Talk:Nikolay Diletsky

Untitled

Article merged: See old talk-page here

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge Mykola Dyletsky into Nikolay Diletsky, 5/1. -- Jashiin (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is suggested that the article Mykola Dyletsky should be merged into Nikolay Diletsky. The spelling "Mykola Dyletsky" returns about 90 hits and apparently is not used in scholarly sources (i.e. New Grove, Dolskaya-Ackerly's articles, etc.) The spelling "Nikolay Diletsky", on the other hand, returns more than a thousand hits, and more importantly, it is the spelling used in New Grove. There are numerous spelling variants, but I believe that Wikipedia should probably adopt what is, or seems to be, the scholarly norm, i.e. New Grove.

I would have suggested simply renaming the page Mykola Dyletsky, but unfortunately I only found out it existed after I created Nikolay Diletsky; for this I am deeply sorry. --Jashiin (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems fine to me. Opus33 (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Better to use Grove spelling and redirect other versions. --Kleinzach 22:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge. A merge should also take care of the currently strange chain of interwiki links: Mykola Dyletsky -> uk:Дилецький Микола Павлович -> Nikolay Diletsky -> none. Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge this into Mykola Dyletsky - Encyclopedia Britannica is a scholarly source. Ostap 02:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No doubt, however it is a general purpose encyclopedia, whereas New Grove is specifically about music and so is more authoritative in this case. Furthermore, according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Controversial names, the purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and clearly "Mykola Dyletsky" is rarely used, at least by English speakers (and this Wikipedia is for them). --Jashiin (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Mykola Dyletsky because Encyclopedia of Ukraine mentions his name as Mykola Dyletsky, Encyclopedia Britannica, and the Mykola Dyletsky is a good transliteration of his name. --Boguslav (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course an Encyclopedia of Ukraine will mention the Ukrainian version of his name; it would be ridiculous to use something else in it. But in English-speaking world, apparently the spelling "Mykola" is rarely used. As for Britannica, see my reply to Ostap above. Also, Google hits are not in favor of "Mykola". --Jashiin (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Boguslav, Jashiin has a good point with this New Grove encyclopedia. That does sound like an authority. See if you agree with me below. Ostap 17:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If "Mykola Dyletsky" is the correct transliteration, then the article should be so named/merged. A REDIRECT will take care of those looking for "Nikolay Diletsky". Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that in this particular case there's no such thing as a correct transliteration; names were not standardized back then. Consider Dietrich Buxtehude who was recorded as "Buxdhue" once, Johann Pachelbel recorded as Bachelbel several times, Kapsberger spending much time in Italy, his name becoming "Giovanni Girolamo" instead of "Johannes Hieronymus", etc. Diletsky/Dyletsky may have been of Ukrainian origin (this is very controversial), he was very active in Russia but also lived in Vilnius, and some of his writings feature him signing his name in Polish. There are numerous versions of his name in old documents. Today Ukrainians, naturally, call him "Mykola", Russians use "Nikolay", and apparently English-speaking scholars use either "Nikolay Diletsky" or variants (Nikolaii, Nikolay, Diletskii, Diletsky, etc.) --Jashiin (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't express any preference on my part, I just thought naively that there would be an obviously correct name. As it is, merging to "Nikolay Diletsky" seems the preferrable option. Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support "Nikolay Diletsky" if "Mykola Dyletsky" is clearly given in the lead section, and he is identified as a Ukrainian. Ostap 17:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Both variants plus others will be included, and redirects created; the categories already list him as an Ukrainian and the nationality issue will be addressed in the lead. --Jashiin (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I withdraw my old opinion and support your merger. Ostap 22:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dates of birth and death

He certainly has many variation of his name. Does anyone know what his birth and death dates actually are? If this is uncertain, what is the best way to phrase it? Ostap 22:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added new content to the article, take a look. Generally, it is assumed he died after 1681; the date of birth is projected from there. An alternative hypothesis (c. 1650 - c. 1723) was suggested, but is currently the opinion of a minority. Check the ref for details. --Jashiin (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

source for images

None of the images of Grammatika linked in this article give a source for the image itself. The image source is helpful to readers wanting to know, for example, who did the scanning. It would also be nice to add an external links section with a link to a web site with these images (doesn't need to be English). --Jtir (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, at the moment I have no information on the source (I got the scan from a friend, who got it from another person, and so on). --Jashiin (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Do you know who (or what institution) holds the manuscript? Unfortunately, I don't have access to JSTOR to check Jensen, who might say. If we could find out who holds the original, that could be added and maybe they have a web site with more. I'll try checking some library catalogs. BTW, thanks for starting this article. I came across it while trying to find more about the history of the circle of fifths and was astonished to find such an excellent image of Diletsky's version. --Jtir (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a start:

• Gramatika Muzikal'na ( Musical Grammar). "This facsimile is of the manuscript preserved in the Lviv Museum of Ukrainian Art. The manuscript was written in 1723 in the Ukranian script." This web page has an image of the cover.
• Worldcat lists several items, although they all seem to be copies.

--Jtir (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The manuscript these images are taken from is the one in the Russian State Library (GBL 107), but sadly I have been unable to locate any mention of it on their website. --Jashiin (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll add that info to the images. --Jtir (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What does "GBL 107" mean? --Jtir (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I guess that is an accession or catalog number.

The Russian State Library has a very nice user interface for searching their catalog. At the risk of repeating what you did, I tried an author search for Дилецкий, which found nine items, various title searches, which found a few items, and a search for "гбл 107", which found none. I don't read Russian much above a level of sounding out the words and translating with Babelfish, so I could have missed something, but it looks like they don't have it cataloged.

GBL 107 is a short form of the catalog number, which uses Soviet time name of the library - Gosudarstvennaia Biblioteka imeni Lenina (GBL). Correct modern number is RGB, f. 173.I, No. 107 where RBG and f. stand for Rossiiskaia Gosudarstvennaia Biblioteka and fond accordingly. The photos certainly come from progect of St.Trinity Lavra and Russian Stat Library, which aims at on-line publishing those manuscripts from RSL collection, which earlier belonged to the Lavra, here www.stsl.ru . Unfortunately, the page doesn't work today so i've not been able to check the address.Coepulonus (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

--Jtir (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'm not sure whether "kontserty" should be translated; the word does mean "concertos" in Russian, but these concertos were very different from the concertos of, say, Vivaldi; scholarly literature seems to favor using the Russian word in italics rather than translating it, and I believe we should do the same. As for the patronymic, New Grove only gives it in parentheses as a supplementary detail. I'm not sure why; perhaps because patronymics were not as official back then as they are now. So no, I don't think it should be added in bold. --Jashiin (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm not qualifed to do more than ask that the term "kontserty" be more fully explained then. What you said could go into a Note, unless there is an article that could be wikilinked.

I'll see what I can do, I've got some articles on Vasily Titov as well, who wrote kontserty too; maybe I'll be able to put together a decent definition. --Jashiin (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is silly. In Ukrainian and Russian, Kontsert is a simply Concerto when it is used in musical context (it can also mean Concert, as in musical performance). Kontserty is just plural for Konstert so Kontserty translates to Concertos. They do not have to be the large-scale Vivaldi concertos. --Boguslav (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. It sounds like the term "concerto" may be ambiguous and, after skimming concerto, which seems to be a very well written, it looks like it may not cover the term in the sense that is meant here. Since I don't know much about music history and know nothing about "kontserty", could editors take a look at concerto and give their opinion as to whether this article should link to it? Maybe a separate article is needed or this article could be expanded slightly. --Jtir (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK re his patronymic. Can you read his signature? There seem to be three names in it. If a transcription and transliteration could be added to the caption, that would help readers, IMO.

While the second name is obviously Dilecki, the first is kind of weird - the first letter may be read as an "M" or as an "N" with a flourish, and the "l" is either a normal one with a flourish from the "o", or as the Polish letter ł.. the third name is, I believe, "tvorche", an old word that means either "creator" or "created [by]". I wouldn't dare adding a transcription/transliteration, we need an expert and/or a reference here. --Jashiin (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very interesting. It sounds as though his signature could be a hybrid of several scripts. --Jtir (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

To be precise, this reads as Mikołay Dilecki творец (tvorets, author). The fifth letter is sometimes regarded as l - Mikolay. This is the variant of his name in Polish as he used it in Toga Złota. Coepulonus (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

--Jtir (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes

Word 'published' appear several times when talking about variants of his treatise. Does anybody find this misguiding? Does this word regularly come with manuscripts? The 1677 Smolensk text is mentioned as 'the first version of his magnum opus'. To be correct, this is the first survived version. You can see at least in those Jensen's entries that Diletskii wrote a version in Polish in Vilnius, which is already mentioned in the 1677 work. 'an 8-voice setting of the Divine Liturgy that he composed in Smolensk specifically to illustrate the "Grammatika' is a wrong reference, Jensen never wrote anything of the sort. Her words are: 'Diletskii also made an eight-part kontsert setting of the Divine Liturgy, which he used as a musical example' (p.312), that's all. Heinechen first mentions the circle of fifth in the 1711 treatise. Coepulonus (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

By all means make those changes; except for Heinichen's treatise one. The Grove article on the circle of fifths says it was the 1728 treatise. --Jashiin (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Then this is a mistake. Ther 1711 treatise is well known for the circle of fifth. See Gregory Barnett's entry in the Cambridge history of Western Music Theory: 'The first depiction of keys as points a fifth apart on such a circle is Johann

David Heinichen’s “Musicalischer Circul” found in his treatise on thorough-bass accompaniment at the keyboard, Neu erfundene und grundliche Anweisung . . . des General-Basses (1711)', p. 444. There are other referencies to it, including Jensen's article in JAMS, cited here many times (p.307). I can find some other.Coepulonus (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I did some changes and should explain some minor corrections. The manuscript of the 1679 version with Diletskii's signature has name 'Идеа грамматикии мусикийской', with double и (grammatikii). Due to a mistake, it was printed without double i by Protopopov on the title page of his edition, while in the transcript of the manuscript it is given as it should. грамматикии is a correct gen. for грамматикия. Jensen uses double i in her new book 'the Musical Cultures' (2009). There are some other things to be considered, maybe next timeCoepulonus (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)