Nestan Sulava 

Georgian Hymnography

Georgian hymnography has come a long and difficult way of development. A number of original and translated hymnographic works have survived to date, being utmost value for the history of both Georgian and Byzantine writings. Hymnographic works translated into Georgian are preserved in the archives, originals of which are today considered lost.

According to the available sources, Georgian hymnography began in the 6th century, while the history of Georgian hymnology originated back in the 10th and 12th centuries, in the heritage of Mikael Modrekili, Giorgi of Mtatsminda (“Mtatsmindeli”), Eprem Mtsire and Ioane Petritsi [29; 17; 18]. The following spheres of research in hymnology have been explored: describing and cataloguing hymn-containing manuscripts, study codicological issues, publishing hymnographic works considering all significant manuscripts, exploring the phases of development of hymnography and merits of hymnographic schools, classification of hymnographic collections, defining hymnographic and liturgical terms, studying the role of hymnography in theological and literary thinking and in the history of chant; studying poetics of hymns and symbolic thinking.

Publications. Of Georgian hymnographic works the following should be mentioned: Athos Collection (1),Old Georgian Theological Poetry, P. Ingoroqva’s edition (2), Hirmologion (12), Papyrus and Parchment Iadgari [All-Year Hymns Collection](13), On the History of 17th and 18th Georgian Poetry (10), Ancient Iadgari (9), Neumatic Hirmologion (6), Ioane Minchkhi’s Poetry (5), ‘Praise and Exaltation of the Georgian Language’ (11), 12th and 13th Centuries Georgian Hymnography (8), ‘Months’ by Giorgi of Mtatsminda [materials of the month of September] (15).

N. Marr’s and I. Javakhishvili’s academic trip to Mount Sinai and Jerusalem’ scriptoria was very important in terms of exploring Georgian hymnography. They described the Georgian manuscripts preserved there, majority of which are of liturgical and hymnographic character. The scholarly value of their descriptions was also attested by publication of the texts of hymnographic works, since study of certain hymns preserved in Sinai manuscripts has become possibleon the basis of these books (4; 14).

Korneli Kekelidze’s name has to be mentioned without fail when talking about research into Georgian liturgics and hymnography. His attention was captured from the very beginning by liturgical and hymnographic manuscripts preserved in Georgian book depositories. By his fundamental works he laid down a solid foundation for the development of scholarly hymnography and studying hymnographic and liturgical writings; he published many Georgian literary monuments as well as those translated from Greek; gave definitions to many liturgical and hymnographic terms, and mapped out ways for future hymnographic research [28; 3; 29; 30]. Kekelidze’s works along with the value of Georgian-language hymns per se, underlined the importance of translations of early Byzantine hymnographic writings preserved in Georgian manuscripts, bearing in mind that part of them in original Greek is lost.

Pavle Ingoroqva published results of his research in to hymnography in his monograph Giorgi Merchule. His vision of the issue and conclusions made by the scholar, are disputable. However, the interest in hymnography has increased since their publication [2; 26]. A. Gatserelia studied the issues of versification, poetics and poetic language of Georgian classic hymn [19]. Gaioz Imedashvili focused on the poetics and poetic language of Georgian classic hymn [25].

Taking into account Kekelidze’s and P. Ingoroqva’s scholarly achievements in the study of hymnography and on the basis of research into issues related to the form and content, of contemporary Georgian hymnography, three main directions have taken shape in Georgian hymnology, aiming at: 1. Detailed description and publication of manuscripts containing hymns, studying hymnographic texts and collections, and research into the structure and form of the hymns; - those are activities mainly carried on to the present day at the Georgian Institute of Manuscripts; 2. Study of structure, composition, themes, motifs of hymn and typology of hymnography; 3. Study of the musical character of hymn.

By its nature and purpose, hymnography can be divided into two types: liturgical hymnography, which is used in the liturgy, and non-liturgical, which, respectively, is not used in the liturgy but is rather meant for reading. The latter involves works, reflect theological issues and are written in poetic, mostly, iambic verse yet not representing poetry. Liturgical practice was gradually being refined and changed, largely affecting liturgical manuscripts. In parallel to observing general typical rules, monastic centers were based on local traditions as well, being reflected in the manuscript copied at the scriptorium of a particular monastery. Liturgical practice changed according to new requirements demands of the liturgy; the repertory of chants changed accordingly.

How did the Georgian hymnography contribute to the intellectual thinking of Georgians in the fields of literature and music? At first, psalms were sung in Christian churches. In the 5th century, the role of chant increased in the liturgy and monotroparia were created. According to the surviving hymns, the beginning of Georgian original religious poetry is associated with the name of St. Shio Mghvimeli who came to Georgia from Syria in the 6th century [29, p. 124]. The date in which the practice of translating hymns into Georgian started is made precise, and it is associated with commencing divine service in the Georgian language. Accordingly, translating of hymns, along with other obligatory liturgical books, must have begun in the 5th century.

Several hymnographic schools played a special role in the development of Georgian hymnography, whose activities are related to introducing one or another type of liturgical practice at Georgian monastic centers, functioning in Georgia and abroad: 1. Palestinian, i.e. Jerusalem-Stabbas, and Sinaitic Hymnographic School, following the liturgy practiced in Jerusalem; 2. Tao-Klarjeti Hymnographic School, - a blend of Constantinopolitan and Jerusalem-Stabbas liturgy traditions; 3. Mount Athos Theological School based on Constantinopolitan liturgy practice. Here, a humble role of the Black Mountain school should be mentioned, which kept up permanent contacts with Iviron’s Theological and Literary Center; 4. Shiomghvime Theological School; 5. Gelati Theological School, 6. Davit Gareji Theological School, and 7. Hymnographic School of Mtskheta Catholicate, especially, Anton I’s School [36, p. 11-12].

The Christian religion must have come to Georgia from Palestine. Therefore, it was in different regions of Palestine that the earliest Georgian literary centers abroad were set up; Jerusalem - type liturgical -hymnographic practice followed spread Georgia and became established here. From Palestine the Palestinian provenance of early Georgian manuscripts is accounted for in scholarly literature on the basis of this fact [29; 9]. The oldest hymns translated into Georgian are accumulated in the manuscripts’ collection of the St. Catherine monastery on Mount Sinai. The value of this collection is significant for perfect conceptualization of the history of Georgian and Byzantine theological literature, bearing in mind that almost all Greek originals of these literary monuments are lost. This enhanced the scholarly value of Georgian translations. Georgian monasteries in Jerusalem, on Mount Sinai and Mount Athos conducted intensive translation work; while in Georgia the same was true of the work done in Tao-Klarjeti Theological and Literary center, and later in Gelati, Shiomghvime and Gareji centers.

At the earlier stage of development of hymnography, hymn was incorporated into the Lectionary. Scholars suggest that the Georgian lectionary traces its origin back to the 5th century. Later the oldest Iadgari was separated from it and the lectionary complemented when, along with liturgical hymns, it incorporated poetic troparia [9, p. 683]. Hymnographic material and hymn was chanted in recitative [the term was studied by M. Tarkhnishvili, 24]; the voice was not indicated, the text was represented by the beginning of one foot[12, p. 039]. The special ecphonetic notes were created for reading in recitative in Byzantium; the same practice replicated in Georgian liturgy practice. Reading in recitative is attested in certain Georgian manuscripts such as Gelati Gospel [12th century, f. 279v]; manuscript. Q-908; Shiomgvime Typicon H-1349 [12th century]. Recitative is always monodic (one-tone), while hymns are monodic in Greek, and choral (polyphonic) in Georgian.

The oldest Iadgari. The Iadgari was separated from Georgian lectionary in the 6th century. Two types of Iadgari are known in scholarly literature: 1. the oldest Iadgari, following the Jerusalem-Stabbas liturgy traditions; 2. Great (new) Iadgari, created at Tao-Klarjeti Theological and Literary School. As a result of intensive hymnographic work, a large quantity of poetic troparia and sticheria-canons (as new poetic forms) were accumulated in 6th and 7th centuries’ Greek-language world, entailing creation of the first independent hymnographic and liturgical collection in Greek, named Tripologion. This Greek name and its Georgian counterpart Iadgari are mentioned in a note made to the 10th century’s Sinai Georgian manuscript Iadgari Tropologin [Sin. 11, 17v]. The term Iadgari apparently came into Georgian from Middle Persian, meaning memory, reminiscence, recollection [29, p. 597] and its introduction was based on the fact of knowing the chant repertory by memory.

Quite a few manuscripts of Iadgari have survived; they cannot be dated later than the 10th century. Iadgari is attributed to the early Georgian liturgy, based on the Jerusalem liturgy tradition. E. Metreveli grouped Iadgaris of Sinaitic and Palestinian origin considering the character of material they contained and the data of the church calendars: 1. Ancient Iadgari, widely spread in Palestine till the end of the 9th century, written in narrative style is identical to the ancient Georgian/Jerusalem lectionary and represents a hymnographic supplement to the latter; the first layer of this Iadgari had been translated into Georgian not later than in the second half of the 6th century. The following manuscripts belong to this group: Sin.18, Sin.40, Sin.41 and Papyrus and Parchment Iadgari H-2143. 2. A new type of Iadgari, created after the reform made by John of Damascus in hymnography in the 8th century differs from the ancient Iadgari by calendar. Hymns have been written according to the new style, in Byzantine verse, with the same rhythmic narrative, based on hirmos. Certain texts in the manuscripts are accompanied by notes of musical and rhythmic punctuation. The Greek model of these Iadgari was developed by the hymnographers representing Sabbaitic school in the 7th and 8th centuries, and supposedly, was translated into Georgian in the 9th century. This version of Iadgari had undergone a lengthy and difficult process of development.

Tsvirmi and Ieli (Upper Svaneti topographic names) Iadgaris also belong to the ancient types of Iadgari. Papyrus and Parchment Iadgari, Sinai Iadgari, Tsvirmi and Ieli Iadgari of Palestinian origin are considered to be from the same group; however, separate manuscripts differ. Ancient Iadgari manuscripts differ in terms of their completeness; none of them has survived in complete form, but merging surviving versions made possible to reconstruct the archetype of Iadgari, being considered the initial manuscript by the publishers of the Ancient Iadgari to be the Papyrus and Parchment Iadgari [9]. The notes made to some Iadgari define their purpose; namely, they are mentioned as Winter-Months Iadgari [Sin.1, 123v], All-Year Iadgari [Sin.65, 167v]; Iadgari of Hymns Searched For [Sin.40]; Winter-Months and Holidays Iadgari [Sin.64, 159r] [4, p. 139]. Almost all Ancient Iadgari manuscripts were created in two Georgian theological centers abroad: in the Palestine area – St. Sabbas the Holy Monastery (Mar Saba), St. Chariton Lavra, Palavra; and monastic centers on Mount Sinai. Scholarly literature confirmed as well that these two centers independently from each other had been creating slightly different but basically the same version of the Ancient Iadgari. The hymn created within the chronological period of practicing the Ancient Iadgari does not have a form, i.e. prosody system; it is given in narrative. The issue of form can become the subject of discussion only starting form 10th century, when hymns are performed in the even-syllable word form, iamb, or by the forms of secular poetry [Shairi and Pistikauri].

Iadgari contains rich hymnographic materials such as mono-stanza troparia; sticheria composed of more than one stanza; complete and incomplete hymnographic canons. In the 8th century a hymnographic canon was established, which is built on the model of 9 biblical chants. Each chant was named on the basis of its first word(s). In Georgian hymnography these names survived; while they have been lost in Greek and were thus named by numbers. From 9th century, chant practice was dropped from the liturgy; but from the 9th century it was restored by Ioane Minchkhi and Michael Modrekili; it can be found as well in the Months by Giorgi Mtatsmindeli. However, later it disappeared from Georgian hymnography altogether [31, p. 21-41]. Hymnographic canons, irrespective of whether they contain the second chant or not, contain the tenth one [ps. 148]. This was made for the purpose of for putting the canon into structural order.

Each chant is preceded by hirmos, which represents the first troparion of chant and is named by the first word(s) it starts with, meaning that the chanter knew them by heart. Hirmos defined the melody in which the hymn was chanted. Hirmos is not found in lectionaries, they did not exist at the early stage of hymnography. There are the canons, that do not contain hirmos at all.

From the 9th century hymns are put into the Iadgari, which are dedicated to the Georgian saints, recognized by the World Orthodox Church. For example, the hymn dedicated to Abo of Tiflis was first put into Papyrus and Parchment Iadgari [H-2123]. Of hymnographers flourishing in Palestine and on Mount Sinai the names of Basil of Mar Saba, Philippe of Bethlehem, Ioane-Zosime and Georgi are known [4, p. 149-152; 26, p. 732-3; 857-8; 29, p. 163]. In the 10th century the hymn Praise and Exaltation of the Georgian Language was created by Ioane-Zosime, which is considered to be a carrier of Georgian national consciousness and a messianic idea, and is preserved in four Sinai manuscripts.

Ancient Iadgari, developed in Georgian literary and theological centers active in Palestine reflected a centuries-long history of development of Greek and Georgian hymnographies of the Jerusalem period. None of the manuscripts of the Ancient Iadgari contain neumatic notation, not having the notes of rhythmic punctuation either. Most hymns contained in the Iadgari had been translated from Greek.

The foundation of Tao-Klarjeti Hymnographic School was laid down by Gregory of Khandzta (Grigol Khandzteli). Giorgi Merchule in his hagiographic work mentioned that he also wrote All-Year Iadgari. P. Ingoroqva attributed a part of the hymns found in Michael Modrekili’s Iadgari where no indication of their author had been made, - to Gregory of Khandzta [26, p. 771]; the assumption was not shared by scholars. Recent research has shown that the majority of these hymns had been translated from Greek and their author is John of Damascus. The hypothesis, according to which All-Year Iadgari by Gregory of Khandzta was the basis for Michael Modrekili’s Iadgari sounds reasonable. Gregory of Khandzta could have compile a former after his travel to Constantinople; by that time in the 8th century the reforms made in Byzantine hymnography by John of Damascus, Cosmas of Jerusalem and Andrew of Crete had already been completed.

Great (new) Iadgari. “10th Century’s Treasury” [M. Janashvili] – Mikael Modrekili’s collection of hymns S-425 [years 978-988] contains 544 pages and up to 200 hymns. The collection is composed of old Georgian translations of the Byzantine hymnographers’ well-known works and the heritage of prominent Georgian hymnographers such as Ioane Minchkhi, Ioane Konkosisdze, Ezra, Kurdiani, Stepane Sananoisdze-Chqondideli, Ioane Mtbevari and Mikael Modrekili that imports anthological value to the Iadgari. This is confirmed by the colophons written as complementary notes to the collection, which gives us information of its literary and historical significance. The Iadgari is noteworthy also by the fact that hymns are accompanied with musical notes; they are written in neumatic notation form, attracting the attention of musicologists studying hymnology. Mikael Modrekili tells us the story of the creation of the Iadgari himself; he gathered Georgian Mekhuri Hirmi and those translated from Greek [S-425, 24r] as well as hymns, which he included in the collection with accurate melody and notation [S-425, 262 r]. The colophons show that Mikael was not the first one to use neumes; they had been transferred from unknown originals. Mikael’s quote, saying that he found Georgian hymns with neumatic notation confirms that such hymns had already existed.

Correct interpretation of the terms Mekheli and Mekhuri is very important. K. Kekelidze pointed to the root ‘ekhos’ in these words, having the Greek origin and meaning ‘voice’. L. Jghamaia found the note about Mekhuri in Giorgi Mtatsmindeli’s two colophons written in the Months. The researcher shared Kekelidze’s assumption and considered the word Mekhuri as a musical term for the hymn that is chanted with voice. When defining the meaning of Mekheli and Mekhuri E. Metreveli mentions the Catholicos Melkisedek’s will, where the new and Mekhhuri Iadgari are separated and their names are developed according to different notes. Based on the sources of Melkisedek and Giorgi Mtatsmindeli, the scholar assumes that the Mekhuri Iadgari had an educational purpose [33, p. 169].

Only some Georgian manuscripts contain neumatic notation: Sin.1, Sin.14, Michael’s Iadgari [S-425] and Iordan’s collection [A-603]. Neumatic notation of the Mekhuri Iadgari means that Mekhelis were arranging hymns musically, in other words, they were professional musicians. Mekhelis observe the “rightness and accuracy of melody” and “faultlessness of notes“, when composing Mekhuri hymn [Michael Modrekili], „Power and cohesion of troparion” [Giorgi of Mtatsminda]. The Mekhuri Iadgari was composed by Mekheli who was a poet and composer at the same time. Starting from 11th century, Mekhuri Iadgari is not composed any more, thus putting the end to Mekheli’s epoch [33; 42].

Late 10th and early 11th century marked the shift of majority of hymns from Iadgari to the new type of hymnographic collections such as Months, Lents, Paraklitons, which had appeared and existed parallel to Iadgari already from the 10th century. In the wake of Greek Irmologion in the 9th and 10th centuries The Hirmos and Holy Mother Troparia were created in the Georgian language. The latter specific name cannot be found in Greek; it is characteristic of Georgian chant tradition, which can be explained by the fact that Georgia is considered an appanage of Holy Mother. The main function of hirmos was establishing connection between biblical chant and different canons.

Development of Octoechos in the 8th century in Byzantine hymnography is associated with the names of John Damascus, Cosmas of Jerusalem and Andrew of Crete. The collection contains hymns to be chanted each day of the week. All hymns in Greek liturgy until the 8th century were created and chanted in four tones. From the 8th century four more tones were added, in Georgian they were called Guerdni/Gerni (plagal tones). The Georgian octoechos contained the first four, basic tones named Voices, while the hymns for the additional four (plagal) tones were placed in the second collection, Parakliton, which was called Guerdni in Georgian. The final version of the Parakliton was based on the translation made by Giorgi of Mtatsminda.

In 10th century Georgian original Lents appeared as a separate collection, the first version of which belongs to Ioane Minchkhi [5], and the second - to Giorgi of Mtatsminda. Lents is followed by Zatikni (holiday hymns) [29, p. 595]. Before they appeared as separate collections, the hymns to be changed at Lent, Easter and the Bright Week were combined into a single collection, named Khuedrni, the first example of which found in Georgian hymnographic collections is preserved in Ancient Papyron and Parchment Iadgari.

Athos Hymnographic School. The hymnographic collection called Months, different from Iadgari turned out to be its natural continuation. The first version of Months belongs to Eptvime of Mtatsminda and represents a transtery step from Iadgari to the version of Months created by Giorgi of Mtatsminda. Based on the church calendar and materials of Great Synaxarion, Giorgi of Mtatsminda compiled the collection of hymns for 12 months called Months. He selected the best hymns from the old collections where the hymns were given chronologically from September to August, compared them to the Greek originals and arranged them poetically and musically. Afterwards, he translated the missing ones from the Greek and so created a complete and flawless Months. Giorgi Mtsire called The Months by Giorgi of Mtatsminda ‘Crown of the Holy Catholic Church, Decorated with Precious Stones’. No analogue to this work can be found even in Greek [29, p. 226]. The sources of Giorgi of Mtatsminda’s Months are listed in his colophons: 1. The Months preserved in St. Peter’s church in Antioch; 2. The Months preserved in the church of St. Simon the Tanner; 3. The Months, preserved in Hagia-Sophia monastery in Constantinople. As it was clarified, Giorgi of Mtatsminda pays a due tribute to Jerusalem-Sabbaite tradition since the Jerusalem and Constantinopolitan rites continued to co-exist in Georgia as well in the 12th century [28, p. XV]. The names of Georgian saints: St. Nino, St. Shushanik, St. Abo of Tiflis, and St. Kostanti Kakhi were introduced in the Iadgari. Giorgi of Mtatsminda also placed the hymns dedicated to Jodasaph, St. Nino, St Hilarion the Georgian (Ilarion Kartveli) and St. Eptvime into The Months. Giorgi’s The Months in fact forced from the liturgy practice the hymnographic collections used before that, thus his work, amended in the first quarter of the 12th century by Monk Arsen, remained the only operational hymn collection.

It took Giorgi of Mtatsminda quite some time to translate Paraklitoni from Greek into Georgian, where the hymns written for eight voices are arranged by Sunday and week-days. The years 1057-1060 are considered to be the date of creating the autograph of the work [32, p. 18-26]. Giorgi of Mtatsminda is the author of other hymnographic collections, such as Zatikni, Great Lents, where he introduced the translation of The Great Canon by Andrew of Crete; sticheria to be chanted on holidays throughout the year, and iambi added for the New Testament.

Well-known Georgian hymnographers active at Iviron monastery: St. Basil (Bagrationi) of Mtatsminda, Zosime and Ezra of Mtatsminda; hymns dedicated to Giorgi of Mtatsminda were written by Giorgi Shavmteli, Giorgi’s spiritual father [Metreveli].

Eprem Mtsire flourishing on the Black Mountain developed a new recension of Lents and created iambic verses. From non-liturgical hymnography he translated gnomic poems of Grigol the Divine and incorporated them under the name A hundred Iambi [18]. The monk Teopile, the author of non-liturgical hymns also flourished there.

Hymnography was not a dominant discipline in Gelati Theological School, but Arsen Iqaltoeli, Iezekieli, Ioane Petritsi and Petre Gelateli nevertheless wrote iambi, being noteworthy in terms of their typology and versification. In the 12th and 13th centuries hymns were created of distinguished theological and philosophical depth and symbolic meaning: David the Builder’s Hymns of Repentance, Demetre-Damiane’s Iambi, Nikoloz Gulaberisdze’s Hymns of Sueti Tskhoveli (Living Pillar), iambic verses known under Queen Tamar’s name Sky of the Skies and Of Virgins, Ioane Ancheli’s Hymns of Anchiskhati, Ioane Shavteli’s Hymns of the Vardzia Holy Mother, Arsen Bulmaisimisdze’s hymns dedicated to Martqopi icon of the Saviour, St. Nino, and Shio Mgvhimeli; Abuserisdze Tbeli’s two canons, Saba Svingelozi’s one canon [8] and Arsen Chqondideli’s six hymnographic canons.

The 17th and 18th centuries mark a new phase in the history of Georgian hymnography, when the hymns dedicated to the Georgian saints are being written. This activity was led by David Gareji Theological and Literary Center. In the 17th and 18th centuries the hymns of Nikoloz Maghalashvili, Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani, Grigol Vakhvakhishvili-Dodorkeli, Besarion Orbelishvili, Mariam-Makrina Bagrationi, Iese Eristavi, Nikoloz Cherkezishvili, Romanoz Eristavi, and Catholicos Anton were written. A new type collection, a holiday hymns collection, was developed, its first version belonging to Onopre of Gareji (Machutadze), head of Davit Gareji Lavra Theological School [A-160, 1699]. The work contains the hymns written in 10th and 11th centuries. Different versions of holiday collection have been discovered, so-called traditional, belonging to Besarion Orbelisshvili, Catalicos Domenti, Domenti Jandierisshvili, Epvtime Baratashvili, Aleksi Meskhishvili, Catholicos Anton [10].

Poetics of hymns. Several forms of prosody are found in Georgian hymnography: 1. So-called narrative hymn; 2. Strophic hymn, the meter, theme and melody of which are defined by hirmos, and 3. Iamb. So-called narrative forms are organized rhythmically but they do not have metric feet. As a result of study ????? versification principles of hymnographic works the following three forms of hymns were identified: 1. Syllable-strophic verse, i.e. classic old Georgian verse; 2. Uncut-syllable verse; 3. Even-syllable and even-strophic verse, shortly, even-syllable verse, free-style verse [26, p. 557-558]. In hymns written in iambic meter the metric punctuation, i.e. dots are used to point to the principle of equal number of syllables in each troparion.

Strophic verse, and as P. Ingoroqva defines, uncut-syllable verse is a classic form of hymn based on evenness of syllables in the strophe. It appeared in the Georgian hymnography following the Greek and was based on the hirmos-troparia system. It uses the versification means such as refrain, anaphora, euphony, etc., but it is not perceived as a verse. Iamb does not represent an integral part of the Georgian prosody system either. Iambic lines are rarely rhymed, and if they are, it mostly is a poor, so-called embryonic rhyme. Iambis of Borena and Demetre-Damiane are marked by rhythmic richness, where two and three syllables are rhymed in the strophe. These verses may be regarded as classic patterns of iamb, which is explained by their deep symbolic meaning as well. Georgian national prosody form of sixteen syllables is found in Georgian hymnography only in occasional cases. The same can be said about ten-syllable metric form, which is one of the forms of twenty-syllable verse. However, in the 10th and 12th centuries there are some patterns of hymns, written in sixteen-syllable meter, namely, Philipe and Georgy hymns [4].

Musical nature of hymns. One of the principal issues in Georgian hymnography is a choral (polyphonic) nature of Georgian chant. Existence of different modes in Georgian church chant is associated with the national foundation of its development. Georgian chant differs from Greek by polyphonic mode. Polyphony is a thinking category of ancient Georgian music.

Two opinions exist in this regard: 1. Georgian chant was transformed into the polyphonic chant after the 10th century; 2. According to musicologists, Georgian church chant had been original and polyphonic from the very early stages of its development. It incorporated pre-Christian polyphonic singing in the same way as Georgian hymnographic poetry incorporated the ancient metric forms of pre-Christian Georgian poetry, sixteen-syllable Shairi and Pistikauri; and the Christian architecture did with Classical Greek and Roman architectural forms. Polyphony and incorporation of old metric forms of Georgian poetry into religious chant speaks about the strength of Georgian national phenomenon.

Greek and Georgian neumatic systems are different. In the Greek hymns neumas appear above the text in one line, while in Georgian they appear both above and under the text, which point to the polyphonic nature of Georgian chant. Ivane Javakhishvili considered practicing polyphonic chant as an undoubted fact starting from 10th century, if not earlier [41]. Terminology related to the polyphonic Georgian chant is developed in 10th to 12th centuries; it was enriched with religious and philosophical depth by Ioane Petritsi in 12th century. Canonicity of Georgian church chant is confirmed by the argument between Giorgi of Mtatsminda and Patriarch of the Antioch, to whom the head of Iviron monastery proved the centuries-long independence and apostolic foundation of the Georgian church. The Holy Father would not have been able to express his position in such an assertive tone, had the polyphonic nature of Georgian church chant not been canonized long before. And here is one more detail: In 105 Giorgi of Mtatsminda went to Constantinople and presented to the Byzantine emperor a group of 80 orphan kids who sang a Greek chant to the emperor, meaning that they chanted in one voice. The emperor mentioned this detail, which indicates that he knew the difference between the Greek and Georgian chant, which lay in the polyphonic nature of the latter. Giorgi Merchule’s accentuated phrase: ‘Liturgy is conducted in the Georgian language and kirieleison is chanted in Greek’, where Georgian and Greek liturgies and different styles of chant are confronted, confirms the same. Conducting liturgy in Georgian does not imply the language only, but rather means attribution of Georgian style, i.e. polyphonic nature, to the chant as an integral part of the liturgy. Chanting kirieleison in Greek [Lord have mercy], according to the Greek tradition, meant to chant in one voice. [8, p. 23-54].

In the 12th century the religious and philosophical nature of Georgian chant was elaborated depth on and expanded by Ioane Petritsi in his summary written for the list of the definitions made for the Georgian translation of Proclus Diadochus work. Thereby, Ioane Petritsi separated three voices in Georgian chant: mzakhr (first), zhir (second) and bam (third).

Tone-setting technics when reading a hymnographic text through chant, created different metric order of poetic texts. Thus, the different melodic styles: Mtsiredgamshvenebuli, Gamshvenebuli and Chreli (with less variation of voices, with more variation of voices, and mixture of variation of voices and melodies, respectively) are believed to have co-existed in 10th and 11th centirues’ Georgian hymnography, based on the data provided in the 13th century manuscript A-85 [A-85, 238v]. Namely, the manuscript confirms the fact of existence of Chreli style, the most developed version of Gamshvenebuli, the meaning and essence of which is not explained in scholarly literature. In this period, reform was under way in Byzantine hymnography and a new melodic style was being introduced, which is associated with the name of John Kukuzel [34, p. 63-64; 38, p. 103]. Melodies are enriched but the canonic structure is strictly observed. This new melodic style is named melodious-callophone style [38, p. 103]. In the 19th century, chanters new the whole repertory of hymns by heart, they needed mnemonic signs as a mnemonic tool to remember the melody. Under the guidance of Bishops Alexander and Gabriel, Georgian church hymns were transferred to notes by Ph. Koridze, Brothers Karbelashvili, R. Khundadze, and E. Kereselidze.

Georgian hymnography does not represent heritage of Georgian theological culture solely. Its value is important for the whole Christian world as the expression of ancient Christian country‘s national tradition of chant practice, and, on the other hand, as an integral part of universal Christian theological culture and chant. The Georgian chant, a mixture of logos and melos, developed on the basis of national roots and emerged as a new form, combining the ancient Georgian literary traditions on the one hand, and, as a novelty, enriched with Christian symbols and philosophical depth. The rich language of Georgian hymnography plaid an important role in developing poetic language of Georgian literature, which naturally incorporated the principles of biblical hypo-and paradigmatic structure and means of expression that, in turn, enhanced the artistic vision of Georgian writers and broadened their intellectual thinking.

 References: 

1. The Athos Iberon Monastery 1074 manuscript with agapes, Jubilee edition of the church Museum, Ed. by M. Janashvili, Tbilisi 1901.
2. P. Ingoroqva, Old Georgian church poetry, I, Tbilisi 1913
3. К. С. Кекелидзе, Иерусалимский канонарь VII века, Тифлис, 1912.
4. Н. Я. Марр, Описание рукописей Синайского монастыря, Тб., 1940.
5. Ioane Minchkhi’s poetry. Prepared for publication with a study by Lela Khachidze, Tb. 1987
6. Neumed dzlispirni. Edited with a study indexes by Gulnaz Kiknadze, Tb. 1982
7. Ioane Petritsi. Works, II, edited by Sh. Nutsubidze and S. Qaukhchishvili, Tb. 1937
8. N. Sulava, Georgian hymnography of the 12th -13th centuries. Tb. 2003
9. Ancient Iadgari. Prepared for publication with a study and indexes by Elene Metreveli. Tsatsa chakniev and
Lili Khevsuriani, Tb. 1980
10. M. Kavtaria, On the history of old Georgian poetry (17th-18th c.), Tb. 1977
11. I. Javakhishvili, Description of the manuscripts of Mount Sinai, Tb. 1947
12. L. Jghamaia, “Months” of Giorgi the Athonite, September, tb. 2007
13. A. Bakradze, Image-symbols of church poetry, Coll. papers “Poetry”, Tb. 1981
14. K. Bezarashvili. Eprem Mtsire, the Hellenophiles and question of Greek-Georgian prosody, Pilologiuri dziebani, II, K. Kekelidze Institute of Manuscripts Publishers, Tb. 1995
15. K. Bezarashvili, Eprem Mtsire’s views on the relationship of classical literary form and Christian content. Literaturuli dziebani, XIX, Tb. 1998
16. A. Gatserelia, Questions of Georgian hymnography and versification, Selected writings, 3(2), versifications, Tb. 1981
17. L. Grigolashvili, David the Builders “Hymns of Repentance, Tb. 2005
18. D. Dolidze, Dogma and tradition in church music. Coll. Papers’ Church chants,
19. E. Dughashvili, Epithets denoting the Virgin in John Damascus’ canons of the Dormition and Nativity, Mravaltavi, K. Kekelidze Institute of MSS, Tb. 2005
20. M. Erkvanidze. On Georgian polyphony. Coll. Papers: Problems of the polyphony of church and secular music. Coll. Papers of the Nano Sarajishvili Tbilisi State Conservatoire, dedicated to the bimillanuary of Christianity. Proc. of an int. Sympozium in Georgian, English and Russian, Tb. 2001.
21.M. Tarkhnishvili, Letters, compiled with a study by Tamar Chumburidze, Tb. 1994
22. G. Imedashvili, Georgian classical chant the problem of poetic speech, Doctoral thesis, Tb. 1962
23. P. Ingoroqva, Giorgi Merchule, Tb. 1954
24. P. Karbelashvili, Georgian and church melodies, Historical review, Tb. 1898.
25. К. С. Кекелидзе, Литургические грузинские памятники в отечественных книгохранилищах и их научное значение, Тифлис, 1908.
26. K. Kekelidze, History of Georgia Literature, I, Tb. 1960
27. K. Kekelidze. An 11th c Mtskheta document and its concepts on Georgian literature. Studies in the history of old Georgian literature, I, Tb. 1956
28. L. Kvirikashvili. Compozition of hymnographic canon.Metsniereba, Tb. 1982
29. I. Lolashvili, Novelties of Athonite Georgian Manuscripts, Tb. 1982
30. E. Metreveli, Towards the interpretation of Mekheri and Mekhuri. Coll. Papers: Shota Rustaveli, Historico-philological researches. Acad. Kekelidze institute of MSS Publishers, Tb. 1966
31. N. Nakudashvili. The structure of a hymnographic text, Tb. 1996
32. Problems of the polyphony of church and secular music. Papers on an international conference devoted to the bimillennary of the birth Christ and three thousand years of Georgian statehood. Tbilisi V, Sarajishvili State Conservatoire Publishers. Tbilisi 2001
33. N. Sulava. Georgian Hymnography: tradition and poetics. Tb. 2006
34. N. Sulava, Mass is said in the Georgian language: Literaturuli dziebani, XXIV, Tb. 2003
35. Georgian church chants, the nation and tradition, Tb. 2001
36. S. QAukhchishvili, History of Byzantine literature, Tb. 1973
37. L. Khevsuriani, L. Jghamaia. On one copy of the 10th c. Great Iadgari, Mravaltavi, XVIII, Tb. 1999
38. I. Javakhishvili, The Basic questions of the History of Georgian music, XI, Tb. 1998
39. L. Jghamaia, Concerning mekhuri and mekheli, Bull. Dept of social sci, Georgian Acad. Sci. 1962, #3