Regarding reply #24, I do not see anything unreasonable about your hypothesis. In fact, it seems quite reasonable to me if the linguistic reality of Alexandrian worship was as you say it was at that time (which I have no reason to doubt; I just don't know enough about Alexandria specifically to say so). The only thing I was arguing was to be wary of the tendency to require evidence that is never forthcoming, or to use the fact that certain types of evidence will never be found to discount the opinions of scholars in the field. For me, it is enough that the scholars in the field all seem to think that these melodies must date back to earlier than documented times. If we are disallowed from extrapolating due to the lack of written/recorded evidence before a certain point, then we would be forced to say that Coptic music is not definitely older than the 19th century. This strikes me highly improbable for many, many reasons which are hopefully obvious enough that they needn't be enumerated here. Maybe there's a happy medium in there somewhere that would avoid embracing improbable claims on either end of the time line? (I'd be happy with "Roman Egypt", as substantiated by the music editor of the Coptic Encyclopedia referenced in my previous post.)
I would go a step farther and say, "Pharonic Egyptian origins are possible for Coptic music but no specific lineage can be proven or discredited."
I would add that Marian Robertson in her commentaries and articles commented that she had a very difficult time understanding Coptic music. Keep in mind, she was the only scholar, the lone pioneer of the 20th century. But Coptic ethnomusicology just began its movement within the past 2 years in Coptic Studies. It will take a few more years before enough scholars emerge to bring ethnomusicology into the forefront of Coptic studies.
[quote author=. link=topic=10644.msg129953#msg129953 date=1297108388] I would tend to agree. But why would they call it "Atribby" if it didn't come from "Atrib"?
But yeah, it still isn't any solid proof.
I can think of a few possible reasons why it is called attriby and not come from Atribis 1. Atribi can be Atharpc which means "empty-handed". Unlikely that this is it because it doesn't make sense. But I'm just trying to show Atribi etymologically can come from another word and not necessarily from a city called Atribis. 2. Atribi could also be hatreue which is Sahidic Coptic meaning "double thing" or "twin". This is plausible because Pekethronos, the Attribi hymn in question, is characterized by very long musical compositions that double up. Also remember, hatreue would be pronounced as /hadrewe/. attribi in Old Bohairic would be pronounced /adrewe/ which is very close to /hadrewe/. Many Sahidic words would not pronounce the hard Greek breath sound, so hamyn would be switched to amyn and pronounced /amen/.
I'm sure if I researched it more, I could find other possibilities. And in the end, Attribi may very well mean the hymn that came from the Pharonic and Roman city Attribis. But there is no concrete evidence for one hypothesis over another.
I would go a step farther and say, "Pharonic Egyptian origins are possible for Coptic music but no specific lineage can be proven or discredited."
Perfect. Agreed 100%.
I would add that Marian Robertson in her commentaries and articles commented that she had a very difficult time understanding Coptic music. Keep in mind, she was the only scholar, the lone pioneer of the 20th century. But Coptic ethnomusicology just began its movement within the past 2 years in Coptic Studies. It will take a few more years before enough scholars emerge to bring ethnomusicology into the forefront of Coptic studies.
Fair enough. My primary interest is linguistic, not musicological anyhow (though privately I do find that quite interesting). It must exciting to be working in an emergent field! Do you have any particular papers/journals you can recommend to the layperson?
dzheremi, LOL! I am not an ultra-sceptic. There are lots of things I am happy to believe.
But it has always seemed to me that we should be cautious when speaking of things that have no basis in fact, or even probablility. There is no problem at all, it seems to me, in stating that Coptic music, like the Coptic langage, is rooted in Phaoronic Egypt.
The issue I have is when folk suggest rather enthusiastically that THIS tune was used when the women were washing the clothes in the Nile, and THAT tune was used to celebrate the birth of a royal child etc etc. When there is no evidence at all for any specificities like this.
The reason I think that honesty and rigour are important is that:
i. It is very easy for a well-meaning falsehood to become an erroneous fact
ii. Such falsehoods tend to make things black and white when in fact we need to remain humble and accept the grey areas of vague knowledge
iii. People seeking for the truth are not encouraged when they discover that things which are stated with force turn out not to be true at all.
So when I hear that THIS tune was used for THIS purpose in the times of the Pharoah's I might well be very encouraged and think that I have found an ancient Church in which Tradition is very important and has been preserved. But when I discover that such knowledge is not based on any facts whatsoever then as an enquirer I might well react by becoming doubtful about a great many other things I am told - which may well be true.
Since the Church in Alexandria does seem to have used only Greek, and since those knowledgeable in Coptic hymns tell us that the words and tunes are very closely related. It does seem to me that the Coptic hymns must have been translated either a) as Greek was falling out of use, or b) for use earlier in the areas outside Alexandria. It does also seem then that the Coptic tunes must either have been composed as Greek was falling out of use, or were always used outside of Alexandria. In either case it does not require that Coptic music was ever unknown in Egypt. The fact that music in Westminster Abbey is of one style does not mean that there are not other English styles of music, which though not used in Westminster Abbey are still part of the culture of England.
I would like to guess that a) and b) took place. In Alexandria things were more Hellenistic and the liturgy was in Greek, but outside the Church in the city there were other forms of Christian music which were used in Coptic liturgies. As Greek began to be less used, the Coptic musical culture was used in its place and the best hymn writers and singers used the Coptic culture to compose new Coptic hymns and new Coptic versions of Greek hymns. The fact that there are still Greek hymns in the Coptic liturgical repertoire shows that this process of replacement was not final or absolute.
Ah, it's particular tunes, then? Yeah, I can see your point then. Forgive me, I thought you were dismissing the idea that the melodies themselves could be Phaoronic in origin. I definitely agree with your point about a "well-meaning falsehood" being accepted as fact (though "interesting factoid-itis" better describes what I see of this phenomenon; people seem to believe, for instance, that "the Eskimos" have X dozen/hundred/thousand words for 'snow' for no other reason than that this non-fact is considered really, really interesting for some reason).
And yes, I also agree about the areal influence of Greek in Alexandria on the tunes that may have been used elsewhere, and that this doesn't compromise the place of Coptic. It is certainly not an "either/or" situation, but a "both/and". And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. No Church exists in a vacuum. Heck, even the Latins used to worship in Greek, long ago. (And even the most debased "Novus Ordo" Mass still keeps the "Kyrie Eleison" in Greek...now if they'd only get rid of the awful organ music they obscure it with! :))
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=10644.msg130024#msg130024 date=1297144299] I can think of a few possible reasons why it is called attriby and not come from Atribis 1. Atribi can be Atharpc which means "empty-handed". Unlikely that this is it because it doesn't make sense. But I'm just trying to show Atribi etymologically can come from another word and not necessarily from a city called Atribis.
Possible, but as you say yourself, unlikely.
2. Atribi could also be hatreue which is Sahidic Coptic meaning "double thing" or "twin". This is plausible because Pekethronos, the Attribi hymn in question, is characterized by very long musical compositions that double up. Also remember, hatreue would be pronounced as /hadrewe/. attribi in Old Bohairic would be pronounced /adrewe/ which is very close to /hadrewe/. Many Sahidic words would not pronounce the hard Greek breath sound, so hamyn would be switched to amyn and pronounced /amen/.
The Atribi hymn in question is not Pek;ronoc, but Ke epertou. Pek;ronoc is in the "Shamy" tune (as is Au[non). Shamy suggests it is Syrian in origin.
I'm sure if I researched it more, I could find other possibilities. And in the end, Attribi may very well mean the hymn that came from the Pharonic and Roman city Attribis. But there is no concrete evidence for one hypothesis over another.
I agree, and would look forward to any research you would conduct :)
According to my reading the White Monastery of St Shenoute is only half a mile from the ruins and was known as Athribis/Atripe.
Therefore is it not very likely that the tune derives from the Monastery and not from the ancient city?
Since St Shenoute is so very important in the development of Coptic as a literary language and used Coptic in his Monastery it seems to me that this is the reason for the name of the tune. It came from the Monastery of Athribis and not the ruined city.
Fr Peter, Yes St. Shenoute's monastery is near Atripe. But again there is no real proof that this Atripe is the origin of the tune any more than the Ancient city of Athribis in the Delta.
Also, consider that Atripe had a different name in Roman Egypt and Pharonic Egypt (I don't remember it right now). So if the tune is Pharonic and it came from the Atripe of Upper Egypt then it would have been called by the Pharonic name, not the Coptic name Atripe.
And there is no evidence whatsoever that it came from St. Shenoute's monastery. We do have Typikon from St. Shenoute's monastery that show rubics and liturgical calendars. But they are completely different than what we have today. Most of those hymns were purely Greek. Fr. Ugo Zanneti is the foremost scholar on liturgical texts from St. Shenoute's monastery.
Dear all, Don't forget the power of the verbal transmission of traditions in the Coptic Orthodox church. We learnt many things through such. Whether some people were amplifying, or magnifying the information to make it sound or look better, I am not sure, but what I am sure of is that you will only find evidence for 0.001% of why we do things the way we do in the church now. Dear Remenkimi, I believe Atriba was still the name used in pharaonic Egypt. I don't think the name changed "during ?", or after the Roman era. Oujai
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=10644.msg130064#msg130064 date=1297185911]I believe Atriba was still the name used in pharaonic Egypt. I don't think the name changed "during ?", or after the Roman era.
The name of the city was "Hut-Repyt" in Pharonic times.
Thanks dear . You will notice that the name did not change as I said, but the city assumed a rather Bohairic (coming from the Greek) pronunciation for /hutrebat/ into /atriba/, or /adriba/ - The h, and "ayn" tend to soften down, and disappear altogether switching from Sahidic to Bohairic. Oujai
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=10644.msg130132#msg130132 date=1297203794] Thanks dear . You will notice that the name did not change as I said, but the city assumed a rather Bohairic (coming from the Greek) pronunciation for /hutrebat/ into /atriba/, or /adriba/ - The h, and "ayn" tend to soften down, and disappear altogether switching from Sahidic to Bohairic. Oujai
Comments
^ touche, mina, touche.
God Loves you, but God does not love your use of grammar, use grammar! :D
Regarding reply #24, I do not see anything unreasonable about your hypothesis. In fact, it seems quite reasonable to me if the linguistic reality of Alexandrian worship was as you say it was at that time (which I have no reason to doubt; I just don't know enough about Alexandria specifically to say so). The only thing I was arguing was to be wary of the tendency to require evidence that is never forthcoming, or to use the fact that certain types of evidence will never be found to discount the opinions of scholars in the field. For me, it is enough that the scholars in the field all seem to think that these melodies must date back to earlier than documented times. If we are disallowed from extrapolating due to the lack of written/recorded evidence before a certain point, then we would be forced to say that Coptic music is not definitely older than the 19th century. This strikes me highly improbable for many, many reasons which are hopefully obvious enough that they needn't be enumerated here. Maybe there's a happy medium in there somewhere that would avoid embracing improbable claims on either end of the time line? (I'd be happy with "Roman Egypt", as substantiated by the music editor of the Coptic Encyclopedia referenced in my previous post.)
I would go a step farther and say, "Pharonic Egyptian origins are possible for Coptic music but no specific lineage can be proven or discredited."
I would add that Marian Robertson in her commentaries and articles commented that she had a very difficult time understanding Coptic music. Keep in mind, she was the only scholar, the lone pioneer of the 20th century. But Coptic ethnomusicology just began its movement within the past 2 years in Coptic Studies. It will take a few more years before enough scholars emerge to bring ethnomusicology into the forefront of Coptic studies.
I would tend to agree. But why would they call it "Atribby" if it didn't come from "Atrib"?
But yeah, it still isn't any solid proof.
I can think of a few possible reasons why it is called attriby and not come from Atribis
1. Atribi can be Atharpc which means "empty-handed". Unlikely that this is it because it doesn't make sense. But I'm just trying to show Atribi etymologically can come from another word and not necessarily from a city called Atribis.
2. Atribi could also be hatreue which is Sahidic Coptic meaning "double thing" or "twin". This is plausible because Pekethronos, the Attribi hymn in question, is characterized by very long musical compositions that double up. Also remember, hatreue would be pronounced as /hadrewe/. attribi in Old Bohairic would be pronounced /adrewe/ which is very close to /hadrewe/. Many Sahidic words would not pronounce the hard Greek breath sound, so hamyn would be switched to amyn and pronounced /amen/.
I'm sure if I researched it more, I could find other possibilities. And in the end, Attribi may very well mean the hymn that came from the Pharonic and Roman city Attribis. But there is no concrete evidence for one hypothesis over another.
Dzheremi,
I would go a step farther and say, "Pharonic Egyptian origins are possible for Coptic music but no specific lineage can be proven or discredited."
Perfect. Agreed 100%. Fair enough. My primary interest is linguistic, not musicological anyhow (though privately I do find that quite interesting). It must exciting to be working in an emergent field! Do you have any particular papers/journals you can recommend to the layperson?
But it has always seemed to me that we should be cautious when speaking of things that have no basis in fact, or even probablility. There is no problem at all, it seems to me, in stating that Coptic music, like the Coptic langage, is rooted in Phaoronic Egypt.
The issue I have is when folk suggest rather enthusiastically that THIS tune was used when the women were washing the clothes in the Nile, and THAT tune was used to celebrate the birth of a royal child etc etc. When there is no evidence at all for any specificities like this.
The reason I think that honesty and rigour are important is that:
i. It is very easy for a well-meaning falsehood to become an erroneous fact
ii. Such falsehoods tend to make things black and white when in fact we need to remain humble and accept the grey areas of vague knowledge
iii. People seeking for the truth are not encouraged when they discover that things which are stated with force turn out not to be true at all.
So when I hear that THIS tune was used for THIS purpose in the times of the Pharoah's I might well be very encouraged and think that I have found an ancient Church in which Tradition is very important and has been preserved. But when I discover that such knowledge is not based on any facts whatsoever then as an enquirer I might well react by becoming doubtful about a great many other things I am told - which may well be true.
Since the Church in Alexandria does seem to have used only Greek, and since those knowledgeable in Coptic hymns tell us that the words and tunes are very closely related. It does seem to me that the Coptic hymns must have been translated either a) as Greek was falling out of use, or b) for use earlier in the areas outside Alexandria. It does also seem then that the Coptic tunes must either have been composed as Greek was falling out of use, or were always used outside of Alexandria. In either case it does not require that Coptic music was ever unknown in Egypt. The fact that music in Westminster Abbey is of one style does not mean that there are not other English styles of music, which though not used in Westminster Abbey are still part of the culture of England.
I would like to guess that a) and b) took place. In Alexandria things were more Hellenistic and the liturgy was in Greek, but outside the Church in the city there were other forms of Christian music which were used in Coptic liturgies. As Greek began to be less used, the Coptic musical culture was used in its place and the best hymn writers and singers used the Coptic culture to compose new Coptic hymns and new Coptic versions of Greek hymns. The fact that there are still Greek hymns in the Coptic liturgical repertoire shows that this process of replacement was not final or absolute.
Who knows.
And yes, I also agree about the areal influence of Greek in Alexandria on the tunes that may have been used elsewhere, and that this doesn't compromise the place of Coptic. It is certainly not an "either/or" situation, but a "both/and". And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. No Church exists in a vacuum. Heck, even the Latins used to worship in Greek, long ago. (And even the most debased "Novus Ordo" Mass still keeps the "Kyrie Eleison" in Greek...now if they'd only get rid of the awful organ music they obscure it with! :))
The author discusses the various influences on Coptic music of Egyptian, Hebrew and Greek liturgical music.
I can think of a few possible reasons why it is called attriby and not come from Atribis
1. Atribi can be Atharpc which means "empty-handed". Unlikely that this is it because it doesn't make sense. But I'm just trying to show Atribi etymologically can come from another word and not necessarily from a city called Atribis.
Possible, but as you say yourself, unlikely. The Atribi hymn in question is not Pek;ronoc, but Ke epertou. Pek;ronoc is in the "Shamy" tune (as is Au[non). Shamy suggests it is Syrian in origin. I agree, and would look forward to any research you would conduct :)
Therefore is it not very likely that the tune derives from the Monastery and not from the ancient city?
Since St Shenoute is so very important in the development of Coptic as a literary language and used Coptic in his Monastery it seems to me that this is the reason for the name of the tune. It came from the Monastery of Athribis and not the ruined city.
Father Peter
Yes St. Shenoute's monastery is near Atripe. But again there is no real proof that this Atripe is the origin of the tune any more than the Ancient city of Athribis in the Delta.
Also, consider that Atripe had a different name in Roman Egypt and Pharonic Egypt (I don't remember it right now). So if the tune is Pharonic and it came from the Atripe of Upper Egypt then it would have been called by the Pharonic name, not the Coptic name Atripe.
And there is no evidence whatsoever that it came from St. Shenoute's monastery. We do have Typikon from St. Shenoute's monastery that show rubics and liturgical calendars. But they are completely different than what we have today. Most of those hymns were purely Greek. Fr. Ugo Zanneti is the foremost scholar on liturgical texts from St. Shenoute's monastery.
Don't forget the power of the verbal transmission of traditions in the Coptic Orthodox church. We learnt many things through such. Whether some people were amplifying, or magnifying the information to make it sound or look better, I am not sure, but what I am sure of is that you will only find evidence for 0.001% of why we do things the way we do in the church now.
Dear Remenkimi,
I believe Atriba was still the name used in pharaonic Egypt. I don't think the name changed "during ?", or after the Roman era.
Oujai
The name of the city was "Hut-Repyt" in Pharonic times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hut-Repyt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athribis
You will notice that the name did not change as I said, but the city assumed a rather Bohairic (coming from the Greek) pronunciation for /hutrebat/ into /atriba/, or /adriba/ - The h, and "ayn" tend to soften down, and disappear altogether switching from Sahidic to Bohairic.
Oujai
Thanks dear .
You will notice that the name did not change as I said, but the city assumed a rather Bohairic (coming from the Greek) pronunciation for /hutrebat/ into /atriba/, or /adriba/ - The h, and "ayn" tend to soften down, and disappear altogether switching from Sahidic to Bohairic.
Oujai
Sounds good :D