Journal of the International Society for Orthodox Church Music Ed. Ivan Moody & Maria Takala-Roszczenko Vol. 2, Section II: Conference Papers, pp. 83-89 ISSN 2342-1258 htps://journal.f/jisocm 83 Liturgically-informed Aesthetics: A Theological Approach to Chant Pedagogy and Performance Novice Nicoletta (Sydney Freedman) St. Nina’s Monastery, Union Bridge, MD, USA cantrixcaeca@gmail.com The preferred techniques and practical aesthetics of good church singing difer among traditions, cultures, communities, and individuals. While it is nevertheless useful to discuss practical maters of musical pedagogy—vocal production, diction, language, and the like—a theological approach is essential and even encompasses the aforementioned aspects. In any given context, educators and singers should be aware of the context, iconography, signifcance, reasons for existence, and purpose – in patristic terms, the logoi – of repertoire, its texts, and its sounds. Patristic texts contain a great deal of information that can help us acquire this knowledge, and Psalter prefaces, three of which we will consider, are particularly good sources of commentary on music. Contemporary ethnomusicological feldwork in academic, parish, and monastic setings shows that, even if there are practical musical or linguistic defciencies, the result from such a theological approach is still useful, and also that this approach can lead to well-retained, well-executed chant in the frst place. Furthermore, it may inform aesthetic decisions and cause us to question, revise, and improve the same. This paper will provide material from both of these source types in order to demonstrate such an approach and to exemplify it in practice in diferent contexts. We begin with examples from Georgian chant, which generate helpful illustrations and relate to general and English-language material, or to that in any tongue. Georgian chant is also a useful example of translation and inculturation and may provide insight into what is currently happening, or may happen, in English-language hymnography. 1 1 On Georgian liturgical translations and inculturation, see Nino Doborjginidze, “Religious Inculturation and Problems of Social History of the Georgian Language,” in Georgian Christian Thought and Its Cultural Context, Tamar Nutsubidze et al, eds. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers 2014, 327-343. The musical side of this topic requires further study, but at the outset it is important to note that some early translations of canons and other compositions preserve the Greek metre while others, including those in contemporary use, do not. Georgian chant, with its model phrases for all troparia and heirmoi in each mode, does not have prosomia, automela, and idiomela, and in manuscripts that give the Greek titles for these with associated chants, the texts do not match the metre; in some cases, the correct prosomia, according to Greek use, are not indicated. See Ekaterine Oniani, “Georgian Neumatic System in the context of Orthodox Chant Tradition,” Musicology Today 20 (2013), <htp://www.musicologytoday.ro/BackIssues/Nr.20/studies.php>. This situation is similar to that found in various English translations, especially from Slavonic, in which names of melodies are mentioned, though the texts cannot be sung to them, whether prosomia or podobni, and, if common Russian chant styles are in use, are set to formulas, such as those for stichera. A relevant example of such English translations can be found in The Life of St Nina, Equal to the Apostles and Enlightener of Georgia. Jordanville, NY: Print Shop of St Job of Pochaev, Holy Trinity Monastery 1999.