by many non-noted sources well-known to the medieval literary scientists. Because of the lack of space I cannot present my research on the neumated Slavonic texts in the Akolouthiai-Anthology of Zheglinovo in full length. I will refer only to three Stichera Prosomoia cycles of Vergin Mary feasts, strangely included in the repertory of this chant book type; the Prosomoion (Antomelon) model is the Stiheron “Oh, divnoe chudo” in the first authentic mode28. These are the earliest known records of Slavonic stichera with a Byzantine notation; but the manuscript is extremely valuable, also because of a remarkable fact. There is a unique paleographic peculiarity in its neumatings: melodic-segmenting dots written in the word texts, which separate within the chants their composing melodic stereotypes – a series of psalmodic phrases (of the “popevki” type)29 (the problem of the melodic “formulas” in the Byzantine chant tradition is very complicated; and now this bilingual manuscript of Zhegligovo provides an excellent opportunity for studying it).

There was one more lucky coincidence: in the Great Skit Heirmologia of “Bolgarskij napel” the same stichera texts were written down in notes (with the Kievan staff notation). The existence of records of two parallel in text chants of two different notations – of the late Byzantine notation and in “transcription” into a Kievan staff notation provided an excellent opportunity for a comparative study. This research revealed a degree of melodic similarity proving the Balkan origin of the “Bulgarian” Grat Skit melodies, melodies belonging to the repertory of Bolgarskij napel. The stylistic characterisation of the melodies in the two sources has also become possible: these are compositions of psalmodic type, strophically composed and following a common melodic model, typified melodic formula-cuts (popevki) of a common repertory. The possibilities for studying the Balkan Slavinic chanting provided by the Anthology of Zhegligovo are complementary to the bilingual Greek-Slavonic sources of the musical manuscripts’ family well-known to the Byzantology, which has its origin in the Putna monastery of Moldova established one century later, in the 16th century30 . but the written practice could not be preserved in the Slavonic chanting in the Balkans, it remained in the oral tradition until the second half of the 18th century.

The comparative studies of the Slavonic chanting based on the few written records of the 15th –16th century proved the Balkan origin of a number of melodies belonging to the repertory of “Bolgarskij napel”, which I cannot present here in detail, because I want to introduce one more important problem related to the characteristic of the Balkan Slavonic chanting.

It is known that the “classical” Byzantine Sticherarion as a collection of stichera belongs to the 7th (the second half) – 10th century. This was the time, when two kinds of hymnody were practised, the idiomela (samoglasni), where the singers warmed up for chanting by means of a melody especially adapted to the concrete text, which could not be applied to another text, and the prosomia (podobni), where the chant did not have a melody of its own being composed on a metric syllabic model and on the melody of the chosen idiomelon31. Each well-known idiomelon could have become automelon (samopodoben), i.e. to serve as a model for new hymns. The problem of the correlation between the two forms of the hymnody is very complicated, so that I cannot explain it here. I would like only to refer to a recent scientific result achieved by the Russian Byzantiologist Irina Shkolnik32, who identifies a third kind of hymnody. For this early kind of chanting she offers the term “echos singing” (“na glas”) (the term is preserved in the song terminology of the Russian staroobrjadno (old believers’ tradition) after the schisma in the Russian church in the late 17th century). According to Irina Shkolnik this is a practice, which is neither prosomoia, nor idiomela. This is a chanting, by which every text could be sung to one and the same simple melody of the mode according to certain rules. This exclusively oral kind of chanting was close to the psalmody. It was based on one simple melodic model, which can be reduced to one or several musical lines. It has a small quantity of musical formulas and implies the manner of its connection. The model allowed the introduction of some melodic changes, elements of the musical development individualised to a certain degree in relation to the text, moments of melodic culmination, the use of modally different melodic formula (most often an exchange of formulas between the respective authentic and plagal modes). The musical composing of the echos melodies has not been an individual task: the singer had to adapt only the formula of the melodic model to the text accents and the text parts (semi-verses, whole and long verses), but in this way the hymnody had to a certain degree an adequate musical realisation (regarding the structure and the meaning of the text). Tracing back the development of the two main kinds of hymnody I. Shkolnik suggests that this old echos chanting has not been dominating until the mid-7th century, when the idiomela singing started reaching its highs in the works of the famous hymn writers of the St. Saba Monastery, Andrey of Crete, John Damaskenos, Kozma of Mayuma. The echos chant disappears or goes over to a marginal position at the time of the development of the Idiomela chanting connected with the increase of the authors’ individual elements in the church poetry. This important turning point in the Byzantine poetry contributes to the development of the modes and the melos, and in the end-7th century the oktoechos reach their classic shape.

After investigating the above outlined context it turned out that the Slavonic stichera prosomoia of the Anthology of Zhegligovo fully correspond to the characteristics of the early “echos” chanting. These are psalmodic melodies, strophic in composition (built on a constant repetition of one melodic model, where the intonation follows the usual two levels, those of the main and the secondary supporting tone, with intermediate and final cadences). At the same time, the composing of those melodic models on the basis of the common repertory of melodic formula-cuts (determined in the manuscript of Zhegligovo by means of melodic-segmenting dots) gives place to individualising the melodies to a certain extend according to the accentuation, the syllabic composition and the meaning of the texts. In other words, because of these characteristics we can assume that the Slavic chanting represented in the Anthology of Zhegligovo and bearing similarities to the melodies of “Bolgarskij napel” is of the early chanting “echos” type34 (I will refer to the famous Russian mediavist Ivan Voznesenskij pointing out exactly this specificity of the “Bolgarskij rospev” melodies in his book of 1905).

In conclusion of the above we can set up the hypothesis that upon converting to Christianity in the 9th century the echos singing has been established in our country, specifically combining norms of the Idiomela and the Prosomoia singing; exactly the capabilities of this singing close to the psalmody of the strophic type on the basis of few melodic models and melodic formula (and the rules for their combination) have managed orally to reproduce the Slavic chant poetry in the course of centuries.

So, still on a hypothetical level, but based on a number of scientific arguments resulting from comparative studies on concrete source, respectively musical material, the assumption of Dobri Hristov about the relation between “Bolgarskij rospev” and the earliest Bulgarian church singing proved to be very clear-sighted. Not doubt about Dobri Hristov having been partial regarding the “Bolgarskij rospev”, as far as this chanting corresponded to the new, the then modern cultural norms and value conventions. But, is this the only reason for his subtle insight? Couldn’t that be a subtle, deep-rooted knowledge supported by the intuition of an extraordinary artist? A personal choice, based on a profound and strong living in faith? Nevertheless, these thoughts will lead to another thematic subject. This is why I will now go only thus far...

NOTES:

1/ Dobri Hristov. Musikalno-teoretichno i publizistichno nasledstvo. (Musical-Theoretical and Publicistic Heritage. Compiler, editor and author of the introduction Venelin Krastev, volume.1-2. Sofia (S.), 1970); the quoted article is of Vol. 1, p. 286-296. I would like to point out the extremely fruitful initiative of Prof. V. Krastev to publish the two volumes with the “speech” of Dobri Hristov (a result from his lasting interest in the personality and works of our great musical figure expressed in his Introduction to the publication, in two monographic essays respectively of 1954 and 1960, as well as in other publications); that edition is useful to all of us, who try again and again to study the works of Dobri Hristov and his extraordinary role in our musical-cultural development. See also Yapova, Kr. The Archive of Dobri Hristov. Catalogue. S., 2002.

2/ Dobri Hristov. Op. cit., Vol. 1, p.293. The Problem of the “Bulgarian Church Chanting” is introduced and analysed by D. Hristov in a number of his articles and other scientific and publisictic materials /see especially articles like The East-Psaltic Chanting and the Old-Bulgarian Church Chanting, p.280-285, Christianity and Music, p.297-304 in the Vol. 1 and the chapter Church Music, p.189-208 in the Vol. 11/. Bibliography on the discussion see also in: Toncheva, E. The Velikij Skit (Skit mare) Monastery – a school of “Bolgarskij rospev”. “Bolgarski” Heirmologia of the 17th – 18th century from the Skit Monastery, Vol. 1: “About Bolgarskij rospev, Vol. 11 “From Bolgarskij rospev”. S., 1981.; volume 1, Preliminary remarks, p.9-22.

3/ Toncheva, Ibidem; Dobri Hristov za starata ni muzika. – v: Iz istoriata na balgarskata musikalna kultura. 18 i nachaloto na 19 v. S.,1979,5268. (Dobri Hristov about Our Old Music. – in: From the History of the Bulgarian Musical Culture. The 18th and the Beginning of the 19th Century. S.,1979,5268).

4/ Yapova, Kr. Dobri Hristov i ideata za lichnostta i obshtnostta. S.,1999, s.118. (Dobri Hristov and the Idea of the Personality and Community. S., 1999, p.118). The attitude of Dobri Hristov towards the problem of the church chanting is interpreted in the book in the context of the author’s main subject, more specifically p.58-69, with bibliography.

5/ The well-known in the Bulgarian ethno-music and musical-theoretical science theory of the so called “irregular beats” presented in D. Hristov’s work of 1913 “ The Rhythmical Basis of Our Folklore Music” provides the basis for all future development in his field.

6/ In 1960 the monographic study by Stefan Lazarov was published “Musikalnite tekstove v Sinodika na zar Boril” (“The Synodikon of Tsar Boril as Musical-historical Monument”), (Institute of Musicology, Bulletin, Vol. 7, 5-77), where the West-European transcription system of the middle Byzantine notation has been initially introduced in our musical-historical literature. On the occasion of the paper by St. Lazarov (which had to be a Ph.D. thesis, but was not allowed to be defended ), I conducted my research on the same manuscript, which had to function as a statement by a member of the former Institute of Musicology in favour of the thesis; my research was published in 1967 under the title “Muzikalnite tekstove v Palausovia prepis na Sinodika na zar Boril” (”The Musical Texts in the Palausov Copy of the Synodikon of Tsar Boril). (Institute of Musicology, Bulletin, Vol. 12, 57-159). In 1995 I examined the same manuscript; the results thereof are included in my paper “Praznikat na pravoslavieto v Balgaria prez 14 v.” /. – v: Praznizi i zrelishta v evropeiskata kulturna tradizia prez srednovekovieto i Vazrazhdaneto.” (“The Feast of Orthodoxy in Bulgaria in the 14th Century”, in : Feasts and Spectacles in the European Cultural Tradition in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Summer Scientific Meetings, Varna 95. S., 1996, 81-92).

7/ The most important research in this field was “Starobalgarski musikalni pametnizi” (“Old-Bulgarian Musical Documents”) by Stoyan Petrov and Hristo Kodov (S., 1973); the part written by Stoyan Petrov is a typical example of the romantic ideas replacing the scientific approach to the history of our church music. In return, the part by Hristo Kodov offers precise observations done by an excellent professional-paleograph, who, not being a Byzantologist by training, fails to reflect the level of the achievements of the West-European musical Byzantology.

8/ Wellesz,E. A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography. Oxford, 1961,p.2-29.

9/ The bibliography of Assen Atanassov gives an idea of the musical-mediavistic research: “Bulgarska musikalna mediavistika” (“The Bulgarian Musical Mediavistics) /1984-1994/: Bibliography (Bulgarian Musicology, 1995, No 2, 96-100); the bibliography has still to be supplied by more items about the whole period of the development of this field of our musical-historical science, which encompasses more than 30 years with the active and valuable participation of researchers like Sv. Kjumdzhieva, . Dimitrova, St. Harkov, B. Karastoyanov, . Atanassov, N. Konstantinova, etc.

10/ As a basic value criterion, especially during totalitarianism, the direct intonation influence of the folklore music was established. See e.g.: Dzhudzhev, St.: Problemi vav vrazkas zhivota i tvorchestvoto na Joan Kukuzel.- v: Joan Kukuzel – zhivot, tvorchestvo, epoha. – Muzikalni horizonti, (“Problems related to the life and works of John Koukouzeles., in: John Koukouzeles – Life, Works, Epoch., Musical Horizons”), 1981, No 18-19, 14-29.

11/ Toncheva, E.: “Muzikata i bogoslovskite umnoglasi”. – Demokraticheski pregled, (“The Music and the Theological Mindfiting”, Democratic Review), autumn-winter 1999, book 41/42, No 2, 696-700.

12/ Toncheva, E.: “Opredelenieto “balgarsko” v muzikalnite rakopisi na vizantijsko-slavjanskia areal”. (“The Designation “Bulgarian” in the Musical Manuscripts of the Byzantine-Slavonic Area”), Bulgarian Musicology, 1990, No 2, 66-72.

13/ Toncheva, E.: Ars Nova i Joan Kukuzel v zarkovnata musika na Balkanite prez 14 v. – v: Religia i izkustvo v kulturnata tradizia na Evropa. (“Ars Nova and John Koukouzeles in the Church Music in the Balkans of 14th Century”, in: Religion and Art in the Cultural Tradition of Europe). Summer Scientific Meetings, Varna 1998. S., 1999, 125-135, with bibliography.

14/ Toncheva, E.: “Melos Ekzoterikos v pravoslavnata muzika na Balkanite prez kasno vizantijskiya period. – v: Kulturni, istoricheski i etnopoliticheski otnoshenia mezhdu hristianstvoto i isliama na Blakanite / 14-19 v./” (“Melos Exoterikos in the Orthodox Music in the Balkans during the late Byzantine period”, in: Cultural, historical and ethno-political relations between the Christianity and the Islam in the Balkans (14th – 19th century)). An international conference dedicated to the 550 anniversary of the peoples’ fight near Varna (Varna, July 2 – 3, 1994./. S., 1995, 248-256, with bibliography.

15/ Velimirovich, .: “Balgarskite pesnopenia vav vizantijskite rakopisi” (“The Bulgarian Chants in the Byzantine Manuscripts”), Institute of Musicology, Bulletin, Vol. 19. Sofia, 1971, 10-19. Toncheva, E.: “Poloeleini melodii oboznacheni kato balgarski v balkanskata pesenna praktika /psalm 135 po izvori ot 13/14 - 14/15 v. (“Polyeleos Melodies Designated as Bulgarian in the Balkan Chant Practice (psalm 135 according to sources of the 14th / 15th century)”). Ph.D. thesis for the scientific degree Doctor of Science, Sofia, Institute of Musicology at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (BAS), 1993.

16/ Toncheva, E.: The Velikij Skit Monastery …

17/ Yasinovskij, J. Ukrainskii ta biloruski notolinijni irmoloi 16-18 stolita. Lviv. Ukraini, 1996.

18/ Toncheva, E.: Skitski “bolgarski rospev” (“Skitian “Bolgarskij rospev””), Bulgarian Musicology 1982, No 1, 38-60.

19/ Uspenskij, N. “Drevne ruskoe pevcheskoe iskustvo” (“Old-Russian Song Art”). Moscow, 1971, p. 305-310.

20/ Konotop, A. Osobenosti atribuzii bolgarskogo i drugih mestih rospevov v praktike ukrainskogo iskustva 16-17 vekov (“Characteristics of the Attributions of the Bulgarian and Other Local Chanting in the Practice of the Ukrainian Art in 16-17 centuries”). – The First International Bulgaristic Congress. Reports. Symposium “ Bolgarskij rospev”. Bulgarian-Russian Musical Relations during 14th – 18th centuries. Sofia, 1982, 92-99.

21/ Toncheva, E. “Za stilistikata na slavjanoezichnoto zarkovno peene na Balkanite / po muzikalno-pismeni izvori ot 14-18 v./ - v: V pamet na Petar Dinekov. Tradizia. Priemstvenost. Novatorstvo. (“About the Stylistics of the Slavic Church Singing in the Balkans” (after musical-written sources of the 14th – 18th centuries), in: In Memory of Peter Dinekov. Tradition. Continuity. Innovation.) S., BAS, Cyrillo-Methodian Centre, 2001, 432-447.

22/ Kozhuharov, St. "Notni nachertania v Orbelskija triod - srednobulgarski knijoven pametnik ot XIII v." Bulgarski ezik, 1974, No 4, 324-343; "Paleografski problemi na tita-notaziata v srednovekovnite rakopisi ot 12-13 v." – Slavjanska paleografia i diplomatika, 1, Sofia, 1980, 228-246. (“Music Drawings in the Orbelski Triodion – a Middle-Bulgarian Literary Manuscript of the 13th Century”, Bulgarian Language, 1974, No 4, 324-343; Paleographic Problems of Theta-Notation in the Medieval Manuscripts of the 12th – 13th Centuries – Slavonic Paleography and Diplomacy, 1, Sofia, 1980, 228-246).

24/Faasted, J. A primitive Paleobyzantine Musical Notation. – Nova e monumentis musicae byzantinae. Classica est medievalia XXIII. Copenhagen,1962,302-310.

25/ Toncheva, E., E. Kotseva. “Rilski muzikalni prepiski ot 15 v.” (“Rila Musical Marginal Notes of the 15th century”), Bulgarian Musicology 1983, No 2, 3-44, with bibliography.

26/ Stefanovich, D. “Stara srpska musika. Primeri zrkvenih pesama na 15 veka, kn.1-2. Beograd 1969”(“Old serbian Music. Samples of Church Chanting of the 15th Century, book 1-2, Belgrade 1969”).

27/ Jakovljevic, A. Diglodde palaiographia kai melodoi hymnographoi tou kodika ton Athenon 928. Leukosia,1988.

28/ Toncheva, E.: “Muzikalno talkuvane /ekzegezis/ na balkanski melodii v skitskia “Bolgarskij rospev” /kam problema za postvizantijskata muzikalna ekzegetika na Balkanite prez 17-18 v.” (“Musical Interpretation (Exegesis) of Balkan Melodies in the Skitian “Bolgarskij rospev” (to the problem of the post-Byzantine musical exegesis during the 17th – 18th centuries), Bulgarian Musicology,1988, No 2, 40-60; About the oral church chanting professionalism in the South-Slavonic area – Prosomoia singing according to sources of the 15th – 19/20th centuries, Musical Horizons, 1993, extra issue, 87-109, with bibliography.

29/ The term “cut” (“otsek”) is used by D. Stefanovich. Op. cit., publication. About the term “popevka” see: Brazhnikov, . Drevnerusiskaja teoria musiki. Leningrad, 1972.

30/ Toncheva, E.: Skitian “Bolgarskij rospev”…

31/ Wellesz, E. Op.cit.

32/ Shkolnik,I. To the Problem of the Evolution of the Byzantine Stichera in the Second Half of the 5th-7th Centuries: from the Echos Melody to the Idiomela. – Cantus Planus /Eger, Hungary,1993/ Budapest,1995, 409-425; Byzantine Prosomion Singing. A General Survey of the Repertory of the Notated Stichera Models /Idiomela/. – Cantus Planus /Sopron, Hungary, 1995/. Budapest, 1998, 521-536.

33/ Tontscheva, E. Ueber die Formelhaftigkeit in der muendlichen Kirchengedangspraxis auf dem Balkan /das Automela-Prosomoia Singen der Suedslaven im 15. Jahrhundert nach Ms.Athens No 928/ - Cantus Planus /Pesc, Hungary, 1990/. Budapest, 1990/ Budapest, 1992, 251-266. See also note 28.

34/ Toncheva, E.: Za stilistikata… (About the Stylistics ….)

35/ Voznesenskij, I. Osmoglasnie rospevai treh poslednih vekov. Pravoslavnoj Ruskoi Zerkvi. (Oktoechos Chanting of the Three Last Centuries. Orthodox Russian Church), II Bolgarskij Rospev. Kiev, 1891.