An Introduction and Editorial Discussion of the New Edition of the Liturgy No. 1 of Saint John Chrysostom by Dobri Hristov
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
The original impetus for this project came in 2001 at the Varna International Conductors Workshop, at which the participants, including this writer, were introduced to the music of Dobri Hristov for the first time. Selections of his Liturgy No. 1 were sung in concert using photocopies of the 1988 edition, complete with a rough and rarely accurate Latin alphabet phonetic transliteration of the Cyrillic Church Slavonic text. Immediately, it was apparent that the phonetic transliteration needed to reflect more accurately the sounds of the language in a manner that was easy and consistent. In addition, there were certain musical discrepancies in the score that may or may not have been editorial in nature. Upon returning to the United States, this author discovered that Hristov’s music was in large part unavailable, and the Liturgy No. 1 was out of print. The need for an accurate and performable manuscript of the work in the United States became the basis of an United States Fulbright Research Grant to Bulgaria. Following the completion of the term of study in Bulgaria, an updated edition of Liturgy No.1 was prepared based on the extant versions of Hristov’s work. Hereafter, this edition will be referred to as 2004.
Liturgy No. 1 is scored for four-part mixed chorus and exists in four extant documents, two of which are housed in the Bulgarian National Archives. The 1924 manuscript of the Liturgy and the liturgical supplement from 1924, which does not include the “Ìèëîñò ìèðà #2” (Milost mira) or the “Ñâÿòûé Áîæå #5” (Svyatiy Bozhe) is listed as number 218 in the Archive catalogue. This was the manuscript submitted by Dobri Hristov to his publishers in late 1924. Hereafter this source will be referred to as 1924. “Ìèëîñò ìèðà #2 from the musical supplement is listed separately in the Archive as number 216 and is dated 1907 (*1). In addition to the 1924 manuscript, the Music Sector Library of the Bulgarian Institute for Applied Arts and Sciences made the 1925 first edition print available to the writer. This first edition print will hereafter be referred to as 1925. These three documents represent the primary source documents for this study. The Liturgy was reprinted in 1988 by Verein f¸r Ostkirchliche Musik, though this edition includes material different from both the 1924 and 1925 editions. It is now the only edition available in Bulgaria for purchase and performance. In some instances, the 1988 version reinstates material present in 1924 but left out of the 1925 version, and in others, includes material not present in either earlier versions that seems to be the contribution of an outside editor, some of which are in error. In addition, there are some obvious documentary problems in the 1988 edition, which imply that the 1924 document was either not consulted or unavailable. For the purposes of this study, the 1988 version was considered only as secondary source material and is used only as a comparison with the 1924 and 1925 versions.
Anecdotally, the 1925 first edition, which was made available by the Institute, was personally dedicated by Dobri Hristov to Tsar Boris, and included a handwritten dedication by Hristov and a three-line piece of music in what seems to be G major, in cut-time. Some time after the 1944 communist revolution in Bulgaria, cultural officers from the new regime entered the Institute’s library and ripped the handwritten pages out of the score, thereby removing any mention of the former Tsar, as well as the music contained in the opening pages. No record had been kept of the contents of these two pages, and so only a few centimeters of handwriting and music are left.
One had hoped to uncover a printer’s proof copy or “missing link” between the 1924 manuscript and the 1925 first edition. Discrepancies between the 1924 version and the 1925 edition suggest that Hristov performed some last minute editing between submission of the 1924 manuscript sometime in November 1924 and the publication of the approved copy in May 1925. The inclusion of the dedication to Bishop Stefen of Sofia in the title page in January 1925, along with a myriad of changes between the 1924 manuscript and the printed version implies the existence of a proof copy. However, up till now I have been unable to verify the existence of such a document. In addition, the printed version does represent Hristov’s “approved version” and as such will be given precedence over the 1924 manuscript copy except where there is clear evidence of intent.
Examination of the 1924 manuscript in comparison with the 1925 first edition print and the 1988 reprinted version show glaring discrepancies between all three, be it dynamic markings, syllabic treatment, or composition. The 1925 edition was printed cheaply with an eye toward efficiency in order to save room and paper. As such, the soprano and alto parts are combined on one line, with independent tenor and bass lines. Much of the piece is written in this three-line format, though one or two of the later movements exist in a four-line format. The difficulty with this three-part construction is that dynamics and articulation markings are often ambiguous, especially in regards to the alto part. Furthermore, Hristov often marked dynamics for all four parts in the 1924 manuscript, which often are only printed above the soprano line in the 1925 print and vice versa in other places. This inconsistency makes the conductor’s job of interpreting the music much more difficult, not to mention that of the editor.
The case-by-case changes from the 1925 edition that are present in this new edition will be discussed later in conjunction with each movement. As a whole, the 1924 document provides much more detailed performance information than the printed version. Many of the dynamic markings and text extensions in the 1924 manuscript were not included in the 1925 print. Whether this was Hristov’s decision, his editors’, or a combination of both is difficult to deduce. It does not seem practical to include every dynamic marking that Hristov wrote in the 1924 manuscript, since the 1925 printed version was given his mark of approval. However, the sparseness of the performance indications in the printed version makes interpreting the piece extremely difficult. If nothing else, they are important clues in the search for the composer’s original intent and compositional thought. Thus, the 2004 edition will include many of the dynamic indications that are present in the 1924 version, but left out of the 1925 first edition. In addition to the dynamic indications, there are only three major departures from the 1924 manuscript. The first was discussed briefly above, namely that the new edition will feature a four-line format with an independent alto line. The second deals with the treatment of melismas. Hristov originally notated eighth notes by assigning each syllable with an individually flagged note, a practice that has been retained in this edition. However, Hristov’s notation provides slurs for melismas of three or more eighth notes and simply beams melismas consisting of two eighth notes. There is some inconsistency throughout the 1925 edition. In order to provide a consistent notation and to reflect modern notational practice, in the new edition all melismas will be slurred, regardless of length. On that same topic, Hristov provided word extensions throughout the 1924 manuscript, almost none of which were included in the print. In the 2004 edition, Hristov’s word extensions from the 1924 manuscript are restored, as well as any that are deemed important by the editor. The third addition to the Liturgy is the inclusion of a Latin-alphabet phonetic transliteration of the original Cyrillic Church Slavonic based on the system devised by Andrei Danchev, Michael Holman, Ekaterina Dimova, and Milena Savova in their book An English Dictionary of Bulgarian Names, Spelling, and Pronunciation. This system for rendering Cyrillic into English phonetics, unlike previous universal and national systems, provides a one-to-one relationship between the Cyrillic characters and Latin-alphabet phonetic combinations. It is the accepted system within the philology department at Sofia University in Sofia, Bulgaria. One drawback to the system is that it was originally designed for Bulgarian to English transliteration. As such, the system is not the most accurate system for Church Slavonic, a much earlier form of Bulgarian, but it is the easiest and most intuitive. In addition, one of the unique features of the Church Slavonic used in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church is that it employs a Bulgarian pronunciation, which simplifies many of the features of Church Slavonic that make transliteration difficult, namely the diphthongs. A quick perusal of the basic phonetic rules will allow the conductor and choir to sing the music in Church Slavonic with minimal problems in only a short amount of time. A full discussion of the transliteration system will be given in chapter three.
CHAPTER TWO
A Brief Biography of Dobri Hristov
Dobri Hristov was born in Varna, Bulgaria, on the coast of the Black Sea on 14 December 1875. He was an accomplished pianist, conductor, and budding composer when in 1894 he graduated from the Bulgarian State Boys’ High School “Ferdinand I.” Following his graduation, he served as a primary school teacher in Varna and in 1899 was the co-founder and conductor of the folk choir “Gusla” in Varna. Some of his early folk-song settings derive from this period.
In 1900, Hrisotov left for the Prague Conservatory where he studied piano and composition in Antonin Dvor·k’s class in the last years before Dvor·k died. In 1904 Hristov returned to Bulgaria where he again served as a primary school teacher in Varna. In 1907, he moved to Sofia, Bulgaria and had his first great success as a composer, winning first place in a composition contest dedicated to the opening of the National Theatre in Sofia with his overture “Ivailo.” During his first years in Sofia, Hristov worked as a secondary school teacher and a music teacher in Sofia’s first private music academy, based out of the historic Sofia Nedelya Church. In 1909, he again founded a folk choir, this time in Sofia, entitled “Rodna Pesen” or “Native Song.” He also served as an assistant conductor under Nikolov Nikolaev, the conductor of the Sofia Nedelya Church choir. During this time, some of the movements for the Liturgy No. 1 of St. John Chrysostom were composed, most notably the “Milost Mira No. 2” from the supplement to the Liturgy and the “Herouvimska Pesen.”
.jpg)
Picture No. 1: Dobri Hristov
In either 1911 or 1913, he became the conductor of the St. Sedmochislenitsi Church choir in Sofia. This church is one of the companion churches to the great Aleksandur Nevski Memorial Cathedral in Sofia and is one of the most significant landmarks in downtown Sofia. Founded in 1903 by Marin Drianovski, the choir has been the leading vocal ensemble in Bulgaria ever since, unsurpassed in quality and professionalism. Today, the choir boasts fifteen professional and educated singers with an average age of twenty-seven. Their repertoire under their young, energetic conductor Dimitar Grigorov is aggressive and varied. Their sound is frankly astounding. The choir tours Europe annually and has sung in almost every major festival in Europe, including concerts with the Tallis Scholars, the Sixteen, the Washington Symphony Orchestra, the Hilliard Ensemble, and a special concert in 2002 for Pope John Paul II during his visit to Sofia. The choir sings one hundred twenty public services a year in addition to twenty concerts a year in Bulgaria and their heavy tour schedule.
In addition to conducting the choir, Grigorov is also the choir’s unofficial historian. He claims that internal church documents prove that Hristov was hired at the church in 1911, though most publications in Bulgaria place him at the church in 1913. Whatever the case, Hristov spent a large portion of the most fruitful years of his career at the church, giving frequent public concerts, many including movements from the Liturgy. Grigorov attributes the choir’s professionalism, high standards of artistry, and world-class reputation to Hristov’s lasting legacy.
In 1918, he won first prize in a composition contest with his piece “Tutrakanska” the same year that he became Director of the State School of Music. In addition, he was a Lecturer in Music Theory in the State Musical Academy and Deputy Director of the National Opera Theatre. In 1926 he was made an Honorary Professor in the State Music Academy and in 1929 he was elected as a corresponding member of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
In 1935, Hristov was invited by the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church to become the conductor of the St. Aleksandur Nevsky Memorial Cathedral and in 1937 was elected the Chairman of the newly founded Association of Choir Conductors.
Hristov published numerous works for choir both sacred and secular, but by far his most famous work is the Liturgy No. 1. In addition to his musical output, Hristov wrote theoretical textbooks, the most significant being his early book Rhythmic Bases of Our [Bulgarian] Folk Music and Technical Construction of Bulgarian Folk Music in 1928. Hristov died on 23 January 1941
CHAPTER FOUR
Phonetic Transliteration from Cyrillic Church Slavonic and Bulgarian to Latin-Alphabet English
In the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, the annual celebration of the development of the Cyrillic alphabet by the two Greek missionaries Cyril and Methodius in the ninth century is one of the holiest days of the year. The formation of a codified alphabet for the early Slavic dialect coincides with the formation of the Bulgarian nation. Thus, Cyrillic is inexorably linked to the hearts of the Bulgarian people.
One of the difficulties that English-speaking choirs face when singing in Slavonic languages is the Cyrillic alphabet. A helpful feature of Bulgarian is that the sounds of the language have a direct phonetic representation in Cyrillic, unlike English, which has many traditional spellings that do not coincide with the sounds of the words. Church Slavonic, which is an early form of the modern Slavic languages of Bulgarian, Russian, Ukrainian, Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian, Polish, Czech, and Slovakian is pronounced with a unique Bulgarian pronunciation in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, similar to the differences between Italian and German pronunciation of Church Latin. Difficult vowel combinations in Slavonic, particularly those that produce glides and palatizations are often simplified in Bulgaria. As such, a system developed to transliterate modern Bulgarian phonetically into Latin-alphabet works for Bulgarian Church Slavonic as well.
For the purposes of this study, and in the 2004 performing edition of Hristov’s Liturgy, the system developed by Andrei Danchev, Michael Holman, Ekaterina Dimova, and Milena Savova for their book An English Dictionary of Bulgarian Names, Spellings, and Pronunciation will be employed. This dictionary, and its accompanying transliteration system, is the book employed in the Philology Department of Sofia University in Sofia, Bulgaria.
There are several universal systems used to transliterate Slavonic languages. The most popular is based on the Czech alphabet, popularized for international use in the late 1930’s by the Slavia journal. It was introduced in Bulgaria in 1956 by Lyubomir Andreichin, and is useful for conveying phonetic sounds to readers from many different nationalities. Today, it is still the system used to transliterate most highway signs in Bulgaria. However, it has certain drawbacks for English speakers, the biggest being the transliteration of the Cyrillic letters ÷, ö, ø, æ, and ÿ. For example, this system uses “C” and “C” for the Cyrillic letters ÷ and ö. The letter ÷ is close to the “ch” in “church” and ö is like the “ts” in “cats.” In this manner, the word “÷åðíîìîðåö” is transliterated Cernomorec. A closer English transcription would be Chernomorets (*2).
There have been several different transcription systems used specifically for Bulgarian to English transliteration, but the differences far outweigh the similarities. In these cases, “the English rendering of Bulgarian names has been greatly influenced by French and German forms” (e.g. the inclusion of “-eff/off” endings in names such as Äàíåâ and Ïîïîâ – Daneff and Popoff – in place of the modern Danev and Popov) (*3).
Until the publication of the aforementioned dictionary, there was no clearly defined system in Bulgaria, other than the personal preferences of various translators and editors. The most widely divergent usage is in regards to the Cyrillic letters õ, ó, and ú. For instance, the õ in Cyrillic, which is slightly guttural, closely resembles the German combination “ch”, as in Bach, or the “h” in the English word “horrid”. This letter has always been very problematic, and is alternately transliterated as “h”, “x”, “ch”, or even “kh”, none of which is exact.
For the system employed in this study, the authors determined to make the transliteration as clear and concise as possible. They explain:
As a consequence of the mainly phonetic (and partly morphological) nature of Bulgarian spelling, the rendering of Bulgarian names in English is essentially a matter of transliteration and not transcription. In other words, the Bulgarian graphemes (units of the alphabet which can consist of one or more letters) are replaced by the corresponding graphemes of English. This may be contrasted with the reverse process of rendering English names in Bulgarian, when, as a consequence of the traditional nature of English spelling, it is essentially a matter of transcription (the replacement of phonemes by phonemes…). Of course, no workable system suitable for general, i.e. non-academic, use can ever be absolutely consistent. There will always be a need to combine transliteration and transcription in varying proportions.
The system we have adopted here for the English transliteration of Bulgarian names is based on the following principles:
- ‘One-to-one’ interlingual graphemic correspondence
The attempt has been made to refer any given grapheme of the source language – in this case Bulgarian – by a single grapheme in the target language – in this case English…The applications of this principle of necessity leads to the avoidance of certain ambivalent letters of the Latin alphabet, ‘c’, for example, which in most Latin-script languages (including English) has more than one phonetic correspondence.- Existing Usage
No linguistic prescriptions are likely to be successful if they ignore established public usage …although there are certain prevailing trends concerning individual sounds and letters, there is no firmly established standard of English transliteration of Bulgarian names either in this country or in the English speaking area abroad. This enables us to make use of the advantages of the existing systems and usages [sic], while at the same time attempting to avoid their illogicalities [sic] and shortcomings. On certain Cyrillic letters – à, á, ä, ê, í, ï, ð, ò, for example – there is agreement in all the English-language systems. Certain other letters only present minor problems in individual cases of specific positions (e.g. the alternation between final –îâ ® -ov or –off), whereas others present fundamental problems throughout all systems (e.g. ó, õ).- Simplicity and Economy
This is an obvious requirement and is applied in cases when the remaining criteria allow variations. The final choice will then be in favour of the form which is simpler and shorter (e.g. Bulgaria and Sofia instead of Bulgariya and Sofiya …). This practice is not followed, however, when it would be to the detriment of informational adequacy [emphasis added].- Easy Retrieval
Whenever there is hesitation between two (or more) possible variants, the variant facilitating back-transliteration is preferred…A flexible approach has, however, been exercised in all cases, for the above principles may operate in a changing hierarchy and every name has to be treated on its own merit (*4).
The employment of a “one-to-one” system of transliteration is the most important feature of the 2004 edition of Hristov’s Liturgy, allowing the singer and conductor to quickly learn the phonetic combinations, or graphemes, corresponding to the Cyrillic. Since the transliteration is given in Italics directly under the Cyrillic, the “one-to-one” relationship is quite clear. Care must be taken, though, to ensure that each grapheme is given consistent phonetic treatment, regardless of its placement within syllabic combinations. In other words, English vowels and consonants often are pronounced differently from word to word, or employ traditional pronunciations and spellings, which do not reflect modern practice. For instance, the consonant combination “ch” in “cherry” is pronounced [tò], while in “Christian” is pronounced [k]. Further, vowels such as “i” are pronounced differently in words such as “bit,” “bite,” or “sing”. Each grapheme in this system is always pronounced the same, corresponding to the one-to-one relationship between letters and sounds in the Slavic languages.
As was mentioned in the above passage from An English Dictionary, ending consonants in Slavic languages are problematical in transliteration. In Bulgarian, and in Bulgarian pronunciation of Church Slavonic, voiced consonants that occur on the end of a word are pronounced in their unvoiced form. Thus, “b” becomes “p,” “d” becomes “t,” “v” becomes “f,” and (rarely occurring) “g” becomes “k”. Traditionally, names such as ’ðèñòîâ have been transcribed as Hristov, even though in actuality, they are pronounced Hristof when speaking. The accepted form of these final consonants in Church Slavonic is for them to be sung as voiced consonants, yet the overwhelming custom in Bulgaria is to sing and to speak them unvoiced, particularly at the end of phrases. Final consonants that occur in the middle of a phrase or in elision with another consonant or vowel, however, may sometimes be voiced. Thus, “ìèëîñòèâú Ãîñïîäü” from measure twenty of the second movement of the piece is pronounced milostif Gospot when spoken slowly, but milostiv Gospot when sung or when spoken rapidly. Notice measure twenty in the example below:
Example 1. Mvt. No 2, mm. 19-21, 2004 edition.
If “Ãîñïîäü” had occurred in the interior of the phrase rather than as the final word, chances are that it would have been pronounced Gospod. A case in point is measures twenty-two through twenty-three of the same movement seen in the below example. Ìèëîñòèâú occurs again, though this time at the end of a phrase, and is sung milostif.
Example 2. Mvmnt. No. 2. mm. 22-23, 2004 edition.
Thus, the task of the editor is extraordinarily difficult, since the practice of voicing or unvoicing terminal consonants in Church Slavonic in Bulgaria is not codified or even official. In fact, it seems that each conductor in Bulgaria has his or her own preference as to the extent to which final consonants are voiced or unvoiced. In addition, priests throughout Bulgaria almost always use the unvoiced form of the consonants while chanting.
In this edition of the Liturgy, an attempt has been made to show the correct sound of the word, as opposed to the traditional transliteration, which is a bit of a departure from the Danchev system. Thus, ’ðèñòîâ will be transliterated as Hristov, in order to reflect traditional practice, but words that will be sung and occur at the end of phrases, such as Ãîñïîä, (traditionally transcribed as Gospod) will be here changed to Gospot. Thus, singers will pronounce the word in accordance with Bulgarian common practice while performing. This is in keeping with the Danchev system’s policy of “informational adequacy” (see above). As a general rule then, final voiced consonants in this edition that occur in the interior of phrases will be transliterated with a voiced consonant, though with an unvoiced consonant when occurring at the end of phrases. Conductors should feel free to adjust this practice to suite their individual tastes.
Another of the difficulties with Church Slavonic is the use of certain archaic letters. Prior to the advent of Communism in Bulgaria in 1944, the alphabet used several letters that redundantly stood for the same sound. These were subsequently abolished by the Communist government in the interest of clarity. In pre-1944 examples of Church Slavonic, it is quite common to see the use of the letter “ž,” which is pronounced [e] alongside the letter “å” which has the same pronunciation. In modern Bulgarian and Church Slavonic, the traditional spellings using the archaic “ž” have been changed in favor of “å.” In the 2004 edition “å” has therefore been used, where the previous edition used “ž”, to reflect this modernization.
Church Slavonic retains several vowel combinations, however, that have not been updated. Prior to 1944, Bulgarian included these same vowels, but they were removed when the alphabet was updated. Church Slavonic, however, did not follow suit. These vowels are pronounced differently in other Slavic languages, particularly in Russian, than they are in Bulgaria. Throughout the Liturgy, one will find the letter combination û, which in Bulgaria is simply pronounced as [i] as in “inch”. In Russian, this combination is a diphthong pronounced [∂i]. Also, it is quite common to find “è³” in the Liturgy. Modern Bulgarian no longer employs “³”, adopting the more common “èé,” or simply “èè”. In addition, Church Slavonic and the older form of Bulgarian include the use of “ú” and “ü” on the end of words ending in consonants. For instance, Dobri Hristov spelled his name “’ðèñòîâú”, which in modern Bulgarian has been changed to “’ðèñòîâ.” In Church Slavonic, the word “Amen” – spelled “Àìèíü” (Amin) – includes the vowel “ü”. In Bulgaria, these two letters are not pronounced. This edition retains the older spellings since they are still retained in Church Slavonic, but transliterates them according to pronunciation.
The following is a summary of the one-to-one transliteration system used in the 2004 edition of the Liturgy, as well as in this study. The equivalent English pronunciation guide is taken from the book Teach Yourself Bulgarian by Michael Holman, co-author of An English Dictionary of Bulgarian Names, and Mira Kovatcheva, the chair of the Philology Department at Sofia University.
| Cyrillic letter |
Phonetic rendering and equivalent English pronunciation |
| À | a as in "art" (but shorter) |
| Á | b as in "book" |
| Â | v as in "vice" |
| Ã | g as in "good" |
| Ä | d as in "dot" |
| Å (*5) | e as in "elephant" |
| Æ | zh as the "s" in "pleasure" |
| Ç | z as in "zigzag" |
| È | i as in "inch" |
| É (*6) | i/y as in "yes" |
| Ê | k as in "king" |
| Ë | l as in "label" |
| Ì | m as in "man" |
| Í | n as in "not" |
| Î | o as in "offer" |
| Ï | p as in "pet" |
| Ð | r as in "rat" |
| Ñ | s as in "sister" |
| Ò | t as in "tent" |
| Ó | ou as in "soup" |
| Ô | f as in "fifteen" |
| Õ | h as in "horrid" (slightly guttural) |
| Ö | ts as in "fits" |
| × | ch as in "church" |
| Ø | sh as in "ship" |
| Ù | sht as in "fishtail" |
| Ú (*7) | u as in "hunter" (but shorter) |
| Ü (*8) | y as in "York" |
| Þ | yu as in "youth" (but shorter) |
| ß | ya as in "yarn" (but shorter) (*9) |
As mentioned before, the letter combination “û” is normally transcribed as “i” as in “inch” as is the letter “³”.
Editorial
1
ISSUE #5 (2008-08-11)