|
|
The music of the Armenian Hymnal: the Tntesean corpus
Utidjian, Haig ; Daněk, Petr (advisor) ; Kindler, Evžen (referee) ; Troelsgaard, Christian Viggo (referee)
Haig Utidjian - Abstract In this thesis we attempt to establish, in as concrete and tangible a manner as possible, the procedures used by Ełia Tntesean (1834-1881) in compiling and redacting his version of the melodies of the Armenian Hymnal, and to place his own endeavour in the context of other attempts to record the melodies of Armenian hymns using the Limōnčean system of musical notation in nineteenth-century Constantinople - at a time when the mediaeval neumatic notation had already become largely intractable. Our approach entails the juxtaposition of Tntesean's musicological articles and paedagogical publications with his transcriptions in Western notation and with his mature realisations of the hymnal melodies in the Limōnčean system, published posthumously in 1934 - treating these sources as a coherent corpus, of which the diverse components are allowed to shed light on each other. Comparison with other hymnals from the same period, the investigation of parallels with the neighbouring practice of Ottoman makams, fieldwork with surviving remnants of the oral tradition, and a critical examination of Tntesean's writings and transcriptions enable us to elucidate aspects of notation and performance practice, and to expose a subtle evolution in aesthetic. Furthermore, a detailed analysis of the Tntesean...
|
|
|
Conquest of Constantinople 1204 and 1453
Hartl, Josef ; Picková, Dana (advisor) ; Suchánek, Drahomír (referee)
The goal of this thesis is the comparison of the Latin conquest of Constantinople by the troops of the Fourth Crusade in 1204 and the Ottoman Turks in 1453. Both of these milestones in the history of the Byzantine Empire meant a huge disaster and its aftermath had a profound impact on all structures of Byzantine society. Constantinople - political, spiritual and cultural center of Byzantium - thanks to its monumental system of its walls resisted many attempts to its conquer and this fact must necessarily set the enquiry of why in these two cases, the city defense failed. In this work I tried to dismantle both of falls in the widespread context of comparison and is not only a military and strategic point of view, where the differences between these events is evident. The Crusaders, which in 1204 conquered Constantinople, in any case could not be measured with a huge and highly disciplined army of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II. I focused on theme besiegers and their behavior to Romans. With well-known stereotype that crusaders meant to Constantinople greater disaster than the Ottoman Turks, one could argue. Recent findings of current historians refutes this general opinion and refer primarily to the fact that the Crusaders did not destroyed Byzantium, while successful attack Mehmed II. of...
|
guest ::
