Browse By Person
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Coptic Orthodox Church
Festive Introduction to the Difnar
Faithfull Servant 1
edited January 2014
I was wandering if anyone knew anything about the festive intro to the difnar that Coptic Reader mentions? If anyone has a recording of it too that would be great!
It is the same tune as the Kiahk's Exposition/Commentary of the Doers. Both hymns have a long and a short way (the long way is the Exposition of the Doers tune). It is recorded by HCOC and many cantors. Ibrahim Ayad says it for the Resurrection feast commentary "Chioowini" which is said after the sermon while the Pope is greeting political dignitaries. You may be able to find it on youtube.
Faithfull Servant 1
edited January 2014
Thanks a lot, and I did some digging and found them online:
Watos Intro in Joyful Tune
Adam Intro In Joyful Tune
But what I noticed is that both sources don't say the long intro as in Chioooini or Pikristos Penswtyr, Is it still right to say it the long way on them?
Let me clarify some things...first, the 2 recordings are of the SAME tune, one is m Tawfik and the other is M Faheem. I wouldn't be surprised if M Fahim learned it from m Tawfik.
So the different tunes of commentaries and the difnar, since it always follows the commentaries tune (otherwise its just annual)--we lost MANY of those tune and don'e have much of them. I don't wanna list all of them here....but about the festive tune, Chi-oinee is the commentary of the Day of the Resurrection. It is to be said after the gospel on the feast's liturgy, which is on a sunday, which makes that commentary an adam one. In nahdet elkanayes khidmit, says that it is to be said like Tarh elfa'ala of Kiahk, which is also an adam commentary (makes sense). That tune is not lost, we have a recording. It has like 2-3 min of hazzat and then the parts are constructed. the recordings above is tarh elfa3la without that 2-3 min of hazzat and that was recorded and handed down and was/is chanted by many (myself many times in church because it's easy). M Ibrahim in the 2010 Easter liturgy rakeep tarh elfa'a way on chi-o-oinee, which it is supposed to be said in:
. ALL of this, is just for the Adam commentaries. now for watos, we know NOTHING!!! and i would love for Albair or someone to provide us a source or a recording or even a teaching (modern or ancient) on what is the way/tune for the watos festive commentary tune.
Faithfull Servant 1
Oh... well since the watos one isn't legit what do we say instead? But the adam one is legit... right?
I would say the annual watos one until someone replies with someone info....i am not really a search and i never do enough research to conclude that 'there exists no watos tune'
From what I have seen from muallimeen in Cairo during festive periods they chant the Adam and Watos both in the tar7 el fa3la tune. I don't know their source suffice to say most Likely Didymus Institute.
well adam and watos text is different. i believe watos always has more syllables. it doesn't make sense to use the same tune accept if you are saying the SAME tarh through all those days. so if the tarh is an adam one, the adam tune would always work.
There is no disputing that generally speaking Adam and Watos are different. However there is a similar scenario on Palm Sunday where the Watos commentary from vespers is also used during Matins on Sunday morning. There is simply no Adam Hosanna tune around just like there is no Watos festal tune in existence.
Faithfull Servant 1
Makes sense but I agree, If the syllable structure is different then there should be a different tune to suit them so I think there should be another tune for watos difnar in farahy or else the tune wont work too well on the amount of syllables there are, (have you ever tried saying a watos psali in an adam tune... it doesn't work.) With Palm Sunday and Feast of the Cross, correct me I'm wrong, there is a set text for the expositions with a set tune that works, so it doesn't matter whether it is adam or watos the tune for the expositions will always work on the text of the Feasts because they don't change over the days (i.e the exposition is always the same) likewise with the tune. So what I'm getting at is that the texts don't change so the tune doesn't need to, however in Farahy the texts in fact do change and the mode they are in (watos or adam). So there definitely should be a watos ferahy tune out there. But if it is lost, if it sounds nice and works on watos sentence structure then why not use the adam ferahy tune? But if it does sound shocking and doesn't work out alright I reackon just stick to annual as Mina suggested or alternatively mabey we can use the Palm Sunday exposition tune, seeing they have a watos sentence structure the tune would work.
Or we can just scrap everything and just read out the difnar
... whatever works
....i don't know if i spoke to you about this before or not. but Palm sunday commentary has an adam and watos. the current book everyone uses, Epsaliat wa Turuhat, 1 or 2 edition, does not have coptic text for the adam but i have found it elsewhere even though it just says 'wa laho aydan' rather than it being adam. So the text exists but the tune is lost. and btw, the only source for mashenak is m Fahim...possibly made up or extracted from the sha'anini sherat.....not that i we don't say it, we do every time
. so it's not really an exception but simply the same issue.
One thing i found though, i saw chi-o-oinee text in books and it is titled to be a watos commentary. I think I have been mistaken all this time and calling it an adam. but than it's weird because the commentary of bright saturday is watos and it is to be chanted in chi-o-oinee tune.
just too much confusion......anyone has any knowledge about commentaries in old manuscripts?
I will check some old manuscripts. Keep in mind, Chiooni is not only said during Resurrection feast liturgy. It is also said for the Resurrection psalmody (it is one of the added commentaries) and I believe the added parts of Resurrection psalmody was said throughout the 50 days. So theoretically, if you had a Wed-Sat liturgy, one would do the entire Resurrection psalmody with all the additional parts, including chiooni.
I think the commentaries (ie, the difnar) is a late development which included a breakdown between Adam and Batos days with respective tunes. But I also think some turuhat (maybe doxology is a better word) were very famous and said all the time regardless of the day of the week. When these turuhat were added to the difnar, they fell into Adam or Batos days inconsistently. This is only a theory that needs more research. There is a Copt in the Netherlands who is doing his Phd on the difnar. I will check his work also.
I think as it stands, the festive difnar/turuhat is said in one tune applied to all days of the week.
...I don't totally agree. That specific tarh is only for that evening liturgy and then there are a commentary for every week that is to be said. now for the whole special psalmody, with the psalies, commentaries and the hoos, I strongly disagree with idea of saying them though all days. This goes for the Lent one to especially since in both psalmodies there are 2 sets (adam and watos) for all days. For lent, you do all the special psalies only on sundays and weekdays just those 2 regular psalies before the theotokia. For the Fifties, There are definitely 2 that are to be used during the entire whole fifties and the special psalies to be said only on the Eve of the Feast. I can "tolerate" saying them also on sundays but i can't accept saying them on weekdays.
As for the commentaries and difnar, i do see the connection you are trying to make and i did see it when i was editing the natvity psalmody (the paramoun ones atleast)--i saw many of the commentaries taken from the difnar with some extra or missing parts. But i do not see it in all the commentaries that are in recent books.
Just for clarification, I was talking about certain things I've seen in old manuscripts and Ibn Kabar's, The Lamp. I was not talking about current practice. Current practice has become more standardized but it wasn't like this prior to 18th-19th century. I did not mean to advocate we should pray the festal psalmodies with the additional parts every week as it seems to have been done centuries before. This practice has been changed too. I simply wanted to show that the result of splitting commentaries/expositions into Adam and Batos has some inconsistency, especially the tunes for certain feast expositions that have been lost.
I just reviewed HICS Theophany recordings with Fr Metias. He does the Adam difnar as annual and the Batos as the "fast joyous" tune (i.e., not Kiahk Commentary of the Doers). From the evidence so far, the festive tune is Batos only and there is no Joyous Adam tune.
I will also add that in my research of Ibn Kabar, he opposed calling the concept of "seasonal tunes".
“And the praise that comes after the
], is called
in all shades at all times
”. In another passage concerning the
, he writes, “It is, as the conclusion of the Saturday
Ⲭⲉⲣⲉ ⲑⲏⲉⲑⲙⲉϩ ⲛ̀ϩ̀ⲙⲟⲧ (Shere the ethmeh enehmot) to the
. And its tones,
are rules for the
tone, [which] are happy, happy and sad, sad. It is the Nativity,
, and the Pentecost known tones.”
disapproved of using terminology
such as the
“Joyous ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩⲱⲉϩ ⲛ̀ⲥⲱⲕ(Tenoweh ensok)”
ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩⲱⲉϩ ⲛ̀ⲥⲱⲕ(Tenoweh ensok)” instead of
ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩⲱⲉϩ ⲛ̀ⲥⲱⲕ (Tenouweh ensok)”.
Here we can see that Batos is irrespective of season (and possibly the day of the week). Following your comments on Palm Sunday Commentary/Tahr, it seems all turuhat were Batos with respect to the tunes (not one tune) but later Batos indicated day of the week rather than tune so the Adam tarn was added with the annual tune only.