e-book Novos Cantos (Ilustrado) (Literatura Língua Portuguesa Livro 1) (Portuguese Edition)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Novos Cantos (Ilustrado) (Literatura Língua Portuguesa Livro 1) (Portuguese Edition) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Novos Cantos (Ilustrado) (Literatura Língua Portuguesa Livro 1) (Portuguese Edition) book. Happy reading Novos Cantos (Ilustrado) (Literatura Língua Portuguesa Livro 1) (Portuguese Edition) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Novos Cantos (Ilustrado) (Literatura Língua Portuguesa Livro 1) (Portuguese Edition) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Novos Cantos (Ilustrado) (Literatura Língua Portuguesa Livro 1) (Portuguese Edition) Pocket Guide.

Ver artigo principal: J. Ribeiro dos Santos. Ver artigo principal: Livraria Quaresma. Ver artigo principal: Livraria Francisco Alves. Ver artigo principal: Companhia Editora Nacional. Ver artigo principal: Livraria Martins Editora. Blog Junho. In: Hallewell, L.

Companhia das Letras, , v. In: Hallewell, , p. In; Hallewell, , p. The third annual cycle, that of the Octoechos, began on Sunday of All Saints with the attribution of the 8th tone. On the following Sundays the tones rotate repeatedly from 1 to 8. The Octoechos sequence finished on the 5th Sunday of Lent, in the same way as in the Studite and Jerusalem traditions.

However, as far as the connection between the Triodion and Octoechos cycles is concerned on Lenten weekdays, these two traditions are very often found to be incompatible. Each of the eight tones of the Octoechos ran for an entire week. Each day of the week, however, had its own dedication or dedications.

These dedications were not definitively fixed almost until the new Typikon came into force in Russia. The same phenomenon may be seen in the books of the Southern Slavs. Table 2 shows the differences between the dedicatory systems, as shown in the Matins canons from two Russian Paraklitiki17 and the Serbian Octoechos Tip. The dedications for the weekdays, as well as those of the commemorations of the Menaion and Triodion cycles, were applied to the cycle of daily liturgical services. John Chrysostom, the Divine Liturgy of St. The daily celebrations of Divine Liturgy, Vespers and Matins account for the greater part of the chants.

In the other services intoned reading of psalms predominated, only rarely intercalated with troparia, and prayers. The whole collection of chants for Divine Liturgy, Vespers and Matins may be divided into two groups: the fixed and the variable. The fixed chants, in Byzantium as in Russia, were noted down only very late. This is the reason for the Divine Liturgy, in which fixed chants are the majority, being the most enigmatic service in melodic terms. Vespers and Matins also have fixed chants, and the situation is similar to that of the Liturgy.


  • .
  • Used - AbeBooks.
  • !
  • OECD Reviews of Regional Innovation: Basque Country, Spain 2011 (ECONOMIE);
  • .

However, it is also in these services that the majority of the variable chants is used, from the cycles of the Octoechos, Menaion and Triodion. It is the variable chants that are to be found in many surviving sources, and allow us to obtain some idea as to the melodic aspect of these services. In Table 3, one may see the composition of Vespers, a more compact service than Matins, in three festal cases: the Afterfeast of the Birth of the Theotokos and Sts. Matins is a more extensive service, and includes several sections, made up by sung or recited psalms, including antiphons, psalm verses intercalated with the troparia on God is the Lord , alleluia or stichera, troparia of various kinds, litanies, prokeimenon, Gospel readings, the lives of the Saints and other prayers.

However, one of the largest and most important sections is the canon. The canon includes, apart from readings, no less than nine kinds of canticles. The possibility of reconstructing the canon in detail as regards its performance in Studite practice leaves a number of doubts, given the fact that the Russian Typika of the time do not aim to explain but simply to remind the reader of what is obvious. For this reason, in Table 4 an attempt at such a reconstruction is made.

The canon chosen is that of the Feast of St. Sabbas, on 5th of December. The source is a Russian Znamenny Menaion of the 12th century;18 the Typikon used for the reconstruction dates from the same century. The use of the Octoechos is prescribed by Typikon , which indicates for this situation a combination of two canons: first one from the Octoechos, and then that for St. Sabbas, whose stikhi the Typikon must here be referring to the troparia are doubled.

The way in which the ode is to be divided is not mentioned for this day, but a division into ten has been used, as prescribed in many similar festal situations. The counting of the troparia was done with reference to the above-mentioned Paraklitiki from the 12thth century. The litanies, though never mentioned by Sinod. These hymns appear in the books with three kinds of notation: Kondakarian, which has already been mentioned, Fita notation and Znamenny notation, the chief notation in Russian sources, with origins in palaeo-Byzantine chant.

Znamenny notation has various levels of complexity, which are reflected in the neumatic content. Another, rarer, type uses unusual symbols and appears in more complex melismatic chants. Some of these hymns introduce kondakarian neumes into the main Znamenny notation.

Literatura Portuguesa - Humanismo

These cases are associated with melismatic stichera compositions dedicated to Russian saints, which, when they were written down had not yet attained the stability of a written tradition;22 an example is the sticheron to the first Russian martyrs, Boris and Gleb, in the Sticheraria of the Menaion Russian National Library, Sof. Moving on to an examination of the general characteristics of Russian and Slavic liturgical books of the Studite era, it is useful to recall the principal sources of information concerning them.

It was published in Moscow in , and includes information on manuscripts, of which 78 have notation. The quantity of books mentioned in the Preliminary List is 1,, amongst them 1, from the 14th century. Of these, however, only six of the latter have notation. Even examining superficially the proportion of notated to non-notated manuscripts from the 14th century, one arrives at the conclusion that the data in the Preliminary List is incomplete, something confirmed several times by scientific publications discussing different aspects of the manuscript tradition.

In Appendices I and II there was added information concerning books from the 12thth centuries that had not been included in the previous Catalogue, and corrections to the material published therein, relating to bibliography, dating of the books or sections of them, more exact information concerning their composition, and identification of the various scribes.

The entire corpus of notated liturgical books may be separated into two large groups. The first group comprises collections of hymns of the same genre. As far as their function is concerned, these books probably served as manuals of information, and were not intended for use during services. Some of the collections belong to a liturgical cycle, for example, the collections of stichera of the Sticherarion of the Menaion.

Free Best Sellers Ebook Spirit Of Friendship By Colin Edward Offland Pdf

They all contain Znamenny notation, and in four cases the main notation is supplemented by Fita notation and Kondakarian notation. This group of manuscripts is completed by a Bulgarian fragment for the feast of the Dormition from the midth century, in Fita notation. The Sticherarion of the Triodion assemble the stichera of the Lenten Triodion and the Pentecostarion in the same book. Seven complete Russian Znamenny manuscripts survived, written between the 12th and the 14th century, and fragments of a 12th century manuscript,24 which belonged to the Hilandar Monastery on Mount Athos.

Copenhagen, The level of variety tends to increase for the great feasts. Another factor that contributed to the compositional instability of the stichera is the introduction in some of them of complementary genres, such as the sedalen, the svetilen and troparia. The irmoses of the canons are found collected in the Heirmologia. All the neumatic Heirmologia surviving in Russian libraries are of Russian origin, and contain exclusively Znamenny notation.

Petersburg of the Hilandar Heirmologion. The Heirmologia contain the hymns for all three annual cycles. With regard to the time at which the Russian Heirmologia appeared, from the 12th and 13th centuries, all the surviving manuscripts are neumatic. From the 14th century onwards, with the exception of the fragment mentioned above, all the Heirmologia four complete Russian books, one Russian fragment and one Serbian fragment are not notated.

The Kontakaria already mentioned mix variable hymns of the three cycles with fixed hymns. Two types of Russian collections, the Paraklitiki and the Izborni Octoechos, include Russian hymns from the Octoechos cycle. The Izborni Octoechoi were made up of stichera and sedalny, grouped by tone; in the Paraklitiki were recorded the weekly and Sunday canons of all the tones. The distribution of the hymns in two generic sections is typical of the oldest Byzantine Octoechoi.

The later type of Octoechos in both traditions, including the Southern Slavic, is a book that follows the liturgical sequence. Fragments of cycles of hymns with Znamenny notation are found in two books: a Svetilen in the Shestodniev Sluzhebny27 of the 14th century, and a section from the Stichera, which would normally appear in the Izborny Octoechos, appears in a partly-notated manuscript from the first 25 Published: E.

To the end of the 13th century or beginning of the 14th belong one complete Bulgarian manuscript and one fragment, and one Serbian fragment. From the 14th century to the first half of the 15th century the quantity of Octoechoi, mainly Russian, grew rapidly: no fewer than fifteen complete and fragmentary manuscripts are mentioned in the PS Catalogue. More recent publications by Russian scholars make mention of manuscripts which were not included in this catalogue, some of which use Fita notation. A similar situation occurs with the Russian Paraklitiki.

The only book with notation, in this case Znamenny, comes from the end of the 12th century-beginning of the 13th. From the end of the 12th century to the beginning of the 15th century there survive eight complete and fragmentary Russian Paraklitiki and two Serbian fragments without notation. Apart from the books dedicated entirely to the order of the Octoechos cycle, hymns from this cycle with notation may be found in other books.

There are known cases of sequences of hymns from the Octoechos in Kontakaria,29 which have even led scholars to believe that the second parts of these books fulfilled the function of the Octoechos during this period. The idea behind such a book is clearly seen in its name: Sbornik Collection. The second group, more recent than the books organized by genre, is made up of books organized according to the daily liturgical sequence. The majority of surviving books is made up of Menaia.

Puti vo vremeni. In accordance with the Studite rule, on the Sundays during this period the stichera of the Octoechos were sung, with the exception of great feasts. In the liturgical practice of old Russia, these ancient type of Menaion coexisted with complete Menaia, which contains the hymns for all the days of each month of the year, and is therefore made up of twelve volumes.

Each of the multiple surviving separate volumes was conceived as part of a set. In recent years, scholars have revealed three partially complete sets of Menaia. All of them come from Novgorod, one of the most important cities, both politically and culturally, in ancient Russia, that suffered least from the Tartar invasion. To the second group belong five Menaia, without notation, from the 11thth centuries, from the Tipograf Collection Tip. They have Znamenny notation and include, as well as the stichera, the troparia for the notated canons.

Of the total number of surviving Menaia, complete or fragmentary, most of those that contain Znamenny or Fita notation were written at the end of the 11th century or beginning of the 12th the sets include twenty-two Russian manuscripts. There are eighteen books without notation from the same period, of which only one is Bulgarian the fragment of the Festive Menaion from the RNB Collection.

From the 13th century to the 15th, the number of notated books diminished suddenly one Russian manuscript and two Bulgarian , while the number of books without notation increased more than complete manuscripts, Russian, Bulgarian and Serbian.

Sheila Jasanoff: localizing the global

The next-most numerous liturgical book after the Menaia, in terms of the number of surviving Russian and South-Slavic exemplars, is the Triodion. The compilation of these books presents a peculiarly complex and multifaceted case. The manuscript copies of the Triodion are so different from each other that it is difficult to find even two that are identical. From the end of the 19th century, there were various attempts at classification of the Triodia of the Studite tradition.

In recent times a classification scheme was suggested which distinguished seven types,33 which differ in particularities of tradition, choice of texts and the order of the hymns within the service. Two of these seven types characterize Russian Triodia, three the Bulgarian books and two the Bulgarian and Serbian. The disposition of the hymns does not correspond to the liturgical order, something characteristic of the oldest books. Lexical- orthographical analysis has lead scholars to believe that the scribe Moisei Kiyanin, who probably lived in Kiev before moving to Novgorod, where the manuscript is likely to have been written, made this copy directly from the Bulgarian original.

It was this scribe who, according to current scholarly opinion,35 signed the book, so that it was given the name Triodion of Moisei Kiyanin. In general, the manuscript lacks notation; only three folios contain hymns with notation. This type of Triodion is divided into Lenten Triodion and Pentecostarion, the ordering of the hymns, as with the Moisei Kiyanin Triodion type, not corresponding to the liturgical order. Another five copies of the Lenten Triodion from the 14th century and one from the 15th have been classified as this type. Each one of the surviving Lenten Triodia of this kind was also paired with a Pentecostarion, though today no complete set is known.

The Triodion , completely notated in Znamenny, is no exception, but an idea of the composition of its lost second part may be gathered from two other Pentecostaria, belonging to the same type. II, p. These are preserved in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Sofia. In addition to the above-mentioned Russian and Slavic Triodia, divided into seven groups, Russian libraries also possess many other copies, with and without notation, of the Lenten Triodia and Pentecostaria, as well as Lenten Sticheraria, which have not until now been classified.

The overall picture of the temporal distribution of the manuscripts in Russian libraries, both with and without notation, duplicates the situation of other liturgical books: from the 11thth centuries only notated copies have survived, the notation being either Znamenny or Fita — seven books in all; the number of manuscripts with and without notation from the 13th century is more or less identical six of the former and seven of the latter ; from the end of the 13th century to the beginning of the 15th century there has not survived a single Triodion with notation, while the number of books without notation — thirty-three Russian, twelve Bulgarian and ten Serbian — is significantly greater than in the early period.

In looking at Russian liturgical books with notation, one can see that the end of the 11th century-beginning of the 13th century is the richest of the whole period; a continual reduction may be seen during the course of the 13th century, many of the books have survived in fragmentary form, or only partially notated, and from the 14th century very few examples exist. Various more important manuscripts may not have survived: the balance between the surviving books with different characteristics of genre, composition, language and neumes may not correspond to the balance between them at the time when they were functional books.

However, there exist still sufficient materials to aid us to understand the liturgical tradition, and particularly the written tradition, of the Studite era in Russia. This leads one to consider the existence of a period previous to the development of the art of chanting, which could have begun before the official Christianization of Russia, and also the possible contacts in the field of chanting with Byzantium as well as with the Southern Slavs.

Many Russian manuscripts were copies of Bulgarian books, a good number of which, like the Bulgarian and Serbian manuscripts themselves, continue the Fita notation. However, in the Russian manuscripts Fita notation already gives way in the early period to Znamenny notation in quantitative terms. As mentioned above, Znamenny notation is only found in Russian manuscripts.

The fact the Znamenny notation was derived from Palaeo-Byzantine notation has been known for a long time. However, it is important to remember that in the 12th century, Byzantium changed to Middle-Byzantine diastematic notation. From an early date, Russia made a point of comparing her manuscripts with those of the Greeks. The notational reform which took place in Byzantium could not have been unknown in Russia.

Nevertheless, the masters of Russian chant did not wish to adopt diastematic notation. The prevalence of adiastematic notation that is, not diastematic is supposedly explained by the significant distancing of Russian chant in relation to its Byzantine prototype in the 12th century. Over the course of time, this distancing increased. From the end of the 13th century, Znamenny notation ceased to spread; the reason apparently being not limited to the political situation the Tartar invasion , which seems evident, since this limitation continued during the course of the 14th century, with the sharp increase in number of manuscripts without notation.

The rare notated books from this period contain stenographic Fita notation, which did not impede the process of the change in intonation of the repertoire. This transitional process terminated with the formation of the style of Russian liturgical chant, which assumed its shape by means of re-conceived Znamenny notation. From the 15th century in Russia the Jerusalem Typikon became widespread, the liturgical books were modified and Znamenny chant, in its renewed form, became one of the most important elements of the genuinely Russian liturgical system.

For this reason, I have been asked to present today a brief survey of some areas of current research with a view to providing a tool that may facilitate investigation on the part of scholars working in other areas; I shall concentrate specifically on areas of research as they relate to performance. It is, perhaps, not generally appreciated by those working outside this field just how interlinked are academic research and performance.

In the areas of both Byzantine and Russian chant, increasing appreciation of questions of historical and current performance practice has radically affected the way these repertoires have been treated by researchers. In the field of Byzantine musicology, the highly controversial resurrection of disused neumatic symbols by Simon Karras has led to what might be characterized as a crisis in the practical execution of chant.

Politically polarized factions have gathered around the followers of Karras notably the influential protopsaltis of the church of Hagia Eirine in Athens, Lycourgos Angelopoulos and his opponents, who not only see no practical value in this research but view it as a distortion of the psaltic tradition as transmitted by the last great chanters of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, such as Iakovos Nafpliotos and Konstantinos Pringos and their pupils.

The priest and liturgist Fr Giorgios Rigas published a collection of the Kollyvades chants as they had been preserved in Skiathos, in , and it is this collection that Arvanitis uses as the basis of his recording. His doctoral thesis, completed in , on the service of Matins of the Cathedral Rite that is, in contradistinction to the monastic rite at Thessaloniki,2 led subsequently to a complete reconstruction of Vespers of the Cathedral Rite, made in conjunction with Arvanitis and celebrated at St.

The Cathedral Office, it should be noted, consisted of four daily services: Vespers, Pannychis, Orthros and Trithekte, the number, structure and organization of all four of which differed from the Monastic Office which forms the basis of contemporary Orthodox worship. Basil and Theophany, revealing new insights into liturgical practice of the time. With his choir, the Maistores of the Psaltic Art, he has not only made a series of important recording, but regularly chants the office of Pannychis that is, the cathedral rite equivalent of Compline in Athens.

Here is a short excerpt from the first antiphon. However, there has been in the last few years a huge increase in what is available on the Internet. Aside from often-polemic discussion fora, there are now several websites maintained by practicing psaltai with wide-ranging aims, from simply providing transcriptions and adaptations into languages other than Greek, to the compilation of comparative tables for the study of intervals and the provision of historical recordings as MP3 files.

A perhaps unexpected aspect of Byzantine performance practice has been investigated by Neil Moran, who has examined the phenomenon of the Byzantine castrato, which reached its peak in the 12th century, at which point all the professional singers at Hagia Sophia were castrati. Inevitably in the Patriarchal tradition today? And of not, what does that have to tell us about contemporary performance practice? On a related issue, while the question of female chanters continues to vex the Greek Church not least because a number of women have been tonsured to that office in the United States , the popularity of recordings from the convent of Ormylia, for example, and the extraordinary success of the Byzantine Catholic nun Soeur Marie Keyrouz have meant that the issue of female performance of Byzantine repertoires has to be taken very seriously indeed.

Soeur Marie, by mastering a number of quite different repertoires and styles, from Byzantine to Maronite, has not only given a practical demonstration of her musicological accomplishments, but has brought the music before a previously unimaginably wide public. MMB has also continued to provide an invaluable tool in the form of the inventory of microfilms and photographs that was compiled initially by Troelsgaard in One of the most contested issues in the performance of Russian chant is the use of the ison, or drone. While there is far from being any consensus on issues of performance, the fact remains that the strength of the movement for the liturgical restoration of monophonic chanting is bound to have far-reaching implications both for scholars and cantors.

In all these cases, the connection between research and practical application is indisputable. While there is a movement within Serbia for the restoration of Byzantine chant sung in Slavonic the foremost example of this may be found at the Athonite monastery of Hilandar , there is an equally strong awareness that the Serbian tradition has evolved into something that, while it has clear Byzantine roots, is at the same time quite distinctive. Byzantine musicology has also flourished in Romania in recent years. It has in the last few years produced not only a remarkable series of editions and transcriptions, but organized an annual psaltic conference, and published both proceedings and recordings thereof.

Current research being undertaken there, bringing together as it does scholars from Romania. Moldavia and Ukraine, promises to shed light on the complex question of the origins of Slavic notational systems. Byzantine chant in Bulgaria has been relatively untouched by the controversies that have raged elsewhere, though musicological work has continued unabated from such scholars as Elena Toncheva and Bozhidar Karastoyanov. In practical terms, contemporary performance of Bulgarian-Byzantine has changed relatively little since the recordings made in the s by the Ioann Koukouzel and the Angeloglassniyat choirs, but a very recent disc of chants sung by Metropolitan Neofit of Rousse, and including a number in his own transcriptions, offers some hope that this repertoire may once again acquire some visibility outside Bulgaria.

Congregations bask in their warmth. The vocal pedal-points are a sonic halo.

Westerners are reminded of Old Testament angels whose music is pictured coming from bagpipes. Their disk of Old Roman chants features melodic deliveries that are nuanced in present-day Greek style and supported by drone accompaniments. They also raise questions. How far back can the drones be traced; and how common was their usage? My aim here is to review some current notions about historical drones in the East and West, and to offer a fresh suggestion of their antiquity. But also questions about the universality of earlier drone usage. The Byzantine drone, commonly called the ison, represents a modest sort of polyphony.

The musical results are modest: a handful of Communions whose received melody is paralleled generally at the fifth, with frequent exchanges of upper and lower positions. There were no longer-term results. GLAHN et al. Such polyphonic experiments by Ioannes Plousiadenos born ca. Agion Oros, I, Athens, , pp. Stathe, Athens, , pp. Western composers beginning in the 9th century abandoned most monophony and developed an opulent succession of polyphonic styles.

But Greek Church musicians remained loyal to monophony. Over seven centuries they produced a great treasury of single-line elaborations of traditional melodies. The fact that drones are an identifiable factor in only a handful of late-Empire and post-Empire chants suggests that for most chants, which bear no special rubrics, they were not present.

In earlier times drones would be exceptional rather than common, and becoming common only when their presence was no longer remarked — perhaps no sooner than the 19th century. Vatican, MS Ottob. Notably, these come from the Latin West, even from the papal chapel. The evidence was first collected by Peter Wagner in , and has been much argued over since, most recently in an authoritative paper by Guido Milanese.

Apart from this, there has been little to indicate an early use of church drones. It is hard to imagine what form further indications might take, other than a detailed rubric, an eyewitness account like that of Crusius , or an unusually sharp theoretical description. It has been accessed so far only by means of a decades-old microfilm which cannot be taken altogether seriously; it may amount to a deception owing to the photographic process, or just a scribal caprice.

It concerns the antiphon Baptizat miles regem, which since at least the 9th century has been sung in the Epiphany office or its Octave. Pizzani, Napoli, , pp. Pietro B. It appears in both of the surviving Roman antiphoners of the late twelfth to early thirteenth century, and it returns us to precisely where the Carolingian-era Ordines suggested an application of drones.

The two Roman readings are seen in Ex. Clearly, the Roman reading in Ex. And in this case we can even be reasonably certain of how that relationship went. Like the Veterem hominem series, the Gregorian Baptizat miles would be shaped first in the Carolingian north after an Eastern model , then brought south where it underwent idiomatic remodeling in the Roman style. Comparing the two, we can identify the characteristic melismatic roundings of Rome.

We also see that the two Roman readings differ slightly from one another; the Vatican manuscript specifies more in the way of nuance. And those differences suggest that a memory-factor went along with the actions of copying: each scribe was working from a noted model, but was also reviewing the melody as fixed in memory. There may even have been some improvisatory license. The notation of the London manuscript is seen in Ex.

Joan M. Helmut Hucke zum Geburtstag, ed. MS , 37v. Example 3 [Facs. These ostensible podatus raise questions. Are they just pen-tests — prove di penna? It is an odd place for them. Are they entries by a second hand? That may well be. But are they an alternative musical reading? That seems unlikely, since they neither fit into the melodic line nor align with the text syllables. Might they be a read-through, due to thin parchment, from the folio recto 37 recto to this verso? Not so far as the photographs tell us; nor would they be an inky imprint from the facing folio 38 recto.

Lacking some more compelling explanation, we see four podatus, more or less regular in shape, whose irregularities suggest the intervention of a later hand or hands, and perhaps a conversion from what were originally virgae or simple verticals. These can in any case be seen as purposeful musical entries. Yet what purpose might they have had?

I have mentioned the possibility of an improvisational factor in the copying-process. It makes its appearance, as if to underline the text, paterna vox… Hic est filius… What sort of drone-profile would the writer have in mind? Yet how else might something like that be described: by way of repeated verticals — which may be the original state of the signs? Or does the podatus suggest a drone with shifting pitch? Enough of speculation. This has already been taken too far. Before more is ventured, the London parchment itself must be made to testify, and that may put a quick end to these photograph-based musings.

It is time to close. The four Old-Roman podatus may bear no information about early drones. Yet for the moment it seems possible that they represent a kind of fossil-imprint of a Roman drone usage of the 9th? Yet let me again be mindful of a caution that now applies to the Roman Baptizat miles as well the Eastern-rite drones that are known from late-Empire rubrics. Where modern-day drones are widely employed, the earlier instances may not represent so regular a practice. Just the opposite: scribes in past centuries may have remarked their presence precisely because the drones were then exceptional, reserved for special situations.

The same text-phrases are found in the Old Roman antiphon In columbe specie, entered just above Baptizat miles; 17 which brought forth nothing similar. As good fortune had it, Nicolas Bell was a participant in the Colloquium, and he generously agreed to examine the manuscript on his return to London. His report arrived a week later. That opens fresh possibilities significative letters, …? Well, not entirely One small monastery of indomitable Gauls still holds out against the invaders.

And, years later, trying to find what they sung is not easy for musicologists confined to university campuses I It is known that, in the second half of the 8th century, the liturgy of Rome served as a basis, in the Carolingian Empire, of the formation of the Roman-Frankish rite which, imposed as a political decision, replaced the Gallican rite, almost entirely eliminating any trace of it. It is also known that, from this time on, the Roman-Frankish rite was associated with Gregorian chant and that both reached the Iberian Peninsula, taking the place, from the end of the 11th century, of the Old- Hispanic liturgy, whose musical legacy, in that it does not record the melodic intervals, is today largely undecipherable.

Nevertheless, Gregorian melodies sometimes invite an archaeological excavation which may lead to surprising discoveries. In , during one of my visits to the Cathedral of Braga, I came across a Matins responsory for Palm Sunday, Conclusit vias meas inimicus, where, in two different manuscripts, flats in red ink had been added to some of its E notes. As with any great responsory, Conclusit consists of two parts, the respond and the verse. The respond is given an individual, fixed artistic melody composed anew, crafted from traditional materials or somewhere in between , whereas the verse is usually sung to one of eight invariable formulaic tones, freely adaptable to the length of the text and the position of its initial and medial accents.

After the verse is sung, the final part of the respond often its last third, approximately speaking is repeated by the choir; this final section will be called here the repetendum. They imply a major second below the final degree, and therefore, ambiguity between the 6th and the 8th modes becomes unavoidable. Not every flat appears in each individual choirbook: three appear in only one of them, the remaining three in both. It remained to investigate whether this tradition corresponded to a late, regional performance practice exceptional use of musica ficta allowing perfect fifths or fourths between E and B or if it corresponded to an older, widely disseminated stratum, as the generally conservative character of the Braga chant tradition would imply.

Theoretical references to the responsory Conclusit by the Berkeley Anonymous Goscalcus and Anonymous XI were recorded years ago by Dolores Pesce; but since only a couple of medieval antiphoners were consulted, she was not able to make sense of these remarks. Monasterio, 9 from Celanova , Paris, BN lat. The version of the responsorial tone found in Braga, with tenors A and C in the first part, and F in the second, is possibly earlier; it is also found in Benevento, Bibl.

However, there may have been different, early forms of the tone; Toledo Examination of more than forty notated manuscripts with additional information concerning another forty provides, however, enough evidence to sustain my argument. My interest in the responsory started a year before Theodore Karp published his richly documented and insightful book, Aspects of Orality and Formularity in Gregorian Chant, which I saw, being far from well-equipped research libraries, only in I discovered then, to my surprise, that he had already dedicated ten pages to Conclusit.

Our disagreement arises mostly from my use of practical and theoretical sources which were not available to, or were unwillingly ignored by Karp, an oversight which is hardly surprising given the enormous task he faced when writing his huge book. The present report comes thus as an expansion and revision of his pioneering observations. The majority of the displacements that may be noted retain the basic tetrachordal 4 Some microfilm prints were sent to me in and by Daniel Saulnier and Ike de Loos; the latter also provided a list of manuscripts, with the respective modal assignment for Conclusit.

After a first version of this paper was read in , Ruth Steiner, Lila Collamore and Giacomo Baroffio mailed additional photos or microfilm prints which expanded the available evidence significantly. KARP, op. Karp then attempts, by analytical reasoning, to identify the causes behind the observed notational shifts, and proposes, with due reservations, a possible reconstruction of the melody, assuming F final and starting with a descending leap from A flat to E flat. The responsory is found in the two surviving Old-Roman antiphoners; it appears there in the same liturgical position, on Palm Sunday.

The current narrative about the genesis of Gregorian chant presents it as a Frankish adaptation of Roman chant; although recently challenged,7 this view implies that one should not exclude the possibility of Roman roots. It is also possible that the responsory was composed in the wake of Carolingian liturgical reform, reaching Rome only afterwards.

At the latest, the piece must have been in existence before the partition of the Carolingian Empire in the mid-9th century, for it spread all over Europe. Thus, the hypothesis of a Gallican origin must compete with that of a Roman, or a later Frankish origin. I concede that the liturgical assignment of the responsory is not completely stable Palm Sunday is its most common location, but the chant may exceptionally appear earlier, or, in many cases, on the following Monday or Tuesday.

Geburtstag: Festschrift, Basel: Wiese Verlag, , pp. But Roman musicians, instead of abandoning their music, effected a compromise. IV, Roma: Herder, , p. None of these facts imply a Gallican origin. In what concerns the Office, local usage frequently implies some degree of variance in liturgical assignment. Alternative verse texts are common enough in Office responsories. The presence of degrees such as the E flat or the F sharp, in addition to the usual diatonic gamut, has been detected in Gregorian melodies which have not so far been suspected of having a Gallican background.

We are thus left with one pes stratus and two cases of consecutive climacus starting on adjacent degrees, on inebriavit me and deduxe runt, which Huglo identified as a typically but not exclusively Gallican descending sequential pattern. It may also be supposed that the pes stratus and the sequential pattern observed are traces of 8th-century Frankish remodeling of an imported Roman melody. These alternative explanations, late Frankish composition or idiomatic remodeling, would still stand if a further link with Gallican musical style is added: the ascending chain of thirds B flat - D - F recalls a reintonation formula which Michel Huglo signaled as a Gallican trait.

MS C 5 has Omnes followed by Factus, both with music complete only above the latter. Farnborough, Hants. It may be that the text, common to Old-Roman and Gregorian sources, can shed some light on the matter; I give it below, with punctuation added: Conclusit vias meas inimicus; insidiator factus est mihi, sicut leo in abscondito; replevit et inebriavit me amaritudine; deduxerunt in lacum mortis vitam meam et posuerunt lapidem contra me.

Vide, domine, iniquitates illorum et judica causam animae meae, defensor vitae meae.

História do livro no Brasil

Different Latin versions of this biblical book circulated in the early Middle Ages; the exact version from which the text was taken, or adapted, cannot be ascertained on the basis of the available evidence. The versicles quoted 9, 10, 15, 53 and span most of the chapter. In the standard editions of the Vulgate, they read as follows 3.

For variants, see R. Iuxta vulgatam versionem. Editio minor, Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, , pp. Additional letters or words from the Editio Clementina Roma, , reproduced in the critical apparatus, appear between round brackets. Judge my cause. The final call to God, calling for harsh punishment of enemies 3. Besides the book of Lamentations, use is made of Job, Jeremiah and Isaiah. The complicated mosaic of biblical phrases develops on a note of complaint. This uninterrupted lament would result in unbearable monotony, had not the art of centonization been able to avoid it.

It turns out that the text of our Old-Roman and Gregorian responsory is a 18 M. I, pp. X , pp. I , pp. It dates certainly before , for its incipit already appears in the Visigothic Orationale of Verona; it is, moreover, common to the two Hispanic liturgical traditions. The text is given below, keeping the original orthography and capitalization, but with punctuation added the common Hispanic-Gregorian passages are shown in italics : Conclusit vias meas inimicus. Insidiator factus est mici, sicut leo in absconditis; semitam meam subvertit et confregit me. Tetendit arcum suum et posuit me, quasi signum ad sagittam; replevit et inebriavit me amaritudine.

Conprehenderunt me inimici mei sine causa, quasi avem in muscipula; deduxerunt in lacu mortis vitam meam, et posuerunt lapidem contra me. Vide, domine, iniquitates eorum, et iudica causam anime mee, defensor vite mee. He is waiting to pounce on me, like a lion in his hiding places. He has subverted my path and shattered me. He has stretched his bow and laid me low. Beyond the definitional categories of experiments of concern, activity continues. Work leading to the bioengineering and possible cloning of humans is underway around the world, including in those societies with relatively low concern about the ethics of stem cell research.

Scientific leaders such as Freeman Dyson predict that do-it-yourself biotechnology kits for experimentation in the home will be available soon. There is a long history of experimentation with genetically modified organisms in societies of the South, where populations may not be aware of agreements crafted by their governments. Disagreements over what should be considered healthy resistance to pathogens is so extreme within the US that that country's government has explicitly put in place a policy that would allow it to call out the National Guard to enforce inoculations of the population should there be resistance to a 'health' campaign.

As with other activities subjected to an endlessly mutable definition of terrorism, any type of biotechnology research or use might in future be repressed on what are alleged to be security grounds. Jasanoff's analysis of interactions between modes of imperial governance and biotechnology looks almost exclusively at geopolitical power as exercised under modernity and at imperial activity as it has historically taken place within the human species.

Inclusion of empires of resistance in this piece is a first suggestion of the nature of imperial activity in a world in which modernity is being superseded in ways indicated by the imperial inversions discussed here. We should also be thinking towards the possibility of imperial activity between humans and 'others,' whether those others are genetically enhanced humans, robots, cyborgs, or the transhumans 'ur-humans' foreseen by those devoted to the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive technology.

The rights of all of these vis-a-vis 'natural' humans, or 'meat flesh,' are already being asserted. Isso acaba se tornando, paradoxalmente, um dos principais limites do artigo. Jasanoff fica completamente presa: Foucault mobiliza assim o caso da vacina ou aquele da luta contra a 'criminalidade': Uma lista que, de forma resumida, incluiria: O programa do esclarecimento era o desencantamento do mundo. Tal biotecnologia, a autora nos lembra, "produz novos instrumentos" para enfrentar os danos e o acaso na natureza, quando introduz plantas que resistem a insetos e ervas daninhas.

O livro de Maier foi publicado em , por Harvard University Press. MIT Press, , p. Ver, principalmente, Drayton, Imperial science and a scientific empire: Esse trabalho foi publicado em , pela University Microfilms International. Kluwer, , p. Banco Mundial, ; P. Verso, , p.

A Peregrinação de Childe Harold – Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre

Renown imposes a typical set of demands from. It was because of. Duguay Trouin ] Thomaz, Portuguese language it would be no less distinguished. And observing the high opinion that two such erudite Nations [Germany and France]. Old Regime was organized. It is worth recalling that at the time, Portuguese society was under. Coimbra after its reform etc. Meanwhile, society maintained the social,.


  • Menu de navegação.
  • Soul Survivor!
  • Legal Guide to Living in Japan – Immigration & related problems!
  • N. Temático de - Português: Investigação e Ensino by Exedra Journal - Issuu.
  • N. Temático de - Português: Investigação e Ensino by Exedra Journal - Issuu.
  • .

This created a particular territory. Science became a state instrument for consolidating its possessions,. The abovementioned Villalobos e Vasconcelos demonstrated these relationships in his. Y ou offered me, and promptly did I beg to do the translation for the glory, honor, and. Indeed, having the honor to serve. What answers will we now obtain if we pose the following question to our sources:.

Why translate works of medicine? It should be borne in mind that at the time, the political. This author believed that. Alongside Sanches, other writers engaged in spreading. Several translators of medicine followed the precepts established by. The reputation of a work was. For instance, the translator of Treatise. The fact that the work was well known by Portuguese physicians was also stressed, as in. The merit of Mr. T issot has been fortunate enough to have. In it, he stated that the work was held in such. Europe transposed it into their language, and have repeatedly brought it to out to universal.

Justifying a translation for its potential utility is also a recurring theme in the prefaces to. Paiva here in the role of translator introduced. This small Compendium, already approved by a notable Practitioner, seems to me. Alongside the usefulness or reputation of the works, as preached by these agents, there. Just as historiography already established a Pombaline practice related to the writing and.

This was certainly the case of the chief of police, Diogo Ignacio de Pina. The reason for the translation was therefore to attend. The translator as an anthropologist and pedagogue. The second approach adopted in this study concerns the way the translations in the. What does it matter if the Translator has a profound knowledge of both languages,. Sciences, which oftentimes one of the languages does not have, from which however is. This is a retrospective view: Offering a view with less concession to cultural differences possibly preceding it,.

What did these translators take to be a perfect translation? And he went on: While they do supply some vague notions about the demands imposed on translators,. Gallicisms, Anglicisms, technicisms or adaptation of terms existing in the target language;. To offset this variety of ideas, let us. Friar Luis do Monte Carmelo 15 abr. Readers of good taste shall certainly have. Here, we should make some considerations about the different types of sources, because. Profession, offering the nature of the best orator, and the arguments that formed the most.