This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page.(October 2012)
Oktōēchos (here transcribed "Octoechos"; Greek: Ὀκτώηχος [ modern Greek: oktoˈixos, old Greek: oktɔːˈɛːkʰos ], from ὀκτώ "eight" + ἦχος "sound, mode" called echos; Slavonic: Октоихъ, Oktoikh, or Осмогласникъ, Osmoglasnik from о́семь "eight" and гласъ "voice") is the name of the eight mode system used for the composition of religious chant in Byzantine, Syrian, Coptic, Armenian, Latin and Slavic churches since the Middle Ages. In a modified form the octoechos is still regarded as the foundation of the tradition of monodic Orthodox chant today.
Oktōēchos is also the name of a Byzantineliturgical book called the "Great Octoechos" which developed first since the Studites reform as part of the Sticherarion and replaced the former book "tropologion". According to the Octoechos, it had been composed in eight parts, each of them consisted of an analogous set of hymns for one of the eight echoi. In fact each echos subordinates various melodic models or modes than just one (in Greek those might rather be called "meloi" than "echoi"), it was more important to group chants according to its mode and to divide the year into eight-week-cycles starting in numerical order from tone 1 (echos protos, ἦχος πρῶτος)[1] following Easter Week.[2] This liturgical octoechos concept was the invention of monastic hymnographers at Mar Saba in Palestine and in Constantinople, and a synod held 692 in Constantinople accepted their reform which also aimed to replace the homiletic poetry of the kontakion and other forms sung during the morning service (Orthros) of the cathedral rite. Hagia Sophia and other cathedrals of the Byzantine Empire did not abandon their habits, and the eight mode system came into use not earlier than in the mixed rite of Constantinople, after the patriarchate and the court had returned from their exile in Nikaia in 1261.
The reason that another eight mode system was established by Frankish reformers during the Carolingian reform, could be that Pope Adrian I also accepted on the synod in 787 the seventh-century Eastern reform for the Western church. The corresponding "chant book" is the tonary, a list of incipits of chants ordered according to the intonation formula of each church tone and its psalmody. Later also fully notated and theoretical tonaries had been written.
Hagiopolitan
Traditional singers today often memorize the history of Byzantine chant in three parts, identified with the names John of Damascus as the "beginning" (the inventor of the octoechos), John Kukuzelis as the "flower" (the inventor of the psaltic art and its soloistic style called "kalophonia"), and Chrysanthos of Madytos as the "great teacher" of the living tradition today (the translator of psaltic art into the modern neume notation).
Origins
The fact behind this simple imagination is, that the octoechos reform had been already accepted some decades ago, before John and Cosmas became monks at Mar Saba, but the earliest sources which gave evidence of the octoechos used in Byzantine chant is a ninth-century treatise called "Hagiopolites" ("Holy Polis" after Jerusalem), which only survived in a complete form in a late copy dating back to the fourteenth century.[3] It is supposed that it was an introduction of a book called tropologion – a chant book used during 9th century which was soon replaced by the book octoechos.[4] Despite that the first paragraph ascribes the treatise to John of Damascus, it was probably written about 100 years after his death and it went through several redactions during the following centuries. There is no doubt that the octoechos reform itself has taken place already in 692, because certain passages of the Hagiopolites are paraphrasing certain canons of the synodal decree.[5] Eric Werner assumed that the eight mode system developed in Jerusalem since the late fifth century and that the reform by the hymnographers of Mar Saba were already a synthesis with the Hellenic names used for the tropes, applied to a model of Syrian origin already used in the Byzantine tradition of Jerusalem.[6] During the eighth century, long before Hellenic treatises were translated into Arabic and Persian dialects between the ninth and the tenth centuries, there was already a great interest among Arabian theorists like Abū Yūsuf al-Kindī, whose Arabic terms were obviously translated from the Greek.[7] He adored the universality of the Greek octoechos:
Sämtliche Stile aller Völker aber haben Teil an den acht byzantinischen Modi (hiya min al-alhān at-tamāniya ar-rūmīya), die wir erwähnt haben, denn es gibt nichts unter allem, was man hören kann, das nicht zu einem von ihnen gehörte, sei es die Stimme eines Menschen oder eines anderen Lebewesens, wie das Wiehern eines Pferdes oder das Schreien eines Esels oder das Krähen des Hahns. Alles, was an Formen des Schreis einem jeden Lebewesen/Tier eigen ist, ist danach bekannt, zu welchem Modus der acht es gehört, und es ist nicht möglich, daß es sich außerhalb eines von ihnen [bewegt].[8]
Every style of any tribe takes part of the Byzantine eight tones (hiya min al-alhān at-tamāniya ar-rūmīya) which I mentioned here. Everything which can be heard, be it the human or be it the animal voice – like the neighing of a horse, the braying of a donkey, or the carking of a cock, can be classified according to one of the eight modes, and it is impossible to find anything outside of the eight mode system.
Al-Kindi demonstrated the intervals on the keyboard of a simple four-stringed oud, starting from the third string as well seven steps in ascending as in descending direction.
According to Eckhard Neubauer, there is another Persian system of seven advār ("cycles") outside the Arabian reception of the Byzantine octoechos, which was possibly a cultural transfer from Sanskrit treatises. Persian and Hellenic sources had been the main reference for the transfer of knowledge in Arabian-Islamic science.
Monastic Reform of Mar Saba
According to the Hagiopolites the eight echoi were divided in four "kyrioi" (authentic) echoi and their four respective plagal (enriched, developed) echoi, which were all in the diatonic genus.
8 Diatonic Echoi of the Hagiopolitan Octoechos
Despite the late copies of the Greek Hagiopolites treatise, the earliest Latin description of the Greek system of eight echoi is an eleventh-century treatise compilation called "alia musica". "Echos" was translated as "sonus" by the anonymous compilator, who commented with a comparison of the Byzantine octoechos:[9]
Quorum videlicet troporum, sive etiam sonorum, primus graeca lingua dicitur Protus; secundus Deuterus; tertius Tritus; quartus Tetrardus: qui singuli a suis finalibus deorsum pentachordo, quod est diapente, differunt. Superius vero tetrachordum, quod est diatessaron, requirunt, ut unusquisque suam speciem diapason teneat, per quam evagando, sursum ac deorsum libere currat. Cui scilicet diapason plerumque exterius additur, qui emmelis, id est, aptus melo vocatur.
Sciendum quoque, quod Dorius maxime proto regitur, similiter Phrygius deutero, Lydius trito, mixolydius tetrardo. Quos sonos in quibusdam cantilenis suae plagae quodammodo tangendo libant, ut plaga proti tangat protum, deuteri deuterum, triti tritum, tetrardi tetrardum. Et id fas est experiri in gradalibus antiphonis.[10]
It is known about the tropes, as to say: the ἦχοι, that the Greek language call the First πρῶτος, the Second δεύτερος, the Third τρίτος, the Fourth τέταρτος. Their Finales were separated by a pentachord, that is: a falling fifth [between kyrios and plagios]. And above [the pentachord] they require a tetrachord, that is: a fourth, so that each of them has its species of diapason, in which it can move freely, rambling down and up. For the full octave another tone might be added, which is called ἐμμελῆς: "according to the melos".
It has to be known that the "dorian" [octave species] is usually ruling in the πρῶτος, as the "phrygian" in the δεύτερος, the "lydian" in the τρίτος, or the "mixolydian" in the τέταρτος. Their πλάγιοι are derived by these ἦχοι in that way, that the formula touch them [going down a fifth]. So the πλάγιος τοῦ πρώτου touch the πρῶτος, the plagal Second [τοῦ δευτέρου] the δεύτερος, the plagal Third [βαρύς] the τρίτος, the plagal Fourth [πλάγιος τοῦ τετάρτου] the τέταρτος. And this should be proved by the melodies of the antiphonal graduals as a divine law.[11]
This Latin description about the octoechos used by Greek singers (psaltes) is very precise, when it says that each kyrios and plagios pair used the same octave, divided into a fifth (pentachord) and a fourth (tetrachord): D—a—d in protos, E—b—e in devteros, F—c—f in tritos, and C—G—c in tetartos.[12] While the kyrioi had the finalis (final, and usually also base note) on the top, the plagioi had the finalis on bottom of the pentachord.
The intonation formulas, called enechema (gr. ἐνήχημα), for the authentic modes or kyrioi echoi, usually descend within the pentachord and turn back to the finalis at the end, while the plagal modes or plagioi echoi just move to the upper third. The later dialogue treatises (gr. ἐροταπωκρισεῖς) refer to the Hagiopolitan diatonic eight modes, when they use the kyrioi intonations to find those of the plagioi:
Intonation according to Erotapokriseis and standard intonation of echos protos: "You descend 4 steps [φοναὶ] from the echos protos [kyrios protos/authentic protus] and you will find again the plagios protos, this way"
Intonation according to Erotapokriseis and standard intonation of echos devteros: "You do the same way in echos devteros. If you descend 4 steps to find its plagios, i.e. πλ β', thus"
Intonation according to Erotapokriseis and standard intonation of echos tritos: "Hence, you descend four steps from echos tritos and you will find its plagios which is called 'grave' (βαρύς), this way"
Intonation according to Erotapokriseis and standard intonation of echos tetartos: "Also from echos tetartos you descend 4 steps [φοναὶ] and you will find its plagios, which is πλ δ', like this way"
Phthorai and mesoi
The Hagiopolites as "earliest" theoretical treatise says, that two additional phthorai ("destroyers") were like proper modes which did not fit into the diatonic octoechos system, so the Hagiopolitan octoechos is in fact a system of 10 modes. Despite of a tendency that the two phthorai developed their proper melos and their models sung during the eight-week cycle, the original concept of phthora was a change useful for certain transitions. Changes between the echos tritos and the echos plagios tetartos were bridged by the enharmonic phthora nana, and changes between the echos protos and the echos plagios devteros by the chromatic phthora nenano. The theoretical concept of the Hagiopolites strongly suggested that nenano and nana as phthorai "destroy" some of the 7 diatonic degrees used within the octave of a certain echos, so that the chromatic and enharmonic genus was somehow subordinated and excluded from the diatonic octoechos. This raises the question whether music in the near eastern Middle Ages was entirely diatonic, before certain melodies were coloured by the other enharmonic and chromatic genoi.
The Hagiopolites also mentioned an alternative system of 16 echoi, with 4 phthorai and 4 mesoi beyond the kyrioi and plagioi of the Octoechos, and the author called this system the "echoi of the Asma":
The 4 Echoi which come first are generated from themselves, not from others. As to the four which come next, i.e. the Plagal ones, Plagios Prōtos is derived from Prōtos, and Plagios Deuteros from Deuteros – normally Deuteros melodies end in Plagios Deuteros. Similarly, Barys from Tritos – "for in the Asma Hypobole of Barys is sung as Tritos together with its ending". From the 4 Plagioi originate the 4 Mesoi, and from these the 4 Phthorai. This makes up the 16 Echoi which are sung in the Asma – as already mentioned, there are sung only 10 in the Hagiopolites.[14]
This clearly suggests a distinction of the monastic octoechos reform and an older "sung rite" (ἀκολουθία ᾀσματική) which was the name of the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite with its own chant books asmatikon ("book of the choir"), psaltikon ("book of the soloist called 'monophonaris'"), and kontakarion (the name of the psaltikon, if it included the huge collection of kontakia, sung during the morning service). Unfortunately no treatise about the Constantinopolitan sixteen echoi survived, so that there is only this short paragraph of the Hagiopolites which says, that the singers of Hagia Sophia and other cathedrals of the empire followed in their chant books an own modal system, which was distinct from the octoechos.
The introduction of the eight mode system in Western chant traditions was part of the Carolingian reform, it was motivated by the confirmation of an earlier Eastern chant reform by Pope Adrian I also for the Western traditions during the synode in 787. Nevertheless, a Carolingian interest for the Byzantine octoechos can already be dated back some years earlier, when a Byzantine legacy introduced a series of antiphons sung during a procession for Epiphany which served as a model for the eight modes according to the Hagiopolitan system.
The contemporary invention of a proper Latin version of the eight mode system was mainly studied from two perspectives:
the reception of Ancient Greek music theory since Boethius and the synthesis between music theory as a science and a liberal art of the mathematic Quadrivium on the one hand, and as a medium of chant transmission on the other hand. The eight church tones were called after the names of octave species, which were not connected with modal patterns and plainchant theory in earlier times.
the simplification of chant transmission by a Western manuscript type called tonary which allowed the transfer of a huge chant repertoire like the Roman one, but also its deductive modal classification which changed the oral transmission of chant entirely.
Synthesis in Latin music theory
Latin theorists who knew the Hellenic tropes only by Boethius' 6th-century translation of Ptolemy (De institutione musica), did the synthesis of the Ancient Greek music theory with the Octoechos as a system of eight church tones, identified with the tropes. The synthesis has not been done earlier than during the Carolingian reform (usually dated according to Charlemagne's admonitio generalis which was decreed in 789), before music theory as science was strictly separated from chant transmission and the cantor as a profession dedicated to church music.
According to the Latin synthesis the plagal and authentic tones of protus, deuterus, tritus, and tetrardus did not use the same ambitus as in the Hagiopolitan Octoechos, but authentic and plagal tones used both the finalis of the plagios, so that the finalis of the kyrios, the fifth degree of the mode, was no longer used as finalis, but as "repercussa": the recitation tone used in a simple form of psalmody which was another genuine invention by the Carolingian reformers. The ambitus of the authentic tones was made up the same way as used in the Greek Octoechos, while the plagal tones used a lower ambitus: not the tetrachord above the pentachord, but below it. Hence, the hypodorian octave referred the "tonus secundus" and was constructed A—D—a, and the dorian as "tonus primus" D—a—d, both tones of the protus used D as finalis, the hypophrygian octave was B—E—b and was the ambitus of the "tonus quartus", and the phrygian octave E—b—e was related to the "tonus tertius" and its finalis E belonged to the deuterus, the hypolydian octave C—F—c was connected with the "tonus sixtus", the lydian octave F—c—f with the "tonus quintus" and both shared the finalis F called "tritus", the last was the seventh octave G—d—g called "mixolydian" which referred to the "tonus septimus" and its finalis G.
The terms tropus (transposition octave) and modus (the octave genre defined by the position of the tonus, the whole tone with the proportion of 9:8, and the semitonium, the half tone with the proportion of 256:243) were taken from Boethius' translation.[15] But the Antique names of the seven modi were applied to the eight church tones called toni. The first attempt to connect Ancient Greek music theory known by Boethius' translation and the theory of plainchant can be found in the treatise De harmonica institutione by Hucbald of Saint-Amand Abbey, written by the end of the 9th century, and the author addressed his treatise explicitly to cantors and not to mathematics,[16] whereas the reduction of 4 "finales" which made up the tetrachord D—E—F—G, was already done in Carolingian times in the treatises Musica and Scolica enchiriadis. Musica enchiriadis is also the only Latin treatise which testifies the presence of tetraphonic tone system, represented by 4 Dasia-signs and therefore called "Dasia system", and even the practical use of transposition (metabolē kata tonon) in plainchant, called "absonia". Its name probably derived from "sonus", the Latin term for ἦχος, but in the context of this treatise the use of absonia is reservated to describe a primitive form of polyphony or heterophony rather than it served as a precise description of transposition in monodic chant, as it was used in certain genres of Byzantine chant.
Hucbald used an own Greek letter system which referred to the double octave system (systēma teleion) and called the four elements D, E, F, G, known as "finales", according to the Greek system "lichanos hypaton" (Digamma [shaped like "F"] = D), "hypate meson" (Σ = E), "parhypate meson" (Ρ = F), and "lichanos meson" (Μ = G).[17]
The earliest chant theory connected with the Carolingian octoechos was related to the book tonary. It played a key role in memorizing chant and the earliest tonaries referred to the Greek names as elements of a tetrachord: πρῶτος, δεύτερος, τρίτος, and τέταρτος were translated into "protus", "deuterus", "tritus", and "tetrardus", but only the tetrachord D—E—F—G was supposed to contain the final notes ("finales") for the eight tones used in the Latin octoechos. Since the 10th century the eight tones were applied to eight simplified models of psalmody, which soon adopted in their terminations the melodic beginnings of the antiphons, which were sung as refrains during psalm recitation. This practice made the transitions more smooth, and in the list of the antiphons which can be found since the earliest tonaries, it was enough to refer to the melodic beginnings or incipits of the text. In the earliest tonaries no models of psalmody had been given and incipits from all chant genres were listed, probably just for a modal classification (see the section for the "Autentus protus" of the Saint Riquier tonary).
According to Michel Huglo, there was a prototype tonary which initiated the Carolingian reform.[18] But in a later study he mentioned an even earlier tonary which was brought as a present to the Palatine Chapel in Aachen by a Byzantine legacy which celebrated procession antiphons for Epiphany in a Latin translation.[19]
Already during the 10th century tonaries became so widespread in different regions, that they do not only allow to study the difference between local schools according to its modal classification, its redaction of modal patterns, and its own way of using Carolingian psalmody. They also showed a fundamental difference between the written transmission of Latin and Greek chant traditions, as it had developed between the 10th and 12th centuries. The main concern of Latin cantors and their tonaries was a precise and unambiguous classification of whatever melody type according the local perception of the Octoechos system.
Greek psaltes were not interested at all in this question. They knew the models of each modes by certain simple chant genres as the troparion and the heirmoi (the melodic models used to create poetry in the meter of the heirmologic odes), but other genres like sticheron and kontakion could change the echos within their melos, so their main interest was the relationship between the echoi to compose elegant and discrete changes between them.
In contrary, the very particular form and function of the tonary within chant transmission made it evident, that the modal classification of Latin cantors according to the eight tones of the Octoechos had to be done a posteriori, deduced by the modal analysis of the chant and its melodic patterns, while the transmission of the traditional chant itself did not provide any model except of the psalm tones used for the recitation of the psalms and the canticles.[20]
The tonary was the very heart of the mainly oral chant transmission used during the Carolingian reform and as its medium it must have had a strong impact on the melodic memory of the cantors who used it in order to memorize the Roman chant, after a synode confirmed Charlemagne's admonitio generalis. The written transmission by fully notated chant manuscripts, the object of chant studies today, cannot be dated back to an earlier time than nearly 200 years after the admonitio—the last third of the 10th century. And it seems that Roman cantors whose tradition had to be learnt, followed at least 100 years later by the transcription of their chant repertory and no document has survived which can testify the use of tonaries among Roman cantors. Pope Adrian I's confirmation of the Eastern octoechos reform had probably no consequences on the tradition of Roman chant, which might be an explanation for the distinct written transmission, as it can be studied between Roman Frankish and Old Roman chant manuscripts.[21]
The eight sections of the Latin tonary are usually ordered "Tonus primus Autentus Protus", "Tonus secundus Plagi Proti", "Tonus tertius Autentus deuterus" etc. Each section is opened by an intonation formula using the names like "Noannoeane" for the authentic and "Noeagis" for the plagal tones. In his theoretical tonary "Musica disciplina" Aurelian of Réôme asked a Greek about the meaning of the syllables, and reported that they had no meaning, they were rather an expression of joy as used by peasants to communicate with their working animals like horses.[22] There was usually no exact resemblance of the Latin syllables to the names of the Greek intonations or enechemata which were identified with the diatonic kyrioi and plagioi echoi, but Aurelian's question made it obvious that the practice was taken from Greek singers. Unlike the Hagiopolitan octoechos, which used two additional phthorai with the syllables Nana and Nenano for changes into the enharmonic and chromatic genus, the enharmonic and chromatic genus was excluded from the Latin octoechos, at least according to Carolingian theorists.
Since the 10th century tonaries also include the mnemic verses of certain model antiphons which memorize each tone by one verse. The most common among all tonaries was also used by Guido of Arezzo in his treatise Micrologus: "Primum querite regnum dei", "Secundum autem simile est huic" etc. Another characteristic was that melodic melisms called neumae followed the intonation formulas or mnemic verses. Usually they differed more among different tonaries than the preceding intonations or verses, but they all demonstrated the generative and creative aspect within chant transmission.[23]
In comparison with Byzantine psaltes who always used notation in a more or less stenographic way, the exact patterns used during the so-called "thesis of the melos" belonged to the oral tradition of a local school, its own modal system and its genre. But already the question of chant genre was connected with local traditions in medieval times and the point of reference for the psaltes who performed a certain genre: the Hagiopolitan octoechos and its genres (the odes according to the models of the heirmologion, the troparia of the octoechos or tropologion), or the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite (akolouthia asmatike) and its books asmatikon, psaltikon, and kontakarion might serve here as examples.
Question of intervals and their transposition (διαστήματα and mensura monocordi)
The exact proportions which divided a tetrachord, had never been a subject of Greek medieval treatises concerned about Byzantine chant. The separation between the mathematical science harmonikai and chant theory gave space to various speculations, even to the assumption that the same division was used as described in Latin music theory, operating with two diatonic intervals like tonus (9:8) and semitonium (256:243).[24] Nevertheless some treatises referred the tetrachord division into three intervals called the "great tone" (μείζων τόνος) which often corresponded to the prominent position of the whole tone (9:8), the "middle tone" (ἐλάσσων τόνος) between α and β, and the "small tone" (ἐλάχιστος τόνος) between β and γ which was usually a much larger interval than the half tone, and this division was common among most divisions by different ancient Greek theorists that were mentioned by Ptolemy in his Harmonics. Before Chrysanthos' Theoretika (the Mega Theoretikon was published by his students posthumously), exact proportions were never mentioned in Greek chant theory. His system of 68 commata which is based on a corrupted use of arithmetics, can be traced back to the division of 12:11 x 88:81 x 9:8 = 4:3 between α and δ.[25]
Pitches (φθόγγοι) and their tonal system (συστήματα) in medieval treatises
Although Chrysanthos did not mention his name, the first who mentioned precisely these proportions starting from the open string of the third or middle chord of the oud, was the Arab theorist Al-Farabi in his Kitab al-Musiqa al-Kabir which was written during the first half of the 10th century. His explicit references to Persian and Ancient Greek music theory were possible, because they had been recently translated into Arabic and Persian dialects in the library of Baghdad. Thanks to them Al-Farabi had also an excellent knowledge of Ancient Greek music theory. The method of demonstrating the intervals by the frets of the oud keyboard was probably taken from Al-Kindi. Here the intervals are not referred to the Byzantine phthongoi, but to the name of the frets. And the fret corresponding to β was called "ring finger fret of Zalzal" (wuștā Zalzal), named after the famous Baghdadi oud player Zalzal.[26] It seems that the proportion of the Zalzal fret was a refined one in Bagdad using a large middle tone that came very close to the interval of the small tone, while the Mawsili school used 13:12 instead of 12:11. There is no indication that this division had been of Byzantine origin, so Western scholars felt seduced to ascribe the use of the division called "soft diatonic" (diatonikos malakos) and the chromaticism derived from it as an influence of the Ottoman Empire and to regard their view of the systema teleion also as a norm for the Byzantine tonal system.[27] As Phanariots (Phanar was the Greek district of Istanbul with the residence of the Patriarchate) who composed as well in the makamlar, the teachers of the New Music School of the Patriarchate around Chrysanthos had certainly exchanges with Sephardic, Armenian, and Sufi musicians, but an intensive exchange between Byzantine, Arab and Persian musicians had already a history of more than 1000 years.[28]
Unlike Latin treatises only a few Greek treatises of chant have survived and their authors wrote nothing about the intervals, about microtonal shifts as part of a certain melos and its echos, or about the practice of ison singing (isokratema). Nevertheless these practices remained undisputed, because they are still part of the living tradition today, while Western plainchant became rediscovered during the 19th century. Neither musicians nor musicologists were longer familiar with them which explains why various descriptions, as they can be found in certain Latin treatises, were ignored for quite a long time.
Ancient Greek music theory had always been a point of reference in Latin chant treatises, something similar cannot be found in Greek chant treatises before the 14th century, but there were a few Latin treatises of the 11th century which did not only refer to Ancient music theory and the systema teleion together with the Greek names of its elements, they even had parts dedicated to Byzantine chant.[29] The appreciation for Byzantine chant is surprising, because there were very few authors except Boethius who had really studied Greek treatises and who were also capable to translate them, as he already had done in Visigothic Spain.
The systema teleion was present by the Boethian diagram which represented it for the diatonic, the chromatic, and the enharmonic genus. Several tonaries used letters which referred the positions of this diagram.[30] The most famous example is the letter notation of William of Volpiano which he developed for the Cluniac reforms by the end of the 10th century. In his school a unique tonary was already written, when he was reforming abbot of St. Benignus of Dijon. The tonary shows the Roman-Frankish mass chant written out in neume and pitch notation. The repertory is classified according to the Carolingian tonary and its entirely diatonic octoechos. The use of tyronic letters clearly shows, that the enharmonic diesis was used as a kind of melodic attraction within the diatonic genus, which sharpened the semitonium. Even in Guido of Arezzo's treatise Micrologus, at least in earlier copies, there is still a passage which explains, how the diesis can be found on the monochord. It sharpens the semitonium by replacing the usual whole tone (9:8) between re—mi (D—E, G—a, or a—b) by an even larger one in the proportion of 7:6 which was usually perceived as an attraction towards fa.[31]
But there were as well other practices which could not be explained by the Boethian diagram and its use of tonus and semitonium. The authors of one theoretical tonary of the compilation called alia musica used an alternative intonation with the name AIANEOEANE, the name was obviously taken from a Byzantine enechema ἅγια νεανὲς, a kind of Mesos tetartos with the finalis and basis on a low E, and applied the Byzantine practice to certain pieces of Roman-Frankish chant which were classified as "tonus tertius" or "Autentus deuterus".[32] In the following section "De quarto tono" the author quotes Aristoxenos' description of the enharmonic and chromatic division of the tetrachord, the remark on it in precisely this section had been probably motivated by the Hagiopolitan concept of the phthora nenano which connected the echos protos on a with the plagios devteros on E.[33]
Medieval use of transposition (μεταβολή κατὰ τόνον)
Latin cantors knew about the theoretical concept of the practice of transposition since Boethius' translation of Ptolemy. Very few can be said, if they ever understood the practical use of it. Nevertheless there was a rudimentary knowledge which can be found in the Carolingian treatises Musica and Scolica enchiriadis.[34] The Musica enchiriadis was also the only Latin treatise which documented a second tone system beside the systema teleion, but it does not explain at all, how these both systems worked together in practice.
The Hagiopolites did neither explain it nor did it mention any tone system nor the metabole kata tonon, but this was probably, because the hymn reform of Jerusalem was mainly concerned with simple models exemplified by heirmoi or troparia. Greek protopsaltes used the transposition only in very few compositions of the sticherarion, for instance the compositions passing through all the modes of the Octoechos,[35] or certain melismatic elaborations of troparia in the psaltic style, the soloistic style of the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite. This might explain that Charles Atkinson discussed Carolingian theory in comparison with the later papadikai, in which all possible transpositions were represented by the Koukouzelian wheel or by the kanônion.[36]
Wheels are also used in Arabic music theory since the 13th century, and Al-Farabi was the first who started a long tradition of science, which did not only find the proportions of the untransposed diatonic system on the oud keyboard, but also those of all possible transpositions.[37] The use of instruments had to adapt to a very complex tradition which had probably been a rather vocal tradition in its origins.
In the history of the Byzantine rite the Hagiopolitan reform was described as a synthesis of the cathedral rite and the monastic rite.[38] Nevertheless the Hagiopolitan octoechos did not come into use at the Hagia Sophia of Constantinople before the Papadic reform during the late 13th and the 14th century, after the patriarchate and the court had returned from exile in Nicaea. The reform of John Koukouzeles can be studied by a new type of treatise called "papadike" (παπαδική). It included a list of all neume signs which was also organized as a didactic chant called Mega Ison which passed through all the eight echoi of the octoechos. This chant or exercise (μάθημα) was composed by John Glykys, but most Papadikai also add a second version in the redaction of John Koukouzeles who was probably his student.[39] These lists prefer the use of Byzantine round notation, which had developed during the late 12th century from the Coislin type. The modal signatures were referred to the Hagiopolitan octoechos. Because the repertoire of signs was expanded under the influence of John Glykys' school, there was a scholarly discussion to make a distinction between Middle and Late Byzantine notation.[40] The discussion decided more or less against this distinction, because the Papadic school did not invent new neume signs, it rather integrated signs known from other chant books and their local traditions, including the books of the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite as they had been used until the Western conquest of Constantinople.
Papadike and the mixed rite of Constantinople
The so-called mixed rite which replaced the former tradition of the cathedral rite, resembled in large parts the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom, of Basil of Caesarea, and of the Presanctified Gifts, as they are in use until today. But many places of the Byzantine Empire did never accept the reform of the Palaiologan Constantinople.[41]
These local differences explain, why the Erotapokriseis-treatises already followed the Studite reform and represent somehow an early form of Papadike, so parts of it can later be found in the classical Papadike manuscripts. The Papadike itself had much in common with Latin tonaries: intonation formulas and psalmody for the eight modes of the octoechos system could both be found in the book Akolouthiai and they were the only sources of Byzantine simple psalmody. The new book Akolouthiai replaced several books, the psaltikon, the asmatikon, the kontakarion, and the typikon, it puzzled the soloist's, the domestikos', and the choir's part, and the rubrics of the typikon together. It contained several little books as kratemataria (a collection of additional sections composed over abstract syllables), heirmologia, and embellished compositions of the polyeleos psalms.
But in this combination the Papadike appears since the 14th century, while the earliest version introduced a sticherarion written in 1289.[42] This proves again the integrating role of the Middle Byzantine Round notation, which had developed as the notation of the book sticherarion since the 13th century.
Composition of the Papadike
Intonations (ἐνηχήματα) for the echoi plagios devteros, varys, and plagios tetartos listed in a 17th-century Papadike treatise—the intonations are followed by chant incipits (London, British Library, Harley 5544, fol. 8r)
Despite of longer theoretical explanations by authors like Gabriel Hieromonachos (Hannick & Wolfram 1985), Manuel Chrysaphes (Conomos 1985), Ioannis Plousiadinos which were usually attached to it, the Papadike itself was rather based on lists and exercises with short verbal explanations. The composition of the Papadike can be illustrated by the Italian manuscript of Messina (Messina, University Library, Fondo SS. Salvatore, Ms. 154), which was edited and referred by Oskar Fleischer who dated it back to the 15th century. But the manuscript which he had published from the reliefs of Friedrich Chrysander, is in fact a late copy of the 17th century which introduced the Anastasimatarion of Chrysaphes the New.[43]
The following schedule describes the content of the Papadike of the Codex Chrysander and explains the difference to earlier Papadikai:
Protheoria beginning with Ἀρχὴ σὺν Θεῷ ἁγίῳ τῶν σημαδίων τῆς ψαλτικῆς τέχνης ("The beginning with the Holy God of the signs used in the psaltic art..."). The signs are described and listed starting with ἴσον and the other signs which sound, including tempo signs.[44]
A list of the aphonic or "great signs" (Τὰ δὲ μεγάλα σημάδια).[45]
A list of seven phthorai (πρῶτος, δεύτερος, τρίτος, τέταρτος, πλάγιος πρώτου, νενανῶ, βαρέως ἤχου) and two signs for a change of the tone system (μεταβολή κατὰ σύστημα)—ἡμίφωνον and εἰμίφθορον (obviously needed for a change into the triphonic system of phthora nana). The system of diatonic phthorai developed during the 14th century and was described by Manuel Chrysaphes in 1458 (Conomos 1985, pp. 55-65).[46]
The octoechos, the modal signatures (marytyriai) of the different echoi, their octave species, and their name sung with the enechema.[47]
A systematic list of all ascending and descending combinations used as phonic signs (σώματα and πνεύματα).[48]
The following section is dedicated to the practice of parallage—a kind of solfeggio in which each phthongos ("pitch class") is recognized by an echos and its intonation (enechema).[49] The "methodos" is based on four columns which are also often organized in a circle. In this Papadike the circle form and the columns are integrated in the probably most complicated memorial landscape, the Koukouzelian tree. Parallage is not the solfeggio as memorization of an existing melody (the latter is metrophonia as illustrated on page 16: ἡ κυρία μετροφωνία which uses a text, while each step of the neumes is explained by the modal signature of its phthongos), but the exploration of the tone system by the use of the columns, circles, or its elaborated form as a tree.
The seventh section is a collection of enechemata, which is very reduced in the 17th century redaction in comparison to earlier Papadikai[50]—a troparion ἀνεβάς νεβὰν which memorizes always another echos with each verse, concludes the section.[51] It does not only document the simple forms as used in parallage, but also mesos intonations which were obviously needed to transcribe the whole repertoire including the cathedral rite into Byzantine round notation and its medial signatures which all refer to the Hagiopolitan octoechos.[52] This section proves the integrative use of this notation, its signatures and its phthorai, which made up the "Holy God of signs" and allowed him to recreate the different traditions of Eastern chant within the psaltic art and its notation.
The eighth section adds some didactic chants, among them the Mega Ison—a sung list of all the signs which was used to exercise the method of embellished (kalophonic) melos passing through all the eight modes of Octoechos (πρῶτος, δεύτερος, τρίτος, τέταρτος, πλάγιος τοῦ πρώτου, πλάγιος τοῦ δευτέρου, βαρύς, πλάγιος τοῦ τετάρτου, πρῶτος), sung by a soloist skilled in the psaltic art.[53] Other didactic chants like the Nouthesia pros mathitas by Chrysaphes the New made evident that this manuscript was written by the end of the 17th century.
The possibility of translating every style into an artistic experiment of psaltic art was based on the concept, that every step recognized by metrophonia was regarded as a degree of the mode as well as a mode (an echos) itself. The kalophonic method established a second method beside the traditional one and it created new books like the sticherarion kalophonikon, the heirmologion kalophonikon, etc.
Models of simple psalmody
The new book Akolouthiai quoted simple psalmody usually in connection with the gradual psalms (anabathmoi, Ps. 119-130) and the earliest examples can be found in manuscripts since the 14th century.[54] The practice can be regarded as part of a synthesis between Hagiopolitan Octoechos and the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite which was another result of the Studite reform. These models followed the octoechos and showed close resemblance to the melismatic compositions of the cathedral rite, at least in the transmission of psaltikon in Middle Byzantine notation, from which the expression of psaltic art had been taken.
During the 13th and 14th century psalmody was used in rather elaborated form than in the simple one copied from sticheraria. Traditional (palaia) forms of elaboration were often named after their local secular tradition as Constantinopolitan (agiosophitikon, politikon), Thessalonian (thessalonikaion), or a monastic one like those from Athos (hagioreitikon), the more elaborated, kalophonic compositions were collected in separate parts of the Akolouthiai, especially the poetic and musical compositions over the Polyeleos-Psalm developed as a new genre of psaltic art and the names of the protopsaltes or maistoroi were mentioned in these collections.[55]
Simple Psalmody according to the first section of the Anastasimatarion of Chrysaphes the New dedicated to the echos protos—a 17th-century redaction between Papadic and modern use (London, British Library, Harley Ms. 5544, fol. 13r)
The representation of the Hagiopolitan Octoechos by a wheel with four sparks or by four columns, separated in four authentic and four plagal modes called "echoi" which are organized in four pairs each using the same octave and its separation into a diatonic divided pentachord and a tetrachord above, are based on the four elements of tetraphônia (τετραφωνία). These four elements were represented by the numerals πρῶτος, δεύτερος, τρίτος, and τέταρτος, and in the practice of parallage (παραλλαγή) the distinction between the authentic echoi called "kyrioi" and the plagal echoi called "plagioi" was defined as a direction: the intonation formulas (enechemata) of the plagioi were always used to move downwards, those of the kyrioi to move upwards. Where ever these four elements were repeated, they always generated a pure fifth for the pentachord between the pair of a kyrios at the top and a plagios at the bottom.
But according to the "method of parallage (solfeggio)" the logic of one column did not to represent the pentachord between kyrios and plagios of the same octave species, but the connection between a change of direction as α'↔πλδ', β'↔πλα', γ'↔πλβ', and δ'↔υαρ.[56] The horizontal axis reads the first line from the left to the right for the ascending direction, the second is read from the right to the left for the descending direction. If these columns are organized in a circle like sparks of a wheel, the ascending direction becomes clockwise and the descending counter clockwise.
In the Papadike of the Codex Chrysander this circle can be found as a "crown" on the top of the Koukouzelian tree, and the four columns of tetraphonia were probably represented at the foot of the tree. For an understanding of the phthongoi and the way of parallage between them it is necessary to discover an additional protos signature which is written left to the left upper branch of the tree which has to be regarded as an own branch with a snake's head. The step to the next right phthongos is a descending step to the lower branch. The ways of parallage can be recognized by the blue arrows for the ascending direction, and by the black arrows for the descending direction. Following them we have two diagonal hemispheres for the circle on the top and two vertical hemispheres separated by the stem of the tree which still refer to the circles, only that they are repeated from the outer to the inner positions. A movement between two phthongoi of the same branch has no step, but is indicated by an ison as a transposition (μεταβολή κατὰ τόνον) on the same thetic place represented by each branch. The phthongos does not change its intonation defined by a certain frequence or cord length, but it changed its dynamic quality, defined by the modal signature, into another phthongos. The additional diatonic phthorai used in Middle Byzantine notation are used here, in order to change this quality without any reference to the two additional Hagiopolitan phthoraiνανὰ and νενανῶ.
Parallage within the Circle
In the circle the descending and the ascending parallage has to move within a half circle described by the enechemata of the plagioi or the kyrioi echoi. If the clockwise ascending direction arrived at the intonation formula of echos plagios (about 4 and a half), the way jumps back to the position of 12 o'clock where the signature of echos protos can be found. If the parallage changes the direction and descends from echos protos (ἦχος πρῶτος) to echos plagios tou tetartou (ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ τετάρτου), the way of parallage takes the spark down from 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock. From here (echos plagios tetartos) the descending direction jumps to the position of half past 10 o'clock (ἦχος βαρύς) and continues in counter clockwise direction plagios devteros (ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ δευτέρου), plagios protos (ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ πρώτου), and plagios tetartos (ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ τετάρτου).
The sparks are marked by dark blue double arrows, because both directions, the ascending as well as the descending parallage, are possible.
Parallage between the branches of the Koukouzelian Tree
The same movement within a half circle explains the necessity to jump from the branch at the top down to the lowest one of the tree. At the end of the branches the singers will find the "untransposed" way. They start from the echos protos signature written on the left side of the tree, marked by a circle and described as "α'" (the First), and continue in descending direction on the top branch with the signature of echos plagios tetartos (ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ τετάρτου), the black arrow leads down to the lowest branch where the singers will find the plagios tritos called "echos varys" (ἦχος βαρύς), and from there they have to move up to follow the descending way with plagios devteros (ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ δευτέρου), and plagios protos (ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ πρώτου).
Following from the beginning of "the First" in ascending direction, singers have to change to the outer top branch on the right side of the tree, where they will find the signature of echos devteros (ἦχος δεύτερος). From there they have to move the branches down to follow the ascending way with echos tritos (ἦχος τρίτος, here represented by the short enechema of phthora nana), echos tetartos (ἦχος τέταρτος), and echos protos (ἦχος πρώτος). If they had to go further in ascending direction, they will jump back to the top branch.
The possible four transpositions used the same movement between the branches, but from an inner position of the branch closer to the stem. Unlike the circle with its sparks the tree does not allow a change of direction from whatever position. On the other hand, every branch could be used for a transposition which corresponds to the papadic use of the four phthorai, which changed the dynamis by a metabole kata tonon (μεταβολή κατὰ τόνον).
Papadike—κανώνιον καὶ ἡ παραλλαγή τοῦ Γαβρϊὴλ from the manuscript Mount Athos, Hilandar Monastery, Ms. 53, fol. 3.
An example might be the first transposition which turns the echos protos (marked by a circle) into the plagios tetartos (ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ τετάρτου). This change could be recapitulated by singers, if they were singing the protos intonation ἀνανεανές, here imagined as a pitch like a, and then they intoned the echos plagios tou tetartou (ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ τετάρτου) νεάγιε on the same pitch, which would cause a transposition about a whole tone (α' = πλδ'). Here the outer protos signature can be replaced by the outer position of the left top branch (encircled by a yellow mark), and from here singers will move in the second ring of the branches in the same way as described above (also the descending and ascending ways are indicated by arrows, but they are still the same for the other rings, which are not further indicated).
Parallage on the Kanonion
The simplest and presumably earliest form which is also the closest to Ancient Greek science treatises, is the representation of the different metabolai kata tonon (μεταβολαὶ κατὰ τόνον) by the kanōnion (also used in the translation by Boethius). This table can be read in four directions. The vertical directions are indicated by the first and last column. The first column shows the 8 steps (phônai) in descending direction using the enechemata of the plagioi which are written at the bottom of each cell (follow the red arrows), the last column shows the 8 steps (phônai) in ascending direction using the enechemata of the kyrioi which are written at the top of each cell (follow the blue arrows). This way each cell can be left in ascending or descending direction.
On the first sight it seems that the vertical direction is ascending from left to the right and descending from the right to the left, but the intonation have to be sung on the same pitch on the vertical, because the phthorai indicate a change of the dynamis (the pitch class) whatever is the frequency of its pitch. As example the Doxastarion oktaechon Θεαρχίῳ νεύματι, one of the stichera which passes through all the echoi of the octoechos, in the short realization of Petros Peleponnesios finds the echos tritos on the wrong pitch. On the phthongos which is expected as the pitch of the echos tetartos, the echos tritos is introduced by the enechema of phthora nana. This metabole kata tonon (μεταβολή κατὰ τόνον) can be localized in the kanonion fourth row from below and in the fourth column with modal signatures, where the intonation of echos tetartos in the first column is replaced by the signature of echos tritos.
By this example the use of wheels and trees which can be found as illustrations of the Byzantine tonal system in different Papadikai, becomes evident. A protopsaltes or maistoros who was well skilled in the psaltic art, could use these memorial landscapes in order to find their way through the labyrinth of tonal relation- and kinships. Even in improvised teretismata or nenanismata, inserted sections using abstract syllables, complex structures were possible, a soloist could pass through several transpositions and was still able to find her or his way out—which meant back to the transposition of the first column and the echos of the main signature.
Parallage on the Koukouzelian Wheel (trochos)
Directly on the fundament of the kanonion and its passage through 8 steps through the tetraphonic system of parallage is constructed the Koukouzelian wheel or trochos (τροχὸς), though it seems that the whole tone system is reduced to a window of one pentachord:
"Parallage of John Koukouzeles": The four peripheral wheels for the Octoechos (top left: protos echoi; top right: devteros echoi; bottom left: tritos echoi; bottom right: tetartos echoi) and the tetraphonic tone system and its transpositions in the center—Koukouzelian wheel in a 18th century manuscript (manuscript of the private collection by Demetrios Kontogiorges)
The four columns had been completed by a fifth identical with the first. Now they are all shaped as five rings and the order of them had been inverted, so that the second ring turns the echos protos into the plagios tetartos (instead of into the devteros as in the second column of the kanonion), the third into the echos varys, the fourth into the plagios devteros, and finally into the plagios protos. It is the same order as we found it in the Koukouzelian tree: first a metabole kata tonon about one lower step, two lower steps, three lower steps etc.
The second coincidence with the kanonion is that each phthongos has a kyrios signature with the soma ("body") neume for one ascending step (ὁλίγον) and a plagios signature of the same echos with the soma neume for one descending step (ἀπόστροφος). This way the pentachord can be passed in ascending and descending direction clockwise as well as counterclockwise. From whatever phthongos, each place of the wheel can be left in ascending as well as in descending direction. The five rings are another important innovation in comparison with the other memorial landscapes, the substitution of the kyrios by the plagios (passing from the outer to the most inner ring) and vice versa was frequently used by composers for the effect of a register change into the lower or higher pentachord.
The other important innovation is the combination of two diagrams which can already be found in the Koukouzelian tree: the circle for the melos at the top or the crown and the tree for a representation of all possible transpositions. Here four simplified circles have been derived from the transposition of the protos pentachord into the tetartos one (second ring), into the tritos pentachord (third ring), and into the devteros pentachord (fourth ring). While the rings of the big wheel in the centre are representing the tone system and all its possible transitions (including all the metabolai kata tonon), the four small outer rings represent the station within the melos of a certain echos with each pentachord which connects the kyrios with the plagios.
The τροχὸς in the version of a late 18th-century manuscript of Papadike does not follow the former simplifications in the peripheral wheels, dedicated to the diatonic kyrios and plagios of a the four octaves. Instead the author tried to mix the heptaphonia within the Koukouzelian wheel. The older form is written outside and just shows the pentachord of protos in the circle on the left top and here its parallage was only written in clockwise direction (see the way marked by the arrows). The psaltes starts with the enechema of echos protos, which is descending and ascending stepwise the pentachord with its beginning and end on the kyrios finalis: ἀνανεανές, νεαγίς, ἀανές, νεχεανές, ἀνέανες, νεανές, ἀνεανές, ἅγια, ἀνανεανές.
Rather odd and outside the rule is the heptaphonic use of parallage within each peripheral circle. In the center the author of this manuscript wrote "heptaphonia of the first echos" (ἐπταφωνία τοῦ πρώτου ἤχου), and starting from the kyrios the parallage descends to the lower octave which is not heptaphonic at all, because the "octave" is now the plagios devteros, and for the devteros circle (on the right top) even the augmented octave between echos devteros (b natural) and echos varys (B flat). The system works only within the heptaphonic interpretation of the Byzantine tone system by Chrysanthos who defined the transcription according to the New Method.[57]
The former use of heptaphonia within the melos of a certain echos can be rather explained by another method: the singer moves down and up within the pentachord, and within the higher tetrachord of the octave it is only possible to ascend two steps from the kyrios and then the octave has to be fulfilled by the octave of the plagios of each echos. This method follows exactly the Latin description of alia musica, whose author probably referred to the opinion of an experienced psaltes:
For the full octave another tone might be added, which is called ἐμμελῆς: "according to the melos".
"Another" could mean "outside of the tetraphonia (τετραφωνία)", the tone system which was so strongly identified with the Koukouzelian wheel and its parallage, that it was also called the "trochos system" (σύστημα τοῦ τρόχου, σύστημα κατὰ τετραφωνίαν).
Trochos System
The short passage of the alia musica compilation contains an explanation which is usually not given in the systematic lists of signs of the Papadikai. It tries to solve a conflict, as it already existed since medieval chant treatises—the conflict between the heptaphonic and tetraphonic tone system. The solution can be found in other treatises of the psaltic art which offer further explanations to the Papadike as those by Gabriel Hieromonachos, Manuel Chrysaphes, and by Ioannis Plousiadinos. The solution of Manuel Chrysaphes is a formal distinction between the musical structure written in notation, its recapitulation by the solfeggio or the use of parallage (παραλλαγή) which is called metrophonia (μετροφωνία),[58] and the establishment of the musical performance by the "thesis of the melos" (θέσις τοῦ μέλου) according to its traditional "method" (μέθοδος). The solution of Gabriel Hieromonachos was to establish a priority of the echos protos by the mese by the middle chord of the oud and to ascend seven steps with the enechemata of kyrioi echoi and to descend seven steps by the enechemata of the plagioi echoi which was a common method since Al-Kindi and probably taken from a Greek practice.
The 19th-century reform according to the New Method of Chrysanthos of Madytos replaced the former solfeggio or metrophonia based on the tetraphonic use of the enechemata which referred to the eight modes of the Octoechos by an heptaphonic solfeggio of seven syllables ζω, νη, πα, βου, γα, δι, and κε—not unsimilar to the Western solfeggio (Si, Do, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, and La). But his concern was less the integration of the Western tone system which abandoned during the 11th century the tetraphonia in favour of the systema teleion than the integration of the Ottoman reception of the same which had become common to all musicians of the Empire, whether they were Sufis, Sephardic Hazzans, Armenian, Persian or Kurdish musicians.[59]
The "Occidental school" as Maria Alexandru liked to call it, went into the footsteps of Chrysanthos with their assumption that the systema teleion or heptaphonia was the only explanation and was adaptated according to the Western perception of the modes as octave species.[60] According to Chrysanthos the tritone B—F had become the tritos pentachord, while Oliver Strunk defined G—g as the tetartos octave unlike Chrysanthos and the living tradition as the point of reference of the "Greek school" who all set the tetartos octave a fifth lower C—c, so that the seventh was big and not small.[61] Both interpretations corrupt the tetraphonic or trochos system (σύστημα κατὰ τετραφωνίαν).
Manuel Chrysaphes' solution separates the level of metrophonia by the formal function of a changing disposition, which allows always to find a kyrios in the upper pentachord, if the phthongos is plagios, or a plagios in the lower pentachord, if the phthongos is kyrios. But plagios and kyrios on the level of metrophonia are only defined by the direction from which singers arrive at a certain phthongos. As a degree of a certain mode or echos like "kyrios" and "plagios" the psaltes left the level of parallage and metrophonia, and enter the level of a melos defined by one echos and one of the peripheral wheels, and on this level the tritos is always the octave on B flat or F, while the octave of B natural is always a devteros octave which can be reached by a transposition (μεταβολή κατὰ τόνον) which turns the protos on D into a tetartos and looks from there for its mesos on B natural. Such a transposition will cause a transition within the central wheel, which turns the phthongos of protos (α') on the top of the outer ring into the tetartos (δ') in the second ring. From here the metrophonia might descend two steps clockwise to the plagios devteros (πλ β'). According to the trochos system Chrysanthos' adaptation to the Ottoman tambur frets was already a transposition.
Nearly every melos is related to the heptaphonia by the reproduction of the plagios in the octave of the eighth phthongos. This practice separated the four octaves. Hence, the Hagiopolitan phthorai nana and nenano had an important function to bridge between the four octaves of protos, devteros, tritos, and tetartos. The tritos and the tetartos octave were separated by different degrees, e.g. the tetartos octave C—c and the tritos one B flat—b flat was separated by the use of b natural on the seventh phthongos in the heptaphonia of tetartos. Manuel Chrysaphes mentioned that phthora nana always bound the melos of echos tritos, so that it had to resolve in the enharmonic form of echos plagios tetartos. Bound by the phthora nana, the melos could not change into any other echos before its resolution into the plagios tetartos, so even a change to the diatonic tetartos melos had to follow after this resolution and needed a preparation by the change to another genos (μεταβολή κατὰ γένον). In a very similar way the phthora nenano always connected the echos plagios devteros on E with the echos protos on a—in both directions and bridged by the chromatic genos.
The inner and outer nature of whatever phthongos becomes evident by the difference between parallage and melos. The great wheel in the center rather represented all phthongoi as an element of a tone system, but by the solfeggio of parallage each phthongos was defined on the level of dynamis as an own echos according to a certain enechema. The four inner rings of the central wheel re-defined the dynamis of each phthongos constantly by the enechema of another echos, so each parallage defined the disposition of the intervals in another way, thus represented all possible transpositions as part of the outer nature. The inner nature was represented by the four peripheral wheels for protos (on the top left), devteros (on the top right), tritos (at the bottom left), and tetartos (at the bottom right). Within these circles each phthongos became part of a certain melos and its echos, so its function was defined as a modal degree of an echos, e.g. a cadential or final degree, or a mobile degree attracted by the others.
The practice of psaltic art and the disposition of the echoi through which a certain composition had to pass, can be studied by the kalophonic method of doing the thesis of the sticheraric melos.[62] The psaltes skilled in the psaltic art usually opened his performance by an extended enechema which recapitulated the disposition of all the echoi which the kalophonic melos had to pass through. Usually the disposition was simple and did not change by the use of transposition, but some more complex stichera did as well and the tetraphonic system allowed always a new disposition between plagios and kyrios of a certain echos. And one of this complex stichera which pass through the eight echoi of Octoechos, was chosen by Oliver Strunk (1942) to find evidence for a fixed disposition of the eight echoi.[63]
Ioannis Plousiadinos and the Triphonic System
There is an alternative form of solfeggio which was called "the wisest or rather sophisticated parallage of Mr Ioannis Iereos Plousiadinos" (ἡ σοφωτάτη παραλλαγὴ κυρίου Ἰωάννου Ἰερέως τοῦ Πλουσιαδινοῦ). It uses a crossing point and three phthongoi into four directions. What makes this parallage wiser than the one of John Koukouzeles is simply, that it can be used for tetraphonia and for triphonia at the same time and without the use of any transposition.
"ἡ σοφωτάτη παραλλαγὴ κυρίου Ἰωάννου Ἰερέως τοῦ Πλουσιαδινοῦ" in an 18th-century manuscript (Athos, Docheiarios Monastery, Ms. 319, fol. 18v)
The simpler case is triphonia which has its finalis between a descending and an ascending tetrachord which are connected by the finalis. Here the complication is similar to those between heptaphonia and tetraphonia. The simplest form of triphonia can be imagined as a permanent transposition of each tetrachord which always start on plagios tetartos (πλ δ') and ascends to the phthongos of tritos (γ'). The final note is always tritos and plagios tetartos at the same time (γ' = πλ δ'). In fact the ascending branch from the x at the bottom left continues from the phthongos of tritos (γ') to the phthongos of devteros (β'), but another signature of tritos (γ') is written aside as an alternative annotation of the same phthongos. This parallage corresponds to the convention of using notation, because there is no abundant use of the diatonic phthora of tritos or plagios devteros to indicate a metabole kata tonon, instead the use of the aphonic or great sign xeron klasma (ξηρὸν κλάσμα) indicates that there will be the same cadence that usually closes on the phthongos of tritos, and not on the phthongos of devteros. So outside of the tetraphonic parallage which will always find a slightly low intoned tritone going three steps up from tritos on F, the triphonic system finds again the tritos at a phthongos within the pure fourth of a tetrachord, which must be b flat. In the same way the last phthongos of the descending branch "plagios tetartos" is alternatively annotated as "echos varys" (υαρ), while the tritos in the crossing point has the signature of phthora nana (φθορά νανὰ) which can be found between two connected tetrachords: between plagios tetartos and devteros/tritos (C—F νανὰ—b flat) or between varys and devteros/tritos (F—b flat νανὰ—e flat).
The left half of the same cross means a completely different interval combination. Here the triphonia moves in ascending as well as in descending direction a middle tone and two great tones from a pitch which is a mesos tetartos on a low E which moves the middle tone (D—E) very close to the small one (E—F). The signature at the crossing point abbreviates "echos legetos" (ἦχος λέγετος). If the intervall step between the phthongoi protos and devteros is a diese (like the Latin semitonium), the diminished tritone (B flat—low E, low E—a) becomes a tetrachord (B flat—E flat νανὰ, E flat νανὰ—a flat). It just depends which signature of the crossing point has been chosen by the psaltes.
Nevertheless, the triphonic parallage which is ascribed to Ioannis Plousiadinos is used in combination with the all the chromatic and enharmonic phthorai which can be used within all the eight diatonic modes of the octoechos.
Another example is the first cross on the left top with the modal signatures of protos, tetartos and phthora nenano (φθορά νενανῶ). According to medieval signatures, this phthora connected the echos protos (ἦχος πρῶτος) with the echos plagios tou devterou (ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ δευτέρου). If only this tetrachord is chromatic, it is connected to a second diatonic tetrachord between α' and δ', so the signature is protos. In the current tradition the sticheraric melos the tetrachord between α' and δ' is chromatic, so the attraction of νενανῶ moves towards the tetartos, and between δ' and the tetartos octave of the plagios, the diatonic melos follows echos tetartos. In fact, the melos of echos tetartos today tends to chose the tetartos melos for the ascending direction (δ'—#α'—β'—πλ δ'), and the protos melos for the descending (δ'—γ'—β'—α'). The chromatic alternative is tetraphonic and no longer part of this diagram. Both possibilities were certainly well known in the time of the manuscript Ms. 319 of the Docheiarios Monastery, but if the ascription to Ioannis Plousiadinos is correct, it was already practice during the 15th century. There are some descriptions of the nenano phthora by Manuel Chrysaphes which point to a use of phthora nenano based on δ' as the mesos devteros and transposed on γ' as mesos protos:
And this is the situation, but its melody [μέλος] does not always belong to the first mode for frequently, by binding the third mode also, it makes it nenano, likewise the fourth plagal mode. However, no matter in which mode it is used, its resolution [κατάληξις] takes place in the second plagal mode [τὸν πλάγιον δευτέρου], just as the truly most musically-accomplished teacher and maistor Ioannes teaches and writes in Μήποτε ὀργισθῆ κύριος in the Δουλεύσατε. For since the fourth mode is there by parallage [ἀπὸ παραλλαγῶν], the phthora binds it, and instead of moving to the first
plagal [ἀντὶ τοῦ κατελθεῖν πλάγιον πρώτου], it continues to the second plagal.[64]
Both possibilities, the phthora nenano ending as the plagios devteros and ending as the plagios protos, are indicated in the right descending branch of the first cross. In the current practice in which the plagios devteros ends on the phthongos of plagios protos (πλ α' on D), but is chromatic according to the description of the chromatic tetrachord division of phthora nenano. The metabole kata tonon as it was still described by Manuel Chrysaphes, has become common practice today.
The second (legetos/devteros) and fourth cross (phthora nana) display other possibilities which have been already discussed here.
Mega Ison
Section echos varys and echos plagios tou tetartou of John Koukouzeles' Mega Ison (transcription of Rome, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, Ms. ottob. gr. 317, fol. 5v-7v and—as variants written in blue—Ms. vat. gr. 791, fol. 3v-5)
The Papadikai, their signs, phthorai, diagrams, and detailed explanations are hard to understand, especially for readers who were not well skilled in the psaltic art. In order to understand them in practice, didactic chants or "exercises" (μαθήματα) were added as practical illustrations. Among them there was probably no exercise which taught so much things at the same time than the mathema called "Mega Ison", which was originally composed by John Glykys and revised by John Koukouzeles, a protopsaltes of the next generation and probably a student of the former.
The use of the three tone systems heptaphonia, tetraphonia, and triphonia, and how they can be combined by different changes (metabolai kata systema), can be illustrated by a short analysis of the end of Mega Ison, before echos varys (ἦχος βαρύς) is resolved into echos plagios tou tetartou (ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ τετάρτου). A comparison and critical edition of Mega Ison shows that the oldest versions did not use any transpositions (μεταβολαὶ κατὰ τόνον), while the adaptation to the modern practice has to be studied by the exegesis of Petros Peloponnesios and its transcription into modern neumes according to the New Method.[65]
Until the 19th century the medium of written transmission had been chant manuscripts. This explains why several manuscripts like sticheraria and papadikai offer different solutions that various protopsaltes found for the same problems, so that even medial signatures could be different. In this respect Maria Alexandru's "approaches towards a critical edition" are quite helpful, because a comparison assumes that the didactic chant Mega Ison had been originally untransposed, while there are enough versions which need several transpositions (μεταβολαὶ κατὰ τόνον). The section of echos plagios tou devterou (ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ δευτέρου) is the longest and most complex one and it has some medial signatures for the phthora nenano which is resolved frequently, especially when it is used before the great sign chorevma (χόρευμα, Νο. 39 & 40) which usually prepares a cadence before a transition to phthora nana.[66] But here, by the end of the plagios devteros section, there is a plagios protos cadence marked by the name of the great sign thema haploun (θέμα ἁπλοῦν, No. 49) which is finally resolved into its mesos the echos varys. Manuel Chrysaphes wrote about this resolution of phthora nenano:
If this phthora is used in order to bind [δεσμὸν], it functions as follows: the first mode, frequently tetraphonos,
becomes the second by melody [δεύτερος ἀπὸ μέλους] this effected by the strength of phthora of the second mode [τῆς δευτέρου ἤχου φθορᾶς δύναμις]. If a phthora were not placed in the first mode, the melody would enter its mesos [τὸν μέσον], the Barys.[67]
This is exactly what happens here and it explains, why the end of this section finishes in the diatonic genus unlike the exegesis of Mega Ison by Petros Peloponnesios, and it continues with the echos varys, the tonality of the new section.[68] The beginning of this section emphasizes the tetraphonic melos of the diatonic echos varys, its characteristic is the tritone above the finalis within the tritos pentachord F, and the word "τετράφωνος" has the cadence formula of ἦχος βαρύς. At the sign epegerma (ἐπέγερμα, Νο. 55) is already the end of the varys section. Concerning the medial signature at this kolon the manuscripts do not agree. In the Papadike Ottoboniano greco Ms. 317 (fol. 7r) of the Vatican Library (see example) it is the signature of echos tritos (ἦχος τρίτος) on F which opens the lower ambitus of the tritos octave on B flat. The critical edition of Maria Alexandru continues to the beginning of the following section on G as plagios tetartos (ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ τετάρτου), while the version indicated in blue follows the version of Vaticana greca Ms. 791, here the sign epegerma turns the phthongos on G into a tritos (already at the cadence marked by an apoderma) and prepares a plagios tetartos cadence according to the melos of phthora nana (νεἅγιε νανὰ) at the following kolon. Petros Peloponnesios follows here another great sign stavros (σταυρός) which can be only find in a few manuscripts, but it indermediates between the different versions by preparing the section of plagios tetartos with an additional tetartos cadence on the phthongos G.
Petros Peloponnesios realization of Mega Ison according to the melos of the 18th century (Kyriazides 1896, 142-143)
In Ms. Ottob. grec. 317 the cadence of epegermatos is on the phthongos F and, as a phthora nana in the triphonic tone system, it becomes as well the phthongos of the tetartos octave based on its plagios. This version forces two phthorai, the one of tritos at the fourth degree (b flat) which would correspond to the triphonia of the "phthora" (nana), if F was still the phthongos of echos tritos (as the great sign epegerma once created it). And as well the following one of the fifth degree (c) which turns it into the kyrios devteros (b natural).
Both phthorai are not needed in the untransposed reconstruction of Alexandru's edition which finds the tetartos octave on G, on the fourth degree (c) the tritos and its kyrios (ἦχος τέταρτος) on the fifth degree of the mode. In the original version, the transformation of the plagios tetartos into the triphonic phthora nana happens not earlier than on its octave at "ἐπταφωναὶ δίπλασμος" (No. 64). It is a composed change of the tone system, which changes first from the tetraphonia ("πνεύματα τέσσαρα") of echos varys and echos plagios tetartos and arranges the tetartos octave on G which requires an f sharp as the seventh degree of the mode, nothing less than the alteration of the basis and finalis of the echos varys, the mode of the previous section. In a second step the lower octave on the phthongos G changes from the heptaphonic tone system of tetartos to the triphonic one of phthora nana, which places the finalis G as the connection between two tetrachords (D—E—F#—G—a—b natural—c) as we could learnt it by the "parallage of Ioannes Plousiadinos".
Petros Peloponnesios' version, as it was transcribed into the printed books by the beginning of the 19th century, is indeed closer to the rather odd interpretation of the scribe in Ms. ottob. gr. 317. But he introduced the interpretation of F as phthongos of the plagios tetartos in a more elegant way which was possible thanks to the triphonic tone system of the melos of echos varys (in a certain way the elegant way was simply a thesis of the papadic melos of this version). After the cadence in the diatonic tetartos on G at stavros, the plagios tetartos section starts rather in the triphonic melos of echos nana, which was not used during the varys section of the untransposed original version. At "(ἀνάπαυμα) σήμερον" (No. 56) the phthongos of varys F is simply taken as the melos of plagios tetartos (νεἅγιε νανὰ) which turns the former phthongos of tetartos G into the one of protos. Hence, C and G are indeed perceived as the protos pentachord D-a like in the untransposed version of Vat. gr. 791, so the former phthongos of echos varys turns finally into the one of echos plagios tetartos ("γορθμός", No. 57). In Ms. ottob. gr. 317 the cadence on F which was marked by the medial siganture of plagios tetartos, points to a mesos devteros, in Petros Peloponnesios' realization it is prepared by the formula of the cadence used for echos tetartos (ἦχος τέταρτος), but in the very end slightly modified towards the formula of phthora nana. Even the diatonic phthora for the echos devteros ("ἔναρχις", No. 60) was integrated by Petros Peloponnesios, but as mesos devteros in the soft chromatic genos which corrects the change to the triphonia of the great sign phthora ("φθορά", No. 59) which was in fact as the diatonic phthora of echos tritos once separated from the enharmonic melos of the phthora nana, unlike the melos of the echos tritos in the current tradition. Already in the parallage of the 18th century it was memorized by the name "νανὰ", not by its former name "ἀνεανές" (see above).
Conclusion (ἦχος πρῶτος) of John Koukouzeles' Mega Ison (transcription of Rome, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, Ms. ottob. gr. 317, fol. 5v-7v & Ms. vat. gr. 791, fol. 3v-5)
Until now the version of Ms. vat. gr. 791 was not identical, but closer to Maria Alexandru's reconstruction (see the change of the melody indicated by the phonic signs in Ms. ottob. grec. 317 at "προσχές μάθητα"). This changes within the end of the plagios tetartos, the medial signature of the phthongos g as plagios tetartos was obviously no longer interpreted as a metabole kata systema (μεταβολή κατὰ σύστημα), but as a change from the enharmonic genos of phthora nana to the diatonic genos within the echos plagios tou tetartou (ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ τετάρτου) or better the echos tetartos on G within the tetartos octave on C. Protopsaltes of the 18th century already used the lower alteration of the seventh degree of the mode, so that the tetartos melos could have been mistaken for that of protos (G=a). This is the only justification for the modification of the traditional model which can be found at the beginning of the last section of echos protos
The comparison of different manuscript sources shows, that rather odd interpretations of Mega Ison in certain Papadike manuscripts had been important milestones towards the transcription of Petros Peloponnesios' realization of the John Koukouzeles' mathema. His own transposition from the varys section on did no longer allow him to leave the labyrinth of the Octoechos and its various connections based on ambiguities of modal perception. Even if it was no longer perceived by the audience, it becomes evident during the study of the manuscripts that the protopsaltes got lost in the labyrinth without finding their back to the exit of the same transposition. Even skilled experts got easily lost in the very sophisticated psaltic art as it had been taught by the Papadike over the centuries.
There is another possible point of view concerning the 19th-century chant reform than the simplification of the former Byzantine notation and its signs memorized by the didactic chant Mega Ison.[69] Greek musicians of the Ottoman Empire, especially those who lived in sea ports like Istanbul, in the Fener district in particular (phanariotes), did not only sing in the churches the daily services, they also joined Sufi lodges, and sometimes even the Court as invited guests but also as paid musicians, and it is known from several musicians that Sufis and Christians went to the synagogue to listen to Jewish singers and vice versa. These inspiring exchanges developed other needs like the adaptation to a tone system which was common knowledge of all musicians of the Ottoman Empire, which allowed to understand makamlar within the system of the octoechos tradition or without it as so-called "exoteric music" or "external music" (ἡ μουσική ἐξωτερική). Some signs of the former Byzantine notation were too specific concerning the own tradition, so that they were abandoned. Thus, the ornamentation became part of the oral transmission, whether it was makam or a certain melos of an echos, and thus, a new more universal notation was created which had been even used to notate primitive models of Western polyphony, despite it had been developed over centuries to notate very complex forms of monodic chant.[70]
Phanariotes, Armenian musicians as well as Danubian Boyars were the first, who invented different notation systems to transcribe the orally based music traditions of the Ottoman Empire, while Greek treatises still tended to reformulate passages taken from the Hagiopolites treatise. Even before the invention of the universal New Method and its various new phthorai used for certain makamlar and named after them, their integration was just another demonstration of the integrative function, that Byzantine Round notation had already developed before the Papadic reform.[71] The phthorai itself played a central role, as "destroyers" they marked a transition between the "internal" (ἐσωτερική) and "external music" (ἐξωτερική). This way Greek musicians could use the interval structure (διαστήματα) of a certain makam for a temporary change (ἡ ἐναλλαγή μερική) which was not at all a proper melos within the octoechos system, but rather a refined way of a transition between two meloi and their echoi. But developing its own architecture within a section sung over abstract syllables (teretismata, nenanismata, etc.), it could soon develop its own proper melos as an echos kratema like phthora nana and phthora nenano before.
In practice the integrative process was not so controlled as the Papadic theory and its Hagiopolitan reformulations suggested it. Several liturgical composition had been made entirely in certain makamlar and were certainly in no way "external music", and the used makam was not always specified explicitely.[72]
The earliest compositions are probably those by Petros Bereketis (about 1665-1725), a protopsaltes who became very famous especially for his contributions to the Heirmologion kalophonikon (the heirmologion elaborated according to the psaltic art), despite the fact that he was never directly connected with the Patriarchate. Some of his heirmologic compositions like Πασᾶν τὴν ἐλπίδα μοῦ use several makam models for extravagant changes between different echoi, at least in the later transcriptions according to the New Method and its "exoteric phthorai".[73] This early use corresponds to the early state of a phthora which is rather a model of modulation or transition between different meloi than an exposition of a proper melos that can be perceived as an own echos. Nevertheless it was already used for Orthodox chant and not for compositions in Ottoman makam genres.
During the 18th century, models dedicated to a certain makam (seyirler) were already collected in the manuscript by Kyrillos Marmarinos and were later organized according to the Octoechos order like the great signs in the mathema "Mega Ison". An example is the edition of Panagiotes Keltzanides' "Didactic practical and theoretical Method to organize the external meloi of Arabo-Persian Music according to the Greek Music and its Octoechos" which was published in 1881.[74] The seventh chapter of this contains an introduction into all the "exoteric phthorai" of the New Method used for makamlar ordered according to the Octoechos and the Turkish fret name of the basis tone.[75] The following "Makamlar kâr" memorizes each seyir with a text naming the makam of each section.[76] This genre, called ἔντεχνον μάθημα, is very close to the "Mega Ison" and the use of modern Byzantine notation, which does not use the specific rhythmic notation developed for the usulümler, but memorizes the makamlar systimatically without a cyclic form returning at the end to the tonality of the beginning. The composition starts with the diatonic makam rast and finishes in the chromatic makam suz-i dil.[77] A relation between makamler and usulümler in the genre semaï is taught in a second didactic chant "Makamlar semaïsi" (pp. 200-204).[78] The earlier anthologies rather adapted Ottoman than Byzantine Papadic forms, for instance the Mecmua ("Journal")—a kind of Ottoman Divan ordered according of the makamlar and their concert cycles (fasıl).[79]
New Method
From a Phanariot point of view the New Method was neither a simplification of the Byzantine tradition nor an adaption to Western tonality and its method of an heptaphonic solfeggio just based on one tone system (σύστημα κατὰ ἑπταφωνίαν). Quite the opposite, as a universal approach to music traditions of the Mediterranean it was rather based on the integrative power of the psaltic art and the Papadike, which can be traced back to the Hagiopolitan Octoechos and its exchange with Oriental music traditions since more than thousand years.
Hence, it is consequent to divide the last section into its heptaphonic fundament (Chrysanthos' Mega Theoretikon), and a theoretical separation between the exoteric (the adaption to other music traditions of Europe including the Mediterranean, the maqamat of the Arabian and Sephardic traditions, including those of the Andalusian tubū′, the Persian dastgah, and several local traditions) and the esoteric (the own "Byzantine" tradition of Syrian and Armenian heritage) use of modern Byzantine notation. In practice there had never been such a difference among Romaic musicians, these exchanges were rather essential for the re-definition of Byzantine Chant and its Meloi according to the traditional chant books by the teachers of the New Music School of the Patriarchate.
Transcribing the Theseis of the Melos and the Makam Music
Unlike Western tonality and music theory the universal theory of the Phanariotes does not distinguish between major and minor scales, even if they transcribed Western polyphony into Byzantine neumes, and in fact, the majority of the meloi of the Byzantine Octoechos, as they are performed in Mediterranean churches by traditional singers, would lose their proper intonation, if they were played on a conventionally tuned piano.
The transcription into the reform notation and its distribution by the first printed chant books were another aspect of the Phanariotes' universality. The first source to study the development of modern Byzantine notation and its translation of Papadic Notation is Chrysanthos' "Great Theoretikon of Music". Only a small extract had been published during his lifetime, so that the Θεωρητικόν μέγα was printed posthumously by Chrysanthos' students in 1832, based on a manuscript in Chrysanthos' leavings.[80]
Chrysanthos' Definitions
In the early Hagiopolitan octoechos (7th-12th century) the diatonic echoi were destroyed by two phthorai nenano and nana, which were like two additional modes with their own melos, but subordinated to certain diatonic echoi. In the period of psaltic art (13th-17th century), changes between the diatonic, the chromatic, and the enharmonic genos became so popular in certain chant genres, that certain echoi of the papadic Octoechos were coloured by the phthorai—not only the traditional Hagiopolitan phthorai, but also additional phthorai which introduced transition models taken from makam traditions. After Chrysanthos' redefinition of Byzantine chant according to the New Method (1814), the scales of echos protos and of echos tetartos are usually soft diatonic, those of the tritos echoi and the papadikan echos plagios tetartos enharmonic (φθορά νανὰ), and those of the devteros echoi chromatic (φθορά νενανῶ).
In the third book of the first volume of his Mega Theoretikon (vol. 1, book 3), Chrysanthos did not only discuss the difference to European concepts of the diatonic genus, in his introduction to the chromatic and enharmonic genus, he included as well papadic forms of parallagai as they had been described in the second part of the article, as Ancient Greek harmonics. His reference to their distinction between the diatonic, chromatic and enharmonic genus (gr. γένος) widely employ microtones, with intervals either narrower or wider than the Western-style diatonic interval—with respect to the equally tempered as well as to the just intonation used since the Renaissance period or to the Pythagorean intonation used in the diatonic genus of the Carolingian Octoechos since the Middle Ages.[81]
Chrysanthos' Parallage according to the trochos system (1832, p. 30)
The γένος διατονικός and its παραλλαγή
Chrysanthos already introduced his readers into the diatonic genus and its phthongoi in the 5th chapter of the first book, called "Concerning the parallage of the diatonic genus" (Περὶ Παραλλαγῆς τοῦ Διατονικοῦ Γένους). In the 8th chapter he demonstrates, how the intervals can be found on the keyboard of the tambur.[82]
Hence, the phthongoi of the diatonic genus had been defined according to the proportions, as they were later called the "soft chroa of the diatonic genus" (ὁ γένος μαλακός διατονικός). For Chrysanthos this was the only diatonic genus, as far as it had been used since the early church musicians, who memorized the phthongoi by the intonation formulas (enechemata) of the Papadic Octoechos. In fact, he did not use the historical intonations, he rather translated them in the Koukouzelian wheel in the 9th chapter (Περὶ τοῦ Τροχοῦ) according to a current practice of parallage, which was common to 18th-century versions of Papadike, while he identified another chroa of the diatonic genus with a practice of ancient Greeks:
The pentachord, which was also called wheel (τροχὸς), contains four intervals, which are also tones [ἐλάσσων τόνος, ἐλάχιστος τόνος, and 2 μείζων τόνοι] for us, but for the ancients Greeks they were three tones [3 μείζων τόνοι] and the difference leimma [256:243]. The four intervals spanned five phthongoi:
πα βου γα δι Πα ["Πα" means here the fifth-equivalent for the protos: α'] for us,
but according to the ancient (Greeks) τε τα τη τω Τε.
Chrysanthos' Kanonion with a comparison between Ancient Greek tetraphonia (column 1), Western Solfeggio, the Papadic Parallage (ascending: column 3 and 4; descending: column 5 and 6) according to the trochos system, and his heptaphonic parallage according to the New Method (syllables in the fore-last and martyriai in the last column) (1832, p. 33)
In Chrysanthos' version of the wheel the Middle Byzantine modal signatures had been replaced by alternative signatures which were still recognized by enechemata of the former parallage, and these signatures were important, because they formed a part of the modal signatures (martyriai) used in Chrysanthos reform notation. These signs had to be understood as dynameis within the context of the pentachord and the principle of tetraphonia. According to Chrysanthos' signatures the phthongoi of plagios protos and plagios tetartos were represented by the modal signature of their kyrioi, but without the final ascending step to the upper fifth, the tritos signature was replaced by the signature of phthora nana, while the signature of plagios devteros (which was no longer used in its diatonic form) had been replaced by the enechema of the mesos tetartos, the so-called "echos legetos" (ἦχος λέγετος) or former ἅγια νεανὲς, according to the New Method the heirmologic melos of the echos tetartos.
In the table at the end of the trochos chapter, it becomes evident, that Chrysanthos was quite aware of the discrepancies between his adaption to the Ottoman tambur frets which he called diapason (σύστημα κατὰ ἑπταφωνίαν), and the former Papadic parallage according to the trochos system (σύστημα κατὰ τετραφωνίαν), which was still recognized as the older practice. And later in the fifth book he emphasized that the great harmony of Greek music comes by the use of four tone systems (diphonia, triphonia, tetraphonia, and heptaphonia), while European and Ottoman musicians used only the heptaphonia or diapason system:
But among those, the diapason is the most perfect and it pleases more the ears than the others, hence, the diapason system is favored and the only one used by European and Ottoman musicians, so that they tune their instruments only according to this system.
Until the generation of traditional protopsaltes who died during the 1980s, they have been still traditional singers who intoned the Octoechos according to the trochos system (columns 3-6), but they did not intone the devteroi phthongoi according to Pythagorean tuning, as Chrysanthos imagined it as a practice of the Ancient Greeks and identified it as a common European practice (first column in comparison with Western solfeggio in the second column).
In the last column of his table, he listed the new modal signatures or matyriai of the phthongoi (μαρτυρίαι "witnesses"), as he introduced them for the use of his reform notation as a kind of pitch class system. These marytyriai had been composed by a thetic and a dynamic sign. The thetic was the first letter of Chrysanthos monosyllable parallage, the dynamic was taken from 5 signs of the eight enechemta of the trochos.[85] The four of the descending enechemata (πλ α', πλ β', υαρ, and πλ δ'), and the phthora nana (γ'). Thus, it was still possible to refer to the tetraphonia of the trochos system within the heptaphonia of Chrysanthos' parallage, but there was one exception: usually the νανὰ represented the tritos element, while the varys-sign (the ligature for υαρ) represented the ζω (b natural)—the plagios tritos which could no longer establish a pentachord to its kyrios (like in the old system represented by Western solfeggio between B fa and F ut'), because it had been diminished to a slightly augmented tritone.
The older polysyllable parallage of the trochos was represented between the third and the sixth column. The third column used the "old" modal signatures for the ascending kyrioi echoi according to Chrysanthos' annotation of the trochos, as they became the main signatures of the reform notation. The fourth column listed the names of their enechemata, the fifth column the names of the enechemata of the descending plagioi echoi together with their signatures in the sixth column.
The "martyriai of the echoi" (column 2 & 4: main signatures) and the "martyriai of the phthongoi" (column 3: medial signatures) in the disposition of the "Diapason system" represent no longer the diapente between kyrios and plagios in the diatonic trochos system (Chrysanthos 1832, p. 168)
In the 5th chapter "about the parallage of the diatonic genus", he characterised both parallagai, of the Papadike and of the New Method, as follows:
§. 43. Παραλλαγὴ εἶναι, τὸ νὰ ἑφαρμόζωμεν τὰς συλλαβὰς τῶν φθόγγων ἐπάνω εἰς τοὺς ἐγκεχαραγμένους χαρακτῆρας, ὥστε βλέποντες τοὺς συντεθειμένους χαρακτῆρας, νὰ ψάλλωμεν τοὺς φθόγγους· ἔνθα ὅσον οἱ πολυσύλλαβοι φθόγγοι ἀπομακρύνονται τοῦ μέλους, ἄλλο τόσον οἱ μονοσύλλαβοι ἐγγίζουσιν ἀυτοῦ. Διότι ὅταν μάθῃ τινὰς νὰ προφέρῃ παραλλακτικῶς τὸ μουσικὸν πόνημα ὀρθῶς, ἀρκεῖ ἠ ἀλλάξῃ τὰς συλλαβὰς τῶν φθόγγων, λέγων τὰς συλλαβὰς τῶν λέξεων, καὶ ψάλλει αὐτὸ κατὰ μέλος.[86]Parallage is to apply the syllables of the phthongoi according to the steps indicated by the phonic neumes, so that we sing the phthongoi while we look at the written neumes. Note, that the more the polysyllabic phthongoi lead away from the melos [because the thesis of the melos has still to be done], the more go the monosyllable phthongoi with the melos. Once a musical composition has been studied thoroughly by the use of parallage, it is enough to replace the syllables of the phthongoi by those of the text, and thus, we sing already its melos.
The disadvantage of the Papadic or "polysyllabic parallage" was, that metrophonia (its application to the phonic neumes of a musical composition) led away from the melodic structure, because of the own gesture of each modal intonation (enechema), which already represents an echos and all their meloi in itself. After the phonic neumes had been recognized by μετροφωνία, the appropriate method to do the thesis of the melos had to be chosen, before a reader could find the way to the composition's performance. This was no longer necessary with monosyllabic solfeggio or parallage, because the thesis of the melos had been already transcribed into phonic neumes—the musician had finally become as ignorant as Manuel Chrysaphes had already feared it during the 15th century.
Nevertheless, the diapason system (see table) had also changed the former tetraphonic disposition of the echoi according to the trochos system, which organized the final notes of each kyrios-plagios pair in a pentachord which had always been a pure fifth. In this heptaphonic disposition, the plagios devteros is not represented, because it would occupy the phthongos of the plagios protos πα, but with a chromatic parallage (see below). The kyrios devteros (δι) and tetartos (βου) have both moved to their mesos position.
The difference between the diapason and the trochos system corresponded somehow with the oral melos transmission of the 18th century, documented by the manuscripts and the printed editions of the "New Music School of the Patriarchate", and the written transmission of the 14th-century chant manuscripts (revised heirmologia, sticheraria, Akolouthiai, and Kontakaria) which fit rather to the Octoechos disposition of the trochos system. Chrysanthos' theory aimed to bridge these discrepancies and the "exegetic transcription" or translation of late Byzantine notation into his notation system. This way the "exegesis" had become an important tool to justify the innovations of the 18th century within the background of the Papadic tradition of psaltic art.
G δι was still the phthongos for the finalis and basis of the papadic echos tetartos, the ἅγια παπαδικῆς, but E βου had become the finalis of the sticheraric, troparic, and heirmologic melos of the same echos, and only the sticheraric melos had a second basis and intonation on the phthongos D πα.
The γένος χρωματικός and the παραλλαγή of φθορά νενανῶ
The phthora nenano and the tendency in psaltic art to chromatize compositions since the 14th century had gradually substitute the diatonic meloi of the devteros echoi. In psaltic treatises the process is described as the career of phthora nenano as an "echos kratema" which finally turned whole compositions of echos devteros (ἦχος δεύτερος) and of the echos plagios tou devterou (ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ δευτέρου) into the chromatic genus and the melos of φθορά νενανῶ.[87]
The two chroai can be described as the "soft chromatic genus", which has developed from the mesos devteros, and the "hard chromatic genus" as the proper phthora nenano which follows the protos parallage and changed its tetrachord from E—a to D—G.
The soft chromatic scale of mesos devteros and its diphonic tone system
Chrysanthos' parallage of echos devteros in the soft chromatic genus (1832, pp. 106-108)
It found its most odd definition in Chrysanthos' Mega Theoretikon, because he diminished the whole octave about 4 divisions in order to describe echos devteros as a mode which has developed its own diphonic tone system (7+12=19). Indeed its parallage is indefinite and in this particular case the phthora nenano has no direction, instead the direction is defined by the diatonic intonations of echos devteros:
The chromatic scale C νη—[D flat]—E βου—F γα—G δι—[a flat]—b ζω'—c νη' is not made of tetrachords, but of trichords which are absolutely equal and conjunct with each other—in this way:
C νη—[D flat]—E βου, E βου—F γα—G δι, G δι—[a flat]—b ζω', b ζω'—c νη'—d πα'
If the scale starts on G δι, and it moves towards the lower, the step G δι—F γα requests the interval of a great tone (μείζων τόνος) and the step F γα—E βου a small tone (ἐλάχιστος τόνος); likewise the step E βου—[D flat] πα [ὕφεσις] an interval of μείζων τόνος, and the step πα [ὕφεσις] [D flat]—C νη one of ἐλάχιστος τόνος. When the direction is towards the higher, the step G δι—[a flat] κε [ὕφεσις] requests the interval of a small tone and [a flat] κε [ὕφεσις]—b ζω' that of a great tone; likewise the step b ζω'—c νη' an interval of ἐλάχιστος τόνος, and the step c νη'—Cd πα one of μείζων τόνος. Among the phthongoi of this chromatic scale only the phthongoi βου, γα, and δι can be identified with the same phthongoi of the diatonic scale, while the others are moveable degrees of the mode. While this scale extends between E βου and C νη over one great and one small tone [12+7=19], the diatonic scale extends from the middle (ἐλάσσων τόνος) to the great tone (μείζων τόνος) [12+9=21], for the interval between G δι and b ζω' it is the same.
In this chromatic genus there is a strong resemblance between the phthongos G δι, the mesos devteros, and b ζω', the kyrios devteros, but as well to E βου or to C νη. The trichordal structure (σύστημα κατὰ διφωνίαν) is nevertheless memorized with a soft chromatic nenano intonation around the small tone and the enechema of ἦχος δεύτερος in the ascending parallage and the enechema of ἦχος λέγετος as ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ δευτέρου in the descending parallage.
According to Chrysanthos, the old enechema for the diatonic echos devteros on b ζω' was preserved by traditional singers as the chromatic mesos, which he transcribed by the following exegesis. Please note the soft chromatic phthora at the beginning:
It can be argued that Chrysanthos' concept of the devteros phthora was not chromatic at all, but later manuals replaced his concept of diatonic diphonia by a concept of chromatic tetraphonia similar to the plagios devteros, and added the missing two divisions to each pentachord, so that the octave of this echos C νη—G δι—c νη' was in tune (C νη—G δι, G δι—d πα': |7 + 14 + 7| + 12 = 40). Also this example explains an important aspect of the contemporary concept of exegesis.
The hard chromatic and mixed scale of plagios devteros
Chrysanthos' parallage of echos plagios devteros in one of the mixed genera, the lower tetrachord divided by the phthora nenano and the upper tetrachord according to the diatonic genus (1832, pp. 107, 109)
If we remember that the φθορά νενανῶ originally appeared between βου (πλ β'), the phthongos of plagios devteros (ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ δευτέρου), and κε (α'), the phthongos of protos (ἦχος πρῶτος), we are not so surprised, when we read, that the hard chromatic scale uses the same names during its parallage as the parallage of ἦχος δεύτερος:
We sing with the same phthongoi [here the same names for the notes as memorial places] the second [chromatic] scale: D πα—[high E flat]—[high F sharp]—G δι—a κε—[high b flat]—[high c sharp]—d πα', and their melody is written with the same phonic neumes. Nevertheless the phthongoi preserve the intervals as written in § 245.
Without any doubt the hard chromatic phthongoi use the chromaticism with the enharmonic hemitone of the intonation νενανῶ, so in this case the chromatic parallage gets a very clear direction, that the diphonic tone system does not have:
The chromatic scale: D πα—[high E flat]—[high F sharp]—G δι—a κε—[high b flat]—[high c sharp]—d πα', consists of two tetrachords. In each tetrachords the hemitones are placed in a way, that the interval D πα—E βου [ὕφεσις] is the same as a κε—b ζω' [ὕφεσις], Ε βου [ὕφεσις]—F sharp γα [δίεσις] is the same as b ζω' [ὕφεσις]—c sharp νη' [δίεσις], and F sharp γα [δίεσις]—G δι is the same as c sharp νη' [δίεσις]—d πα', so that both tetarchords, D πα—G δ and a κε—d πα', are unisono. This means that the interval D πα—E βου [ὕφεσις] is unisono with the small tone (ἐλάχιστος τόνος), Ε βου [ὕφεσις]—F sharp γα [δίεσις] with the trihemitone, and F sharp γα [δίεσις]—G δι with the hemitone: 3:12—a quarter of the great tone (μείζων τόνος) [7+18+3=28].
The shift of phthora nenano from the devteros to the protos parallage was explained by Chrysanthos through the exegesis of the Papadic plagios devteros intonation. Please note the hard chromatic phthorai, the second in the text line had been taken from the papadic phthora nenano:
Exegesis of the traditional intonation of the diatonic echos plagios tou devterou (ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ δευτέρου) in the melos of the phthora nenano (Chrysanthos 1832, p. 139, § 314)
Despite of this pure chromatic form, the plagios devteros in the sticheraric and papadic melos is the only echos of the Octoechos which combines as well and in a temporary change of genus (μεταβολή κατὰ γένον) two different genera within the two tetrachords of the protos octave, while the diatonic tetrachord lies between δ' and γ' (a triphonic construction), and has the melos of echos tetartos (as shown in the mixed example of its parallage). As could already studied in the parallage of Ioannis Plousiadinos, the same diatonic tetrachord could be as well that of the protos (α'—δ') like in the older enechemata of phthora nenano. The other mixed form, though rare, was the combination of phthora nenano on the protos parallage (α' κε—δ' πα') with a diatonic protos pentachord under it (πλ α' πα—α' κε).
The γένος ἐναρμονίος and the triphonic tone system of φθορά νανὰ
According to the definition of Aristides Quintilianus, quoted in the seventh chapter of the third book (περὶ τοῦ ἐναρμονίου γένους) in Chrysanthos'Mega Theoretikon, "enharmonic" is defined by the smallest interval, as long as it is not larger than a quarter or a third of the great tone (μείζων τόνος):
In music, the genus is called "harmony" which has the interval of a quarter great tone (μείζων τόνος) in its scale, and such an interval is called the "enharmonic" hyphesis or diesis, while the diesis with an interval about half of a great tone is called "chromatic". Since the small tone (ἐλάχιστος τόνος) is considered equal to 7 parts, the difference about 3 or 4, which makes a quarter or a third of the great tone, and the interval E βου—F γα, equal to 3, can be found through the enharmonic diesis; this applied to a scale, realizes the enharmonic genus. Aristeides said, that the enharmonic genus was characterized by the diesis about a quarter of a whole tone.
But the difference about 50 cents already made the difference between the small tone (ἐλάχιστος τόνος) and the Western semitonium (88:81=143 C', 256:243=90 C'), so it did not only already appear in the hard chromatic genos, but also in the Eastern use of dieses within the diatonic genus and in the definition of the diatonic genus in Latin chant treatises. Hence, several manuals of Orthodox Chant mentioned that the enharmonic use of intervals had been spread over all different genera (Chrysanthos discussed these differences within the genus as "chroa"), but several Phanariotes defined this general phenomenon by a the use of the word "harmony" (ἁρμονία) which was the Greek term for music and contrasted it with the modern term "music" (μουσική) which had been taken from Arabic, usually to make a difference between the reference to ancient Greek music theory and the authochtonous theory treating melody (naġām) and rhythm (īqā′at). According to the ancient Greek use, ἐναρμονίος was simply an adjective meaning "being within the music". In the discussion of the Euklidian term "chroa", he mentioned that the substitution of a semitonium by two dieses as it can be found in Western music, was "improper" (ἄτοπον) in Byzantine as well as in Ottoman art music, because it added one more element to the heptaphonic scale.[92]
But Aristeides' definition also explained, why the enharmonic phthora nana (also called phthora atzem) had been defined in later manuals as "hard diatonic". The more characteristic change was less those of the genus (μεταβολή κατὰ γένον) than the one from the tetraphonic to the triphonic tone system (μεταβολή κατὰ σύστημα):
Hence, if the melos of the enharmonic genus starts on F γα, F γα and b flat [ζω' ὕφεσις-6] should be symphonous, and not the phthongos c νη'. And like the diatonic and chromatic scales are made of tetraphonia, here they are made of triphonia:
C νη—D πα—E sharp [βου δίεσις]—F γα, F γα—G δι—a κε—b flat [ζω' ὕφεσις-6], b flat [ζω' ὕφεσις-6]—c νη'—d πα'—e flat [βου' ὕφεσις-6].
Thus, also conjunct similar tetrachords are constructed by the same intervals in the middle [12+13+3=28]: C νη—D πα is equal to F γα—G δι, D πα—E sharp [βου δίεσις] to G δι—a κε, E sharp [βου δίεσις]—F γα is equal to a κε—b flat [ζω' ὕφεσις-6], etc.
As can be already seen in the Papadikai of the 17th century, the diatonic intonation of echos tritos had been represented by the modal signature of the enharmonic phthora nana.[94] In his chapter about the intonation formulas (περὶ ἁπηχημάτων) Chrysanthos does no longer refer to the diatonic intonation of ἦχος τρίτος, instead the echos tritos is simply an exegesis of the enharmonic phthora nana. Please note the use of the Chrysanthine phthora to indicate the small hemitonion in the final cadence of φθορά νανὰ in the interval γα—βου:
Because the pentachord between kyrios and plagios tritos did no longer exist in Chrysanthos' diapason system, the enharmonic phthora nana had only one phthongos in it, that between plagios tetartos (πλ δ′) and echos tritos (γ′). Hence, in the enharmonic genus of the nana melos, there was no real difference between ἦχος τρίτος and ἦχος βαρύς. Hence, while there was an additional intonation needed for the diatonic varys on the phthongos B ζω, the protovarys which was not unlike the traditional diatonic plagios devteros, the enharmonic exegesis of the traditional diatonic intonation of ἦχος βαρύς was as well located on the phthongos of ἦχος τρίτος:
Chrysanthos' concept of "half tone" (ἡμίτονος) should not be mistaken with the Latin semitonium which he called λεῖμμα (256:243), it was rather flexible, as it can be read in his chapter "about hemitonoi" (περὶ ἡμιτονῶν):
The hemitonon is not always the exact division into two halves like 12 into 6 and 6, it is less defined like the 12 into 8 and 4, or into 9 and 3 etc. So, the tonos γα δι [γ'—δ'] is divided into two intervals: the higher one is one third, the lower two thirds etc. The latter might be divided again, while a hemitonon of the tonos βου γα and ζω νη [β'—γ'] cannot be further divided, because the are regarded as the quarter of the great tone, which is 3:12.
[...] And the leimma of those [the Ancient Greeks] like the "semitonium" si ut of the Europeans are smaller than our small tone (ἐλάχιστος τόνος) βου γα [β'—γ']. Hence, the elements (φθόγγοι) of our diatonic scale are intoned in a slightly different way, some are just the same [ut, re, fa, sol], other are higher [la, si bemol] or lower [mi, si].
Chrysanthos' definition of a Byzantine hemitonon is related with the introduction of accidental phthorai. Concerning his own theory and the influence that it had on later theory, the accidental use of phthorai had two functions:
the notation of melodic attraction as part of a certain melos, which became important in the further development of modern Byzantine notation, especially within the school of Simon Karas.
the notation of modified diatonic scales which became an important tool for the transcription of other modal traditions outside the Byzantine Octoechos (the so-called "exoteric music"), for instance folk music traditions or other traditions of Ottoman art music like the transcription of certain makamlar.
The Chroai and the notation of melodic attraction
The accidental phthorai had been used to notate details of melodic attraction, as dieseis in case of augmentation or ascending attraction or hypheseis in case of diminution or descending attraction.
About the phenomenon of temporary attraction which did not cause a change into anther genus (μεταβολή κατὰ γένον), although it caused a mirotonal change, he wrote in his eight chapter "about the chroai" (περὶ χροῶν):
Fixed phthongoi called "ἑστῶτες", because they remain unaltered by the different genera, are always defined by one proportion [length of the chord]. Mobile phthongoi called "κινούμενοι", because they are altered by the different genera, are not defined by just one proportion; in other words, concerning the different divisions of the tetrachord their intervals are sometimes middle [tones], sometimes large ones.
"Chroa" is a particular division within a certain genus. The ancient [Greeks] made the "chroai" through the different divisions of the tetrachord by leaving the external phthongoi fixed (ἑστῶτες) and by moving the ones called "κινούμενοι".
As a reference for the ancient Greeks, Chrysanthos offer some examples of tetrachord divisions taken from Euklid which creates subdivisions within the same genus. Chrysanthos does not comment on the different quality between the phthorai which have a particular shape for a specific division, on the one hand, and the accidental use of those phthorai which he introduced in the second chapter about hemitonoi (footnote on p. 101), on the other hand. The accidental use of phthorai became later, in 1883, a subject of a synod, obviously the oral transmission of melodic attraction which differed between various local traditions, had been declined, after the abundant use of accidental phthorai in different printed editions had confused it.[97]
Besides, the introduction of the accidental phthora did not change the notation very much. They were perceived by performers as an interpretation without any obligation to follow, because there were various local traditions which were used to an alternative use of melodic attraction in the different echoi and their meloi.
Only recently, during the 1990s, the reintroduction of abandoned late Byzantine neumes, re-interpreted into the context of the rhythmic Chrysanthine notation, had been also combined by a systematic notation of melodic attraction (μελωδικές ἕλξεις). This innovation had been already proposed by the Phanariot Simon Karas, but it was his student Lykourgos Angelopoulos who used this dieseis and hypheseis in a systematic way to transcribe a certain local tradition of melodic attraction.[98] But it was somehow the result of distinctions between the intervals used by Western and Byzantine traditions, which finally tempted the details of the notation used by Karas' school.[99]
Transcription of Makamlar
In the last chapter of his third book "Plenty possible chroai" (Πόσαι αἱ δυναταὶ Χρόαι), Chrysanthos used with the adjective δυνατή a term which was connected with the Aristotelian philosophy of δύναμις (translated into Latin as "contingentia"), i.e. the potential of being outside the cause (ἐνέργεια) of the Octoechos, something has been modified there and it becomes something completely different within the context of another tradition.
This is Chrysanthos' systematic lists of modifications (the bold syllable had been modified by a phthora—hyphesis or diesis).
The first list is concerned about just one modification (-/+ 3):[100]
1 ὕφεσις
makamlar
1 δίεσις
makamlar
πα βου γα δι κε ζω νη
makam kürdî
πα βου γα δι κε ζω νη
makam bûselik
πα βου γα δι κε ζω νη
makam sâzkâr
πα βου γα δι κε ζω νη
makam hicâz
πα βου γα δι κε ζω νη
makam sabâ
πα βου γα δι κε ζω νη
makam hisâr
πα βου γα δι κε ζω νη
makam hüzzâm
πα βου γα δι κε ζω νη
makam eviç
πα βου γα δι κε ζω νη
makam acem
πα βου γα δι κε ζω νη
makam mâhûr
πα βου γα δι κε ζω νη
makam zâvîl
πα βου γα δι κε ζω νη
makam şehnâz
It can be observed that the unmodified diatonic scale already corresponded to certain makamlar, for instance ἦχος λέγετος (based on the ison E βου) corresponded to makam segâh. Nevertheless, if the phthongos βου (already a slightly flattened E) had an accidental hyphesis (ὕφεσις) as phthora, it corresponded to another makam, very closely related to segâh, but according to the particular use among Kurdish musicians who intoned this central degree of the makam even lower: it was called makam kürdî. Concerning the genus, chromatic tetrachords can be found in the makamlar hicâz, sabâ, and hüzzâm.
A second list of scales gives 8 examples out of 60 possible chroai which contain 2 modifications, usually in the same direction (the bold syllable had been modified by 2 phthorai—hypheseis or dieseis about -/+ 3 divisions, if not indicated alternatively):[101]
A third list gives "4 examples out of 160 possible chroai" which have 3 modifications with respect to the diatonic scale:[105]
3 ὑφέσεις
makamlar
2 διέσεις & 1 ὕφεσις
makamlar
πα βου γα δι κε ζω νη
makam sünbüle
πα βου γα+6 δι κε ζω−6 νη
makam nişâbûr
πα βου γα δι κε ζω νη+
makam karcığar
πα βου γα δι κε ζω- νη
makam hümâyûn
Chrysanthos' approach had been only systematic with respect to the modification of the diatonic scale, but not with respect to the makamlar and its models (seyirler), as they had been collected by Panagiotes Halaçoğlu and his student Kyrillos Marmarinos who already transcribed into late Byzantine Round notation in their manuscripts. A systematic convention concerning exoteric phthorai, how these models have to be transcribed according to the New Method, became the later subject of the treatises by Ioannis Keïvelis (1856) and by Panagiotes Keltzanides (1881).
Hence, the author of the Mega Theoretikon mode no efforts to offer a complete list of makamlar. Remarks that makam arazbâr "is a kind of echos varys which has to be sung according to the trochos system", made it evident, that his tables have not been made in order to demonstrate, that a composition of makam arazbâr can always be transcribed by the use of the main signature of echos varys. Nevertheless, the central treatise of the New Method already testified, that the reform notation as a medium of transcription had been designed as a universal notation, which could be used as well to transcribe other genres of Ottoman music than just Orthodox Chant as the Byzantine heritage.
Chrysanthos' Theory of Rhythm and of the Octoechos
The question of rhythm is the most controversial and most difficult one and an important part of the Octoechos, because the method of how to do the thesis of the melos included not only melodic features like opening, transitional, or cadential formulas, but also their rhythmic structure.[106]
In the third chapter about the performance concept of Byzantine chant ("Aufführungssinn"), Maria Alexandru discussed in her doctoral thesis rhythm already as an aspect of the cheironomia of the cathedral rite (a gestic notation which had been originally used in the Kontakaria, Asmatika, and Psaltika, before the Papadic synthesis).[107] On the other hand, the New Method redefined the different genres according psalmody and according to the traditional chant books like Octoechos mega, now Anastasimatarion neon, Heirmologion, Sticherarion, and the Papadike—the treatise which preceded since the 17th century an Anthology which included a collection Polyeleos compositions, chant sung during the Divine Liturgy (Trisagia, Allelouiaria, Cherouvika, Koinonika), but also a Heirmologion kalophonikon. According to the New Method, every genre was defined now by the tempo and its formulaic repertory with respect to the echos, which formed a certain "exegesis type".[108]
Hence, it is not a surprise that Chrysanthos in his Theoretikon mega treats rhythm and meter in the second book together with the discussion of the great signs or hypostaseis (περὶ ὑποστάσεων). The controversial discussion of the "syntomon style" as it had been created by Petros Peloponnesios and his student Petros Byzantios, was about rhythm, but the later rhythmic system of the New Method which had been created two generations later, had provoked a principle refuse of Chrysanthine notation among some traditionalists.
The new analytic use of Round notation established a direct relation of performance and rhythmic signs, which had already been a tabu since the 15th century, while the change of tempo was probably not an invention of the 19th century. At least since the 13th century, melismatic chant of the cathedral rite had been notated with abbreviations or ligatures (ἀργόν "slow") which presumably indicated a change to a slower tempo. Other discussions were about the quality of rhythm itself, if certain genres and its text had to be performed in a rhythmic or arhythmic way. In particular the knowledge of the most traditional and simple method had been lost.[109]
Mediating between tradition and innovation, Chrysanthos had the characteristic Phanariot creativity. While he was writing about the metric feet (πώδαι) as rhythmic patterns or periods, mainly based on Aristides Quintilianus and Aristoxenos, he treated the arseis and theseis simultaneously with the Ottoman timbres düm and tek of the usulümler, and concluded, that only a very experienced musician can know, which are the rhythmic patterns that can be applied to a certain thesis of the melos. He analyzed for instance the rhythmic periods as he transcribed them from Petros Peloponnesios' Heirmologion argon.[110]
Especially concerning the ethic aspect of music, melody as well as rhythm, Chrysanthos combined knowledge about ancient Greek music theory with his experience of the use of makamlar and usulümler in the ceremony of whirling dervishes. There was a collective ethos of rhythm, because the ceremony and its composition (ayinler) followed a strict sequence of usulümler, which varied rarely and only slightly. There was a rather individual ethic concept for the combination of makamlar (tarqib), which was connected with the individual constitution of the psyche and with the inspiration of an individual musician on the other side.
In the fifth book (chapt. 3: τωρινὸς τρόπος τοῦ μελίζειν "the contemporary way of chant", pp. 181-192), he also wrote about a certain effect on the auditory that a well-educated musician is capable to create, and about contemporary types of musicians with different levels of education (the empiric, the artistic, and the experienced type). They are worth to be studied, because the role of notation in transmission becomes evident in Chrysanthos' description of the psaltes' competences.[111] The empiric type did not know notation at all, but they knew the heirmologic melos by heart, so that they could apply it to any text, but sometimes they were sure if they repeated, what they wished repeat. So what they sang, could be written down by the artistic type, if the latter thought that the empiric psaltis was good enough. The latter case showed a certain competence which Chrysanthos already expected on the level of the empiric type. The artistic type could read, study, and transcribe all the four chant genres, and thus, they were able to repeat everything in a precise and identical way. This gave them the opportunity to create an idiomelon of their own, if they simply followed the syntax of a given text by the use of open (ἀτελεῖς καταλήξεις), closing (ἐντελεῖς καταλήξεις) and final cadences (τελικαὶ καταλήξεις). Hence, the artistic type could study other musicians and learn from their art, as long as they imitated them in their own individual way—especially in the papadic (kalophonic) genre. But only the latter experienced type understood the emotive effects of music well enough, so that they could invent text and music in exactly the way, as they wished to move the soul of the auditory.
As well for the eight echoi of the Octoechos (book 4) as for the use of rhythm (book 2), Chrysanthos described the effects that both could create, usually with reference to ancient Greek scientists and philosophers. Despite that Chrysanthos agreed with the Arabo-Persian concept of musicians as humours maker (mutriban) and with the dramaturgy of rhythm in a mystic context, his ethic concept of music was collective concerning the Octoechos and individual concerning rhythm, at least in theory. While the ethos of the echoi were characterized very generally (since Plato), the "three tropes of rhythm" (book 2, chapter 12) were distincted as systaltic (λυπηρός "sad"), diastaltic (θημός "rage"), and hesychastic (ἡσυχία "peace, silence" was connected with an Athonite mystic movement). Systaltic and diastaltic effects were created by the beginning of the rhythmical period (if it starts on an arsis or thesis) and by the use of the tempo (slow or fast). The hesychastic trope required a slow, but smooth rhythm, which used simple and rather equal time proportions. The agitating effect of the fast diastaltic trope could become enthusiastic and cheerful by the use of hemiolic rhythm.
In conclusion, Chrysanthos' theory was less academic than experimental and creative, and the tradition was rather an authorization of the creative and open-minded experiments of the most important protagonists around the Patriarchate and the Fener district, but also with respect to patriotic and anthropological projects in the context of ethnic and national movements.
The Makamlar as an Exoteric Aspect of the Octoechos
Already medieval Arabic sources describe the important impact that the Byzantine and Greek traditions of Bagdad and Damascus had for the development of an Arab music tradition, when the melodies (since 1400 maqamat) had been already described as naġme.[112] Today the Greek reception of Ottoman makamlar by the transcription into Byzantine neume notation can be recognized as a process in five different stages or steps. The first were Petros Bereketis' compositions of the early 18th century, in which he used certain makam intervals as a kind of change of the genus (μεταβολή κατὰ γένον) for refined transitions between certain echoi. The second stage was a systematic collection of seyirler, in order to adapt the written transmission of Byzantine chant to other traditions. The third and most important step was a reform of the notation as the medium of written transmission, in order to adapt it to the scales and the tone system which was the common reference for all musicians of the Ottoman Empire. The fourth step was the systematic transcription of the written transmission of makamlar into modern Byzantine neumes, the Mecmuase, a form of Anthology which was used by Court and Sephardic musicians as well, but usually as text books. The fifth and last step was the composition of certain makamlar as part of the Octoechos tradition, after external music had turned into something internal. The exoteric had become esoteric.
Exoteric Music
Petros Peloponnesios (about 1730-1778), the teacher of the Second Music School of the Patriarchate, was born in Peloponnese, but already as a child, he grew up in Smyrna and its various music traditions. An Ottoman anecdote about "the thief Petros" (Hirsiz Petros) referred that his capability to memorize and to write down music was so astonishing, that he was able to steal his melodies from everywhere and to make them up as an own composition which convinced the audience more than the musician from whom he once had stolen it. This capability included that he understood any music according to his own tradition which was not necessarily the Octoechos for a Greek socialized at Smyrna, that he was rather believed to be its original creator. As a notator of music he was not only well known as an inventor of an own method to transcribe music into Late Byzantine neumes, he also had an intimate knowledge of the Armenian Hamparsum notation and its method to transcribe melodies and the rhythm of the usul as well. The use of notation as a medium of written transmission had never had such an important role within tradition, but in case of "Hirsiz Petros" a lot of musicians preferred to ask him for his permission, before publishing their own compositions.[113] This anecdote is credible, because until today the living tradition of monodic Orthodox chant is dominated by Petros Peloponnesios' own compositions and his reformulation of the traditional chant books heirmologion (the katavaseion melodies) and sticherarion (his Doxastarion syntomon is today distributed in most the Menaia as they are used in several National-Orthodox traditions).
In Petros' time Panagiotes Halaçoğlu and Kyrillos Marmarinos, Metropolit of Tinos, were collecting the seyirler by a transcription into Late Byzantine notation—other musicians, who had grown up with Alevide and Sufi compositions and with the makam seyirler of the Ottoman court and who knew not just Byzantine neumes, but also other notation systems of the Empire.[114]
The next step which followed the systematic collection of seyirler was its classification and integration according to the Octoechos. The different usulümler were just transcribed under their names by the syllables "düm" and "tek" (for instance δοὺμ τεκ-κὲ τὲκ) with the number of beats or a division of one beat.[115] The neume transcription just mentioned the makam and the usul at the beginning of the piece, and the main question was, which modal signature of the Octoechos had to be used to transcribe a certain makam and which additional phthora was needed to indicate the particular intonation by a change of genos (μεταβολή κατὰ γένον), the integrative concept since the Hagiopolites.
The Makamlar of the Diatonic Echos Varys
One important innovation of the reformed neume notation and its "New Method" of transcription was the heptaphonic solfeggio, which was not based on the Western equal temperature but on the frets of the tambur—a long-necked lute which had replaced the oud at the Ottoman court (mehterhane) by the end of the 17th century and which also took its place in the representation of the tone system.[116] In his reformulation of the sticheraric melosPetros Peloponnesios defined most of the meloi of the tritos echoi as phthora nana, but the diatonic varys ("grave mode") was no longer based on the tritos pentachord B flat—F according to the tetraphonic tone system ("trochos system"), it was based according to the tambur frets on an octave on B natural on a fret called "arak", so that the pentachord had been diminished to a tritone. Thus, some melodic models which were well-known from Persian, Kurdish, or another music traditions of the Empire, could be integrated within echos varys.[117]
For the printed chant books also a New Method had to be created which was concerned about the transcription of the makamlar. Several theoretical treatises followed Chrysanthos and some of them treated the New Method of transcribing exoteric music, which meant folklore of different regions of the Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean which often used modes far from the Byzantine Octoechos tradition, but also makamlar traditions of the Court and of Sufi lodges (tekke).
The Exoteric Phthorai according to Panagiotes Keltzanides' Didactic Method
Panagiotes Keltzanides' "Methodical Teaching of the Theory and Practice of External music" (1881) is the only complete treatise which continues the theoretical reflection of Panagiotes Halaçoğlu and Kyrillos Marmarinos. It also includes a manuscript by Konstantinos the Protopsaltes with a representation of the tambur frets and interval calculations referred to certain makamlar and echoi.
The whole book is written about a composition of Beyzade Yangu Karaca and Çelebi Yangu, a didactic chant to memorize each makam like each great sign in the Mega Ison according to the school of John Glykys, and their composition was arranged by Konstantinos the Protopsaltes, and transcribed by Stephanos the Domestikos and Theodoros Phokaeos. Konstantinos' negative opinion concerning the reform notation had been well-known, so it was left to his students to transcribe the method of his teaching and its subjects. It became obviously the motivation for Panagiotes Keltzanides' publication, thus, he taught a systematic transcription method for all makamlar according to the New Method.
The main part of his work is the first part of the seventh chapter.[118] The identification of a certain makam by a fret name makes the fret name to a substitute of a solmization syllable used for the basis tone. Thus, "dügah" (D: πα, α') represents all makamlar which belong to the echos protos, "segah" (E: βου, β') represents all makamlar of the diatonic echos devteros, "çargah" (F: γα, γ') all makamlar of echos tritos, "neva" (G: δι, δ') all makamlar of the echos tetartos, "hüseyni" (a: κε, πλ α') all makamlar of the echos plagios tou protou, "hicaz" as makam lies on "dügah" (D: πα in chromatic solfeggio, πλ β') and represents the different hard chromatic meloi of echos plagios tou devterou, "arak" (B natural: ζω, υαρ) represents the diatonic echos varys, and finally "rast" (C: νη, πλ δ') represents all makamlar of echos plagios tou tetartou. It is evident that the whole solution is based on Chrysanthos New Method, and it is no longer compatible with the Papadike and the former solfeggio based on the trochos system. On the other hand, the former concept of Petros Bereketis to use a makam for a temporary change of the genus is still present in Keltzanides' method. Every makam can now be represented and even develop its own melos like any other echos, because the proper interval structure of a certain makam is indicated by the use of additional phthorai which were sometimes named after a certain makam, as long as the phthora was representative for just one makam.
For instance the seyir of makam sabâ (μακὰμ σεμπὰ) was defined as an aspect of echos protos (ἦχος πρῶτος) on fret "dügah", despite that there is no chromaticism on γα (F) in any melos of echos protos.[119] There are several compositions in echos varys—also from the great teachers like Gregorios the Protopsaltes—which are in fact compositions in makam sabâ, but it has no proper phthora which would clearly indicate the difference between echos varys and makam sabâ (see also Chrysanthos' method of transcription in his chroa chapter). A Greek singer from Istanbul would recognize it anyway, but it became so common that it might be regarded as an aspect of echos varys by psaltes of the living tradition. On the other hand, the intonation of makam müstear has its own characteristic phthora (φθορά μουσταχὰρ) which is often used in printed chant books. Though it is treated as an aspect of echos legetos, according to Keltzanides treated as an aspect of the diatonic echos devteros on fret "segah", its intonation is so unique, that it will be even recognized by an audience which is not as familiar with makam music, at least as something odd in an echos which already requires a very experienced psaltes.[120]
In 1881 the transcription of makam compositions was nothing new, because several printed anthologies had been published by Phanariotes: Pandora and Evterpe by Theodoros Phokaeos and Chourmouzios the Archivist in 1830, Harmonia by Vlachopoulos in 1848, Kaliphonos Seiren by Panagiotes Georgiades in 1859, Apanthisma by Ioannis Keïvelis in 1856 and in 1872, and Lesvia Sappho by Nikolaos Vlahakis in 1870 in another reform notation invented in Lesbos. New was without any doubt the systematic approach to understand the whole system of makamlar as part of the Octoechos tradition.
The Byzantine Octoechos and its Meloi according to the New Method
According to medieval theory, the plagioi (oblique) echoi mentioned above (Hagiopolitan Octoechos) employ the same scales, the final degrees of the plagioi echoi are a fifth below with respect to the ones of the kyrioi echoi. There are typically two main notes that defined each of the Byzantine Tones (ἦχοι, гласов): the base degree (basis) or ison which is sung as a typical drone with the melody by ison-singers (isokrates), and the final degree (finalis) of the mode on which the hymn ends.
In current traditional practice, there are more than only one basis in certain meloi, and in some particular cases the base degree of the mode is not even the degree of the finalis. The Octoechos cycles as they exist in different chant genres, are no longer defined as entirely diatonic, some of the chromatic or enharmonic meloi had replaced the former diatonic ones entirely, so often the pentachord between the finales does no longer exist or the kyrioi meloi of more elaborated genres are transposed to the finalis of its plagios, for instance the papadic melos of echos protos.
Their melodic patterns were created by four generations of teachers at the "New Music School of the Patriarchate" (Constantinople/Istanbul), which redefined the Ottoman tradition of Byzantine chant between 1750 and 1830 and transcribed it into the notation of the New Method since 1814. Whereas in Gregorian chant a mode referred to the classification of chant according to the local tonaries and the obligatory psalmody, the Byzantine echoi were rather defined by an oral tradition how to do the thesis of the melos, which included melodic patterns like the base degree (ison), open or closed melodic endings or cadences (cadential degrees of the mode), and certain accentuation patterns. The melodic patterns were further distinguished according to different chant genres, which traditionally belong to certain types of chant books, often connected with various local traditions.
Byzantine chant books
According to the New Method, the whole repertory of hymns used in Orthodox chant, had been divided into four chant genres or exegesis types defined by their tempo and their melodic patterns used for each echos. On the one hand, their names were taken from traditional chant books, on the other hand, different forms, which had never been connected in hymnology, were now put together by a purely musical definition of melos which had been summed up by a very broad concept of more or less elaborated psalmody:
Papadic hymns are melismatic troparia sung during the Divine Liturgy (Cheruvikon, Koinonikon, etc.), according to the New Method slow in tempo, and fast in Teretismoi or Kratemata (sections using abstract syllables); the name "papadic" refers to the treatise of psaltic art called "papadike" (παπαδική) and its elaborated form is based on kalophonic compositions (between the 14th and the 17th century). Hence, also kalophonic compositions over models taken from the sticherarion (so-called stichera kalophonika or anagrammatismoi) or from the heirmologion (heirmoi kalophonikoi) were part of the papadic genre and used its melos.
Sticheraric hymns are taken from the book sticherarion (στιχηράριον), its text is composed in hexameter, today the Greek chant book is called Doxastarion ("the book of Doxasticha"), according to the New Method there is a slow (Doxastarion argon) and a fast way (Doxastarion syntomon) of singing its melos; the tempo used in syntomon is 2 times faster than that of the papadic melos. Since the old repertory there has been always a distinction between stichera idiomela, stichera with own melodies which are usually sung only once during the year, and stichera avtomela—metrical and melodical models which belong less to the repertory itself, they were rather used to compose several stichera prosomeia, so that these melodies were sung on several occasions. The name Doxastarion derived from the practice to introduce these chants by one or both stichoi of the small doxology. Hence, stichera were also called Doxastika and regarded as a derivative of psalmody, at least according to Chrysanthos of Madytos. But also elaborated psalmody and their torsos like certain troparia as trisagion or the Hesperinos psalm 140.1 κύριε ἐκέκραξα (kekragaria), and the cycle of eleven Doxastika (stichera heothina) of the Matins Gospels represented models of the sticheraric melos.
Heirmologic hymns are taken from the heirmologion (εἱρμολόγιον), their meter is defined by the odes of the canon, their content according to the first 9 biblical odes, in the poetic composition is based on melodic models called "heirmos" (εἱρμός); according to the New Method there is a slow (Katavaseion) and a fast way (Heirmologion syntomon) of singing it; the tempo is up to two times faster than that of the sticheraric melos. The melos follows strict melodic pattern which are also applied to texts sung from the service book the Menaion.
Troparic hymns are taken from the book of the Great Octoechos (Slavonic Oсмогласникъ "Osmoglasnik") and its melos is memorized by the most frequently—several times each day according to the echos of the week—sung resurrection hymns (apolytikia anastasima) and theotokia (troparic hymns dedicated to the Mother of God); according to the Anastasimatarion neon of the New Method the troparic melos has the same tempo than the fast heirmologic melos, but in certain modes different melodic patterns and genus.
This is the distinction as it has been taught in most of he chant manuals today, but at the beginning of the 19th century, Chrysanthos defined the four genres in a slightly different way:
The psaltes [church musicians] wrote and sung the different forms of psalmody, they created the rhythm, and over those they performed the cheironomies [hand signs] and invented the melos according to their needs. So they composed their theseis of the musical neumes, how to sing the synpotic signs, and by their own examples the students could learn the method and how to follow it. Thus, the students learnt the thesis of the melos, and they imitated their teachers in their own compositions [footnote quoting Manuel Chrysaphes]. [...] These forms of psalmody can be reduced to four kinds of melos: the old sticheraric, the new sticheraric, the papadic, and the heirmologic.
Changes in the chant tradition were justified by a quotation of Manuel Chrysaphes, where he mentioned, that John Koukouzeles made up is own compositions in the kalophonic performance of a sticheron, but he always followed the traditional models "step by step". By using this quotation, Chrysanthos tried to justify the radical innovations by the "New Music School of the Patriarchate" and to integrate the New Method within the tradition of Byzantine chant.
The detailed transcription of the thesis of the melos and its various methods into the medium of the New Method redefined the genres according to parameters like tempo, rhythm, and the melodic treatment of text (between syllabic and highly melismatic). Only later, since the end of the 19th century, treatises were published in Greek by Kosmas, Metropolit of Madytos (1897, vol. 1, pp. 42-69), and in Bulgarian by Peter Sarafov (1912, pp. 90-119). Both editions contained an introduction to teach systematically the formulas of each echos according to its troparic, heirmologic, sticheraric and papadic melos (usually a catalogue of the exposition and the different cadence formulas used in each melos).
The redefinition of each chant genre with an own melos and an own tempo was part of the process, which preceded its first distribution as printed chant books. Parallel to the work of the teachers at the "New Music School of the Patriarchate" which started about the middle of the 18th century, there was a later political process in which the Ottoman Empire was splitted into several independent nations (between the late 19th and the early 20th century). These nations were declared by a kind of national church, which defined itself as an own Patriarchate which was independent (avtokephalos), in front of the former Patriarchate of Constantinople. For each of this nations the tradition of Orthodox chant had to be redefined and the introduction of printed editions was an important part of it.
But already the definition of four chant genres had to face characteristic conflicts, and they will be described examplarily by means of the heirmologion and of the sticherarion.
The Debates about the Sticheraric Melos
Chrysanthos already mentioned a traditional and a modern way of performing the sticheraric chant, and continued:
The old sticheraric melos is the one found in the old anastasimatarion [the cycle of 11 stichera heothina in the Anastasimatarion of Panagiotes the New Chrysaphes], in the old sticheraria, and in the Doxastikarion of Iakovos. Hence, the Doxastika, the stichera, the anastasima [elaborate resurrection hymns], the ainoi [Laudate-psalms], the prosomoia and idiomela, and the stichera heothina [see Matins Gospel] are made of the sticheraric melos.
The new sticheraric is the one preserved in the Anastasimatarion of Petros Peloponnesios. Hence, the Doxastika, the stichera, the anastasima, the exaposteilaria, the ainoi, the prosomoia and idiomela, the stichera heothina, the kathismata and antiphona, and the eisodika are made of this melos.
It is surprising that he did not mention Petros' Doxastarion syntomon, but only his Anastasimatarion, which should not be mistaken with the Anastasimatarion neon, published by Petros Ephesios in 1820.[123] It is not less surprising, that the psalmodic composition of the vesper psalm 140.1 Κύριε ἐκέκραξα (kekragarion) in the Anastasimatarion was listed by Chrysanthos as example of the papadic melos.[124]
Probably Chrysanthos had an earlier plan, before Petros Ephesios realized the first printed editions. There are copied manuscripts of a rather unknown Anastasimatarion syntomon composed by Petros Peloponnesios and transcribed according to the New Method by Gregorios the Protopsaltes. It has set even the Kekragaria cycle in a melos, which is today called the "troparic". This manuscript had a second part as well, which was a Sticherarion including the fixed (μηναῖον) and the moveable cycle (τριῴδιον, πεντηκοστάριον) which only contained the stichera prosomeia and troparia, but also the theotokia, kontakia, and eisodika of the sticherarion.[125] The "fast sticheraric melos" represented by Petros Peloponnesios' Anastasimatarion was probably meant as an early name for the "troparic melos". There is another manuscript (Ms. 716 of the National Library of Athens) which contains the transcription of Petros' sticheraric compositions, as they are today part of the printed editions called Anastasimatarion neon.[126] The names of the chant genres as a category of the melos and its identification with a certain tempo (once the method of the thesis) were obviously taken from the traditional chant books, but its redefinition was based on a universal concept of psalmody, which was based on the reception of Panagiotes the New Chrysaphes' Anthology and his reception of Manuel Chrysaphes. The "troparic melos" was the simpler psalmody with respect to the traditional simple psalmody. The New Method created four octoechos cycles—one for each genre, but there was no longer a strong connection between the traditional method to do the thesis of the melos according to the convention of a certain book, and the four octoechos cycles had been as well used to integrate several meloi, which had not been so far regarded as a part of the Octoechos tradition.
Concerning the sticheraric melos as the New Method to realize the repertory of the old book sticherarion, the strict rhythmic form of the melos as it had been created by Petros Peloponnesios, was criticised and refused a generation later ("The third Music School of the Patriarchate") by Iakovos the Protopsaltes. It seems that his opinion had a great influence on the following generation of teachers who were responsible for the reform notation and the preparation of the printed edition, and his Doxastarion argon was regarded by Chrysanthos as the traditional sticheraric method. Nevertheless, the first published "Doxastarion syntomon" by Petros Peloponnesios and his composition of the Kekragaria, as they were published in the "Anastasimatarion neon" by Petros Ephesios, proposed the style which became soon widely accepted as the "sticheraric melos", while Iakovos' Doxastarion argon was rather transcribed according to the "papadic" Octoechos—for the simple reason that it was indeed the closest to the Byzantine Octoechos and that the different chant genres which had not been so strictly separated, due to the synthesis of all great signs in the Papadike, but also due to a synthesis of the phonic neumes which transcribed cadences in the heirmologion in the same way as in the sticherarion.
Iakovos like some other Protopsaltes of Istanbul left the work of the notator to his students, who had to write down his contributions to the psaltic art into notation, so his performances of the sticheraric repertory had been first written down into Late Byzantine neumes by his student Georgios of Crete.[127] Iakovos criticised the rhythmic style of the Sticherarion by Petros Peloponnesios, who had tried to re-establish a simple sticheraric melos, as it existed once according to the conventional thesis (παλαιὸν) of the sticheraric melos. In a comparative study only few similarities can be found between the models of the 14th-century sticheraria and Petros' realizations. Iakovos' own realizations had been transcribed and published by Chourmouzios the Archivist, on the base of the scripts left by Iakovos' student and Chourmouzios' teacher Georgios of Crete. Petros Peloponnesios' concept of a "slow sticheraric melos" (μέλος στιχηραρικός ἀργός) did often not strictly follow the model, it was rather adapted to the contemporary formulas of the melos—in a style which had been often prolonged the conventional method by the "kalophonic method".[128]
Until the 1880s, important masters like Konstantinos the Protopsaltes followed Iakovos in his negative attitude to the New Method. He still wrote notated manuscripts and refused categorically the use of modern notation. He disregarded the New Method as a cause of corruption and an obstacle in the path to the Byzantine tradition.
But he arranged a compromise, an argosyntomon version which was a synthesis between Petros Peloponnesios' and Iakovos' Doxastarion.[129] In liturgical practice Iakovos' Doxastarion argon must still have proven as too long, but Konstantinos Terzopoulos could demonstrate that Konstantinos' Doxastarion argonsyntomon was not simply an abbreviation of Iakovos' compositions, the vocal range became even wider, so that Konstantinos' versions usually supported certain kalophonic elements, as they had been still present in the style called "sticherarikos argos".
Without any doubt a synpotic analysis which compare different layers of the tradition, can always find interesting parallels to the old models. Hence, it is important not to underestimate the last generations who were still familiar with the papadic school. For psaltes of the current tradition they still provide the key for all layers of the older tradition. In fact, the biggest collection, which had remained in larger parts unpublished, are Chourmouzios' transcriptions into the reform notation of the New Method. He made two cycles of the "old sticherarion" based on 14th-century sticheraria, 4 volumes based on the 17th-century notation written by Germanos of New Patras, and 5 other volums based on the transcription of Germanos' contemporary Panagiotes the New Chrysaphes.[130] On this background, even Iakovos' Doxastarion argon had been only slow in comparison with Petros Peloponnesios, the traditional psaltic art had enlarged the stichera to a degree, that an abridgement had become necessary—a project which started with Petros Peloponnesios' teacher Ioannis Trapezountios and his foundation of the "New Music School of the Patriarchate".
On the one hand, it was evident that the oral tradition of the sticheraric method was confused between the conventional and the kalophonic method. Probably the mixture had been also occasionally useful for a flexible practice, because kalophonic techniques like teretismata helped to adapt to the length of the ritual during greater feasts. On the other hand, a skilled protopsaltes who was interested to demonstrate his knowledge of the kalophonic art, could as well integrate kalophonic elements in shorter performances and he was imitated by other even less experienced psaltes, who appreciated the performance.
For these reasons, we find manuscripts of the sticherarion kalophonikon written during 1780s, which have about 1900 pages just for the fixed cycle of the menaion with ca. 600 different compositions (stichera kalophonika and anagrammatismoi) about 200 models, because usually these models had been divided into two or three more or less open sections. The length of the performance was so expanding, that this book had no practical use for the ceremonies.[131] Hence, only extracts had been published in printed anthologies called mathematarion ("book of exercises", which included as well traditional mathemata like Mega Ison). Already Konstantinos' abbreviation of Iakovos' slow sticheraric melos indicates, that Iakovos' abridged sticheraric compositions had been already too long for a practical use, and in the editions of his students Georgios of Crete and Chourmouzios, they had presumably not been distincted enough from the papadic melos. Chourmouzios' transcription had been printed 6 years before Stephanos the Domestikos' publication of Konstantinos' Doxastarion.
One kolon καὶ τόκῳ ζῶσα πρέσβευε διηνεκῶς·, taken from the eighth section of the Doxastikon oktaechon Θεαρχίῳ νεύματι (Dormition of the Theotokos on 15 August), might illustrate the motivation of the New Method to abbreviate the traditional method of doing the thesis of the sticheraric melos:
Doxastikon oktaechon Θεαρχίῳ νεύματι—one kolon taken from the old sticherarion and several transcriptions according to the traditional method and according to the abridged versions of the New Method
This composition, one of three of the sticheraric repertory which pass through all the 8 echoi, had never been a subject of a kalophonic composition, because it could not be subdivided into two or three sections like most of the stichera of the 14th-century sticherarion which did pass through one or two other echoi close to the one indicated by the main signature.
In the eighth section when the melos has arrived the eighth mode (ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ τετάρτου), the psaltes has to explore the highest possible register of the voice for quite a long time. Already in the edition of the 14th-century sticherarion which had been revised by John Koukouzeles,[132] the cadence at the end of the section dedicated to the echos tritos establishes the plagios cadence not in the lower (υαρ B flat), but in the upper fifth (υαρ c). This transposition (μεταβολή κατὰ τόνον) causes a shift of the ambitus about two pentachords higher, which is the interval of a major ninth, and prepares the melos within the tetartos octave G—d—g with the upper tetrachord (δ' d—α' e—β' f sharp—γ' g).
Today, psaltes are most familiar with the virtuosic salto into the upper octave g in the "fast sticheraric" composition of Petros Peloponnesios. This most abridged version is also the most effective. The voice gets not tired within the upper register, because the singer just jumps only once and for a short moment into the upper tetrachord, so it gives the impression to sing the tetartos melos one octave higher (in fact, not higher than the upper third). This realization or exegesis is very convincing, but also the farest one with respect to the model given by the old sticherarion. It clearly illustrates "Hirsiz" Petros' talent as a musician to make up a traditional composition in an individual, but also most convincing way. A psaltis performing his version will easily make the best impression on the audience and this explains, why his version became the most popular one.
In comparison with the model and the other realizations it is evident, that the psaltes usually have to sing in the higher register, starting from the section of echos varys, and that even Iakovos' Doxastarion argon, this most elaborated realization by Chourmouzios within the New Method which is closest to the traditional realizations in the manuscripts, had been as well composed as an abbreviation of the traditional method, though in opposition of Petros' syntomon-style.[133]
In this kolon already the 14th-century sticherarion had plenty of transpositions. For this reason every example was transcribed by letter notation, as thetic symbols on one line, and by a dynamic symbol according to the papadic parallage on another line (each descending step by a plagios formula, and each ascending one by a kyrios formula). For an easier comparison the thetic symbol is transcribed in a way, that the Doxastikon oktaechon always starts on a κε (α'), even if it has been transcribed a fifth lower as D πα (α') as in some of the printed editions or manuscripts.
In the old sticherarion, the kolon is simply set in the tetrachord of tetartos, but the great sign or hypostasis xeron klasma (ξηρὸν κλάσμα) preceding the kolon at υασίλει· causes a change to the enharmonic genus (μεταβολή κατὰ γένον) and to the triphonic tone system (μεταβολή κατὰ σύστημα) of the phthora nana, and it prepares the medial signature of πλδ' on c νη'. Already Manuel Chrysaphes explained, that the use of phthora nana causes, that the melos of echos tritos must finally close on a cadence of echos plagios tetartos. Hence, the diatonic tetartos parallage which use the devteros phthongos β' (f sharp), turns now the same into f natural as the tritos phthongos γ'. From here the medial signature πλ δ' at the end of the following kolon on c is prepared, so the thesis of the melos uses here the melos of phthora nana, as it can be found in the final cadence of the transcriptions. But the use of phthora nana, unlike a conventional transposition (μεταβολή κατὰ τόνον), does not require a second transposition. If the same melos uses the lower register between c (γ') and G (πλ δ') and the lower tetrachord D (πλ α')—G (πλ δ'), the nana melos will find its way back to the phthongos on G (πλ δ').
Chourmouzios transcribed the νεάγιε νανὰ cadence transposed a third lower on a (πλ δ'), when he followed the method of Germanos of New Patras (EBE 748), or a second lower on b flat (πλ δ') in his own composition according to the style παλαιὸν (EBE 709), which is still close to his transcription of Germanos. A third exegesis of the old sticheron follows in the footsteps of Panagiotes the New Chrysaphes and his sticherarion according to an horologic order, represented here in a copy by Gerasimos Giannoulatos. This version transposes the nana cadence a tetrachord lower on G (πλ δ'). Already for the traditional method of the sticherarion, the end of the kolon διηνεκῶς· does not fit into the synapsis, because it is composed as a long melisma unlike the three printed versions according to the New Method. This way the kolon of the old sticherarion has been divided into two sections and both end on the same signature and the phthongos of πλ δ', however it has been transposed.
The New Method established since Petros Peloponnesios another more symmetrical subdivision of the kolon with a second cadence at καὶ τόκῳ ζῶσα·, and in Iakovos' and Petros' Doxastarion the voice passes the whole tetartos octave within πρέσβευε, before it finishes the kolon by a tetartos cadence (δ') on the phthongos d πα'. Only Konstantinos the Protopsaltes in his Doxastarion argosyntomon follows the ambitus of the old sticherarion, but without any change to the phthora nana. Instead, there is a change to the chromatic genus of the mesos devteros and to the diphonic system, if Konstantinos followed Chrysanthos' concept, which might be regarded as rather unlikely. In any case his composition is unique in this comparison, and an alternative interpretation of the medial signature: the tetartos d δ' as mesos devteros.
The Transcription of the Different Methods of the Heirmologic Melos
The transcriptions of the heirmologion kalophonikon were more lucky than those of the sticherarion kalophonikon. They were not only retranscribed according to the New Method by Gregorios the Protopsaltes, but also published by Theodoros Phokaeos as a printed chant book.[134] The printed collections usually favored 17th-century compositions of Petros Bereketis, Balasios Iereas and Germanos of New Patras, but also compositions by Panagiotes Halaçoğlu and teachers of the New Music School, especially by Iakovos the Protopsaltes and his students. The heirmologion kalophonikon usually picked up one ode of the canon and elaborated it in a kalophonic way, but it was divided according the conventional Octoechos order. A second part (pp. 189-262) was a "Kratematarion of the kalophonic Heirmos" in the Octoechos order as well, which could be used to prolong the performance. Earlier hand-written anthologies usually notated the heirmos kalophonikos together with a certain kratema which had been exclusively composed for it. But the separated form of the printed edition might also indicate that a kratema could be performed alone.
Concerning the discussion of the heirmologic melos between Petros Peloponnesios, Petros Byzantios, and Iakovos the Protopsaltes, there is a very similar evolution, as it can be found in the definition of the sticheraric melos according to the New Method. Petros Peloponnesios composed a "heirmologion ton katavaseion" which has to be performed in the same tempo, as it had become the "fast sticheraric melos". It is a coincidence between the "melos heirmologikos argos" and the "sticherarikos syntomos", as it exists as well between Iakovos' "melos sticherarikos argos" and the "melos papadikes". Petros Peloponnesios' student Petros Byzantios added a simpler version of a "heirmologion syntomon" which followed the same mechanic patterns, as they had been developed by his teacher in his Anastasimatarion syntomon, and his version is today identified as "the heirmologic melos", but its tempo is the same as used for the troparia in the common edition of Anastasimatarion neon.
So we might have four octoechos cycles according to the New Method, which are in the mind of a psaltes in the current tradition of monodic Orthodox Chant, but in fact the "argon" variant in some chant genres tend to cross to the next slower genre.
Iakovos the Protopsaltes refused the rhythmic style of Petros Peloponnesios and his student Petros Byzantios—his colleague and cofounder of the third Music School who created the Heirmologion syntomon, after his teacher had created the Heirmologion argon over the Katavaseion melodies.[135] According to their compositions the tritos echoi and the plagios tetartos were entirely meloi which belong to the phthora nana. Soon after Chrysanthos, the enharmonic intonation of the tetrachord was defined as pythagorean, hence, its genos was classified as "hard diatonic".
Innovations within Different Monodic Traditions of Orthodox Chant
It is not enough to reduce the work of several generations at the "New Music School of the Patriarchate" to a more or less selective translation of "Byzantine Chant", based on a certain redaction of Panagiotes the New Chrysaphes and other Protopsaltes of the 17th century, who tried to save the inherited tradition whose loss was already feared by the Constantinopolitan Lampadarios Manuel Chrysaphes in 1457. Since the fall of Constantinople protopsaltes, including the leading protagonists at the New Music School, were present—in the territory of the Ottoman Empire as well as in the Boyar Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia—as the creators of an own tradition. It was less opposed to the Byzantine tradition, rather gave it fresh impulses which kept it alive. On the other hand, it shared an equal part with other music traditions in a rich and inspiring exchange among musicians of the Ottoman Empire.
So the question is not only, how they transcribed the traditional repertory into a more or less modified notation, but also, how they used this medium of written transmission for their own compositions within Orthodox chant. During the 17th century Panagiotes the New Chrysaphes and Germanos of New Patras represent more traditional protopsaltes of the Patriarchate, who cared about the proper understanding of the Byzantine tradition, while others like Petros Bereketis had never been directly associated with the Patriarchate, but their psaltic art became very appreciated, because it combined a very refined knowledge of the traditions with experiments of transition that were inspired by their intimate knowledge of makamlar which he had got thanks to a permanent exchange with other musicians. Already Gregorios Bounes Alyates (Γρηγόριος Μπούνης ὁ Ἀλυάτης), Protopsaltes of the Hagia Sophia before and after the conquest of Constantinople, was recognized by the Sultan for the power that he gained over other musicians, because of his competences to write down and to memorize chant from other traditions and to adapt them according to the own Octoechos style. This thief aspect, as it had been discussed by Petros Peloponnesios' career as "Hirsiz Petros", is also connected to the activities, as they had been documented since the 18th century, to transcribe and collect systematically chants from other traditions. This intensive exchange with the music of the Ottoman Empire, which could be occasions or coffee-houses where musicians met together and exchanged their music by performing it, the transcription and memorization by the medium of Byzantine Octoechos notation, or even music lessons which several Greek musicians asked and got from traditional composers of the whirling dervishes, also inspired certain compositions that they contributed to the traditional genres of Byzantine chant.
The Chrysanthine notation and the New Method, which were also used in the field of "exoteric music" in makam publications like Pandora, Evterpe, Kaliphonos Seiren, and Apanthisma e Mecmue, and the redefinition of the Byzantine tradition adapted to the common tone system of the tambur frets, had been a great temptation to fill the gaps of the four Octoechos cycles with meloi which had been imported from other music traditions of the Levantic community of musicians. Makam compositions were not always identified as makam, and especially related genres, like compositions of the heirmologic melos in kalophonic elaboration, rather defined as papadic melos and sung during the Divine Liturgies for instance as koinonikon (while the heirmologion was a traditional part of the daily morning service), became the favorite genre for these experiments. The heirmos kalophonikos was made popular by Petros Bereketis during the 17th century, despite the fact that it already existed since the rise of psaltic art in the last 150 years of the Byzantine Empire.
This genre was also used by composers of the 19th century who wanted to contribute their own compositions to their local tradition, for instance the Macedonian monk Neofit Rilski who was also a chant teacher of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, and who used a devteros composition of Petros Bereketis to compose a koinonikon in honor of the patron of the Rila Monastery: Ivan Rilski.
But the innovations did not finish with the foundation of National Orthodox Schools of chant or with the Phanariotes' interest for the transcription of local traditions, of folk or art music. Until today, every Domestikos or Archon psaltis at the Great Church of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is supposed to create his own realizations, in particular for all genres sung during the Divine Liturgies, their cherouvika or their leitourgika—the sung dialogue of the Anaphora composed in a certain echos or even in a certain makam as a particular melos of a certain echos.[136]
The flexibility of psaltic art, for instance to sing the traditional model of the cherouvikon in that length as it is required by a certain ceremony, it does still exist as a standard, at least for the highest rank of the protopsaltes, as far as they do not engage too much in the common fight between the celebrating priest, diacon or hieromonachos and the protopsaltes, while the majority of psaltes depend on the chant as it has been transcribed in the printed chant books of the New Method.
During his period in charge of an archon protopsaltes, Thrasyvoulos Stanitsas notated an abridged week cycle of the cherouvika according to the papadic melos of the Octoechos, because the usual week cycle, based on compositions by Petros Peloponnesios, Gregorios the Protopsaltes, and Chourmouzios the Archivist, was still long enough that performing psaltes had been interrupted quite often. Thrasyvoulos Stanitsas' cycle allows psaltes to perform the cherouvika in even a shorter time without abandoning solistic features like a wide ambitus and frequent changes (μεταβολαὶ) of any kind. He soon added another cycle called "argosyntomon", where the same ideas had been formed out in a rather appropriate way, without being as expansive as the teachers of the New Music School used to be in their compositions of the "argon" cycle for rather festive occasions.
On the other hand, the common attitude of the early 19th century in the long exegesis type called παλαιὸν ("traditional style") has been often perceived as too long, as a kind of ballast or as an obstacle which lies on the way to an easier and more direct understanding of the Byzantine sources. Byzantinists as editors of the Transcripta serial of Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae had always dreamt to make their sources available to performers. During the last years, it was especially Ioannis Arvanitis, like Lykourgos Angelopoulos once student of Simon Karas, who made concrete propositions for performers concerning the thesis of the melos of selected examples taken from medieval chant manuscripts.[137] Following his method of doing the thesis, he re-transcribed from the old notation of Petros Peloponnesios' week cycle.[138]
^The numerical order of Byzantine echoi follows the 4 "kyrioi echoi", then the 4 "plagioi echoi", in Carolingian tonaries since Hucbald it is "tonus primus" (first authentic tone), "tonus secundus" (first plagal tone) etc.
^The echoi cycle existed as well on a daily basis during Easter Week.
^The fourteenth-century manuscript is Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, fonds grec, ms. 360 and was edited by Jørgen Raasted 1983, an earlier fragment dates back to the twelfth century and was edited by Johann Friedrich Bellermann (1972).
^Parpyrus studies gave evidence, that there were already tropologia or tropariologia since the 6th century, soon after the Constantinopolitan school of Romanos Melodos and before the "Hagiopolitan school" around John of Damascus and his predecessors, but also in Alexandria and Constantinople (Troelsgård 2007). The Hagiopolitan emphasize on John of Damascus was obviously a redaction of the 9th century, after the synode of Nikaia in 787. The liturgical concept of an eight week cycle can already be traced back to the cathedral rite of Jerusalem during the 4th century and was the Christian justification of Sunday as the eight day after Sabbat (Frøyshov 2007, pp. 144-153). Peter Jeffery (2001) assumes a first phase during which the concept existed independently in various places, and a second phase during which Palestine became a centre in order to establish reform models which were also used by the generation of John of Damascus.
^Peter Jeffery (2001, pp. 186f) believes that certain paraphrases – like Raasted 1983, §8, p.16 – are polemics against the 16 echoi of the Asma, the modal system of the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite.
^Harold S. Powers, "Mode, §II: Medieval Modal Theory, 1: The Elements, (ii) The Byzantine Model: Oktōēchos", see also Jeffery (2001) and Werner 1948.
^Book 4, chapter 15 of Boethius' De institutione musica, see Bower's translation in Harold Powers' article "mode" (Powers, II:1:i, section "The Hellenistic model: tonus, modus, tropus").
^See Atkinson (2008: ex.4.5, p.157) or ex. 2 in Harold Powers' article "mode" (Powers, II:2:i:a "The System of Tetrachords"). The different letter systems used in the notation of theoretical and liturgical chant sources are described by Nancy Phillips (2000).
^Michel Huglo (2000) refers to an episode which was described long ago by Oliver Strunk (1960).
^Peter Jeffery's important and long essay about the "The Earliest Oktôêchoi" (2001) emphasized an analytic modal classification a posteriori as an essential observation concerning the Western use of the Oktoechos.
^The debate of chant transmission in comparison between Old Roman and Gregorian manuscripts started in the time of Bruno Stäblein and Helmut Hucke, and was continued during the 1990s between Peter Jeffery, James McKinnon, Leo Treitler, Theodore Karp, James Grier, Kenneth Levy, and others. The dissertation of Andreas Pfisterer (2002) offers not only an important overview over this debate of a "Gregorian" historiography, but also a useful discussion of the transformation of chant between the various books of written transmission: the sacramentaries with more or less modal classifications, added neume passages until the fully notated chant manuscripts as the so-called Roman Gradual for Mass chant, and the Antiphonary for Office chant—sources, which are all listed in the bibliography. Today the discussion has been refined by the distinction of various local chant traditions, which had been modified during various periods of liturgical reforms and their transformations of chant transmission. This diachronic study bridges the history of Western chant traditions with church and political history.
^Aurelianus Reomensis: "Musica disciplina" (Gerbert, 1784, 42) is quoted in the article tonary.
^It was Jørgen Raasted (1988) who draw the first time a parallel between Byzantine kallopismoi or teretismoi and the abstract syllables in Western and Eastern intonations. The comparison was later expanded to creative forms of Latin cantors, such as meloform tropes and organa.
^Jørgen Raasted (1966, p. 7) accepted the assumption by Oliver Strunk (1942, p. 192) without any objection. But Oliver Strunk was careful enough to write not only about the whole and the half tone, when he interpreted the description of the papadikai:
"The precise nature of the steps within this series remains for the present unknown; for all that we can learn from the Papadike, the step α [prôtos] to β [devteros] may be a whole tone, a half tone, or some other larger or smaller interval. … If we may assume, however, that the interval α [prôtos] to δ [tetartos] is a perfect fourth–a reasonable assumption, to say the least, for a tetrachordal system based on any other interval is virtually inconceivable–the interval δ [tetartos] to α [prôtos], as the difference between an octave and two fourths, becomes a whole tone and the remaining intervals fall readily into line."
^Chrysanthos (1832, Μερ. Α', Βιβ. γ', κεφ. α', §. 217-228, pp. 94-99) mentions the Ancient Greek systema teleion which has tetrachords divided by the intervals tonos 9:8 and leimma which has the proportion 13:27, after the ratio of one tonos was taken from it (§. 220). But "our scale of the diatonic genus" (§ 225) are two tetrachords between α and δ, and the intervals are derived from the end of the first δ (1:1), α (8:9), β (22:27), γ (3:4). The proportions refer to a string tuned to the pitch of δ (see also the figure on page 28, § 65). The arithmetic method is based on the common denominator (in this case 88 and 108: 108/96/88/81), so we have a division of 12 (δ—α) + 8 (α—β) + 7 (β—γ). In order to get a symmetric division in which 4 small tones made up the fourth, not 5 times like the Western half tone, he added one part to the middle tone, so that the fourth was divided in 28 parts instead of 27.
^An overview over all proportions mentioned in Arabian music theory offers Liberty Manik (1969). According to him, Al-Farabi was the first who explained all the frets needed for all possible transpositions for two diatonic tetrachord divisions, while the pythagorean proportion was called after the "old ring finger fret". By this name Al-Kindi is supposed to refer on the pythagorean proportions, although he did never specify a certain chord length in his music treatise, but soon there was a differentiation referred to two other ring finger frets—the "Persian", and the "Arab" one. The latter was probably associated with the school of Ibrahim and Ishaq al-Mawsili.
^Eustathios Makris (2005, note 2 & 3) mentioned Oliver Strunk's essay and Egon Wellesz' A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography. Maria Alexandru (2000, pp. 11f) mentioned that the early occidental scholars under influence of Tillyard's "Handbook of the Middle Byzantine Music Notation" (1935) assumed a discontinuity in chant tradition after the fall of Constantinople connected with a strong oriental influence, whereas the "Greek school" (Stathis, Hatzigiakoumis, etc.) stressed the continuity and the importance of the living tradition.
^Eckhard Neubauer (1998) mentioned several forms of exchanges since Al-Kindi and the Mawsili school.
^The tonary of Lyon and the compilation alia musica with its tonaries are describing the pitches of contemporary chant by using the Ancient Greek names.
^Nancy Phillips' study (2000) offers an overview over the sources and their use of letters as a pitch notation.
^See Guido of Arezzo's Micrologus in the edition by Martin Gerbert (1784, p. 11).
^See the edition of Jacques Chailley (1965, pp. 141f), which is based on the commented and earlier version of Brussels very close to another version attributed to Hartvic in a treatise collection of the Abbey St. Emmeram (folio 177 verso). In his contribution to the conference "Byzanz in Europa" Oliver Gerlach described this example as a Byzantine import (2012). According to him certain practices of Greek psaltes must have made a great impression on some French or German cantors, it is also an interesting early document of the Byzantine practice that the interval between the phthongoi α and β could have a very particular low intonation, at least within the tetartos melos. It is an early testimony of the melos which is known as "echos legetos" (ἦχος λέγετος) in the current tradition of Orthodox chant.
^Charles Atkinson (2008, pp. 130f) and Rebecca Maloy revisited recently (2009, pp. 77f) the old discussion (Gustav Jacobsthal in 1897) of "non-diatonic" intervals as "absonia" caused by a transposition (μεταβολή κατὰ τόνον), or as "vitia" caused by a change to another genus (μεταβολή κατὰ γένον). Both pointed at the transposition diagrams used in several manuscripts of these treatises—as example the manuscript of the Abbey Saint-Amand, folio 54. The Scolica enchiriadis documents a certain understanding that passages within more complex soloistic chant might be transposed which must have caused considerable difficulties for the oral tradition of melodies by troping melismatic structures, so that its memory was supported by poetry.
^Heinrich Husmann (1970) described them and they were already transcribed into Coislin notation in the earliest sticheraria which can be dated back to the 12th century.
^Nothing is known about John Glykys (NGrove), except that had an office as protopsaltes and that he is represented as teacher of John Koukouzeles and Xenos Korones in a picture of the Akolouthia manuscript (see a copy of the illumination in Mount Athos, Mone Koutloumousi, Ms. 475, fol. 1v). His students use cheironomic gestures for the neumes ison and oxeia, two of the first signs memorized in the Mega Ison (Alexandru 1996).
^Maria Alexandru (2000, pp. 15f) decided to abandon this distinction because of Christian Troelsgård's (2011, p. 28-29) argument that the often in red ink written signs marked rather stylistic differences (kalophonic compositions marked those signs in red which were taken from another book and its local tradition), but they did not change basic principles of notation.
^In his essay "The Byzantine Office at Hagia Sophia" (1956) Oliver Strunk based his studies of the older cathedral rite on homiletic writings by Symeon, Metropolit of Thessaloniki, who still refused about 1400 the Constantinopolitan reform of the 1260s and who regarded the Thessalonian Hagia Sophia as the centre of the upright tradition of the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite. A similar conservative attitude can be found in Greek monasteries of Italy and Holy Mount Athos which never used the book of the reform Akolouthiai. Already during the early 13th century, when this tradition was expelled from Constantinople, the asmatika, psaltika, and kontakaria written in Italy, used Byzantine round notation and followed the synthesis of the Studite reform.
^Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fonds grec, ms. 261.
^Panagiotes the Protopsaltes (from about 1655 to 1682) used the pseudonym Χρυσάφης ὁ Νέος, because he transcribed the Anastasimatarion of Manuel Chrysaphes (an octoechos collection of stichera and troparia created by Palaiologan composers, used for the services of every Sunday and the cycle of 11 Matins Gospel).
^See as example the lists of echemata in the manuscript quoted by the critical edition of the dialogue treatises (Hannick & Wolfram 1997) and Ms. grec. 495 (15th century) of the Public Library at St. Petersburg.
^Oliver Strunk (1945) based his study of intonations and signatures on the lists given in Papadikai.
^The Papadike of Messina (Fleischer 1904, pp. 27-33) contains the Mega Ison only in redaction of John Koukouzeles. A critical edition which offers an overview over all Papadic redactions of the Koukouzeles-version, was published by Maria Alexandru (1996).
^According to Oliver Strunk (1960) they originally belonged to the Octoechos section of the sticherarion and they became part of the written transmission since the reform Theodore Studites during the 10th century, when the earliest sticheraria were written. Nevertheless Christian Troelsgård (NGrove) assumed that simple psalmody was already part of the oral transmission in connection with the Hagiopolitan oktoechos.
^Please note that the modal signatures are here transcribed by the simple numerals as they are used within the Greek alphabet. The modal signature itself refer roughly to these numerals (except for the ligature abbreviating βαρύς), and add neumes on the top as they are used above the last syllable of each intonation formula or enechema. You can find the written out standard forms and their transcription in the first four figures of this article.
^If there were ever "a corruption of the Byzantine tradition" during the Ottoman Empire, it might be found in this adaptation to the common tone system also used by Sufis and Sephardim. The fret arak diminished the fifth of the tritos pentachord between F and B flat. Oliver Gerlach (2011) described this influence in form of makam saba compositions rather as a source of inspiration which did not simply replace the older concept of the Byzantine echos varys.
^See Gregorios Stathis' definition of metrophonia: Stathis, Gregorios (2006). "Prologue". Athens. Retrieved 27 May 2012.
^The critical edition by Maria Alexandru (1996) did not succeed to reconstruct the untransposed original for the transition between the first to the second section from echos protos to echos devteros, because the manuscript showed too many variants, while the very particular transposition of Petros Peloponnesios' realization which trapped him into the labyrinth, was due to to another transition between the chromatic echos plagios devteros and echos varys. During the 13th and 14th century echos plagios devteros was always expected on β' (E), even if it had changed to the chromatic genos by the use of phthora nenano which originally was expected between α' (a) and πλ β' (E), so echos varys was already expected on γ' (F). According to the contemporary tradition of the 18th century the phthora nenano was found between α' (D/a) and δ' (G/d) and echos plagios tou devterou (ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ δευτέρου) had always a chromatic tetrachord based on its finalis D, once the phthongos of πλ α', now πλ β'. This convention forced Petros Peloponnesios to transpose ἦχος βαρύς on E flat, so that it could appear on the former phthongos of πλ β' (E), now υαρ (E flat).
^The partition of this section according to Petros Peloponnesios who finished the plagios devteros section in the chromatic genos, can be read and listened in the interpretation by Gregorios Stathis' Maistores Choir at the internet forum "Analogion" ("The History of Barys Tetraphonos and Bestenigar" in the discussion of Varys tetraphonos).
^The musical anthropologists Rudolf Maria Brandl (1989) already pointed to the printed anthologies which often tried to mediate patriotism during music lessons at Greek schools of the Empire.
^Simon Karas who tend to regard this integration as a "Hellenic method", was one of them. But treatises concerned about Ottoman (Turkish) makamlar and the cyclic rhythm of usulümler (see usul) have been published since the 18th century. Such are the theoretical works by Panagiotes Halatzoglou (Συγκρίσις τῆς ἀραβοπερσικῆς μουσικῆς, manuscript dated 1728) and his student Kyrillos Marmarinos (manuscript dated 1747, stored as Ms. 305 in the archives of the Historical and Ethnological Society of Greece, Athens), but also printed publications by Ioannis Keïvelis and Spiridon Anastasiou (1856), and Panagiotes Keltzanidis (1881).
^Even quotations from the manuscript of Kyrillos Marmarinos which still used conventional phthorai, were attributed to the nim parde (microtonal frets) of the tanbur, while Kyrillos was paraphrasing the quotation above about the "16 echoi of the Asma".
^Romanos Joubran (2009) mentions a list of different compositions sung until today, which are less the Ottoman genres organized by some cyclic rhythms (usulümler), but compositions for liturgical use ("internal music") composed in certain makamlar.
^The transitional use of makam hısar and müstear in this composition and the different use of phthorai in manuscripts of the New Method (Gerlach 2011, pp. 98-108) have to be studied from the use of conventional phthorai in the 18th-century Byzantine notation, for instance by Kyrillos Marmarinos (Zannos 1994, pp. 182-183).
^Nevertheless, the reception of Chrysanthos' Mega Theoretikon had already started before its late publication. Vasileios Nikolaides' "Theoretical and Practical Grammar of Music" (Iaşi 1825) which paraphrased and restructured the first 4 books of part I into 3 books, might serve here as an example (Sofia, Sv. Kyrill and Method National Library, Ms. gr. 90). Parts of this manuscript which had obviously been of particular interest like the trochos image of § 68 (lost between folio 16 verso and 17 recto), had been torn out.
^In fact, the equal temperament of whole and half tone (200 and 100 C') comes closer to the Pythagorean tuning (9:8 = 204 C' and 256:243 = 90 C') than the just intonation, which needs three different intervals (9:8 = 204 C', 10:9 = 182 'C, 16:15 = 112 'C), while the "small tone" (ἐλάχιστος τόνος) is much larger (88:81 = 143 C') in comparison with the half tone, whether equal tempered or Pythagorean. In his first chapter of the third book (Mega Theoretikon), Chrysanthos defined the phthongoi of the diatonic genus according to his new Greek solmization of seven syllables according to the tetrachord division πα—βου—γα—δι or κε—ζω—νη—Πα with the forementioned intervals (α'—β'—γ'—δ' = 12:11 x 88:81 x 9:8), while the Latin solmisation re—mi—fa—sol (10:9 x 16:15 x 9:8) was different from la—si—ut—re (9:8 x 16:15 x 9:8), because the fifth re—la according to just intonation was diminished (which had also been the just intonation according to Zarlino).
^"Thetic" and "dynamic" means that the combination could even represent the transpositions of μεταβολή κατὰ τόνον. While the thetic sign remained the same, the shift of the scale and its tetrachords were represented by the combination with another dynamic sign. When the phthongos of δι (G) had turned from the tetartos to the tritos (δ'→γ'), it was combined with the dynamic tritos sign, that of phthora νανὰ.
^The same synod also introduced an equal temperament which replaced Chrysanthos' diatonikon malakon schema (12 + 9 + 7 = 28) based on a slightly corrupted arythmetic division (1888): 12 + 10 + 8 = 30 was based on a logarythmic representation of the octave by 72 equal parts (in cent: 200' + 166' + 133' = 500').
^The manual and neume introduction to this school was published by Georgios Konstantinou (1997).
^"An example of this [makam] is the doxology by a teacher Chourmouzios in the echos varys, ζω-6 νη πα βου γα δι κε ζω'-6."
^"Here the ζω ὕφεσις is the basis of echos varys, but according to the τροχὸς, if you descend to varys [in parallage], which is a hemitone lower than the ζω of the diapason [parallage]."
^See the various contributions in the Proceedings of the Conference at Hernen Castle in 1986, which had been dedicated to the question of rhythm (Hannick 1991).
^Maria Alexandru (2000, pp. 250-275, chap. III Vom Aufführungssinn (I), subsection α. Zur Gestaltung der Zeit, Bausteine für eine m[ittel]b[yzantinische] Rhythmuslehre).
^Maria Alexandru (2000, pp. 302-305, chap. IV Vom Aufführungssinn (II). Exegese (II): Grundzüge einer Phänomenologie, subsection A. Die Perspektive der Zeit).
^Chrysanthos reported in his historical volume (1832, Μερ. Β', pp. LIII-LIV, § 79) that Petros Byzantios was the only one who had the proper knowledge of his teacher's, Petros Peloponnesios', method, but he would go to any part of the world, if he only could learn the cheironomia—the simple way which was so clear, that even a whole choir could follow the gestures of the protopsaltis. In fact, the concept of hypostaseis which had been so often identified with the cheironomia of the Kontakarion notation, was very confused among different psaltes. Their needs to abridge, to embellish, to transform certain chant between different genres and their methods of the thesis, had created the opposed need to find back to the simple traditional method of just one chant genre, but this separation had been probably lost centuries ago since the Papadic synthesis. The school of Petros Peloponnesios was the most radical with respect to the creation of a ryhthmic and abridged style of a certain chant book.
^In § 183 (1832, p. 81) he offers an example, how he used the pous daktylos in the transcription of the first ode of the Pentecost canon Θείῳ καλυφθείς. Maria Alexandru (2000, p. 270, ex. III.20) compared his thesis of the melos with Petros' own use of Byzantine notation (British Library, Ms. Add. 16971) and Chourmouzios' transcription of this ode according to Petros' Heirmologion argon and Petros Byzantios' Heirmologion syntomon (1825) and found at least the use of the same period in Chourmouzios' transcription of the Petros' Katavaseion.
^See Al-Kindi's admiration of the Octoechos as an universal system which could classify everything according to its melodic structure—even the cry of an animal. Concerning the relationship between Greek and Arabic songs in Baghdad, there was an anecdote about Ishaq al-Mawsili who had been once challenged by the famous Baghdadi singer Muhariq, when she performed a Greek song with an Arabic text and the traditional ornaments used in a certain naġām. She learnt this melody by a Greek servant of her landlord and Ishaq recognized its origin only by the study of its metric structure, which means that Arab classical music was so close that it could have been already classified according to the Octoechos (Neubauer 1998, pp. 383-384). Eckhard Neubauer also referred the interpretation of an Arabic introduction to a 12th-century Divan, which described Arab music as a synthesis of the best of the Persian and the Byzantine music tradition of Damascus created by the musician Ibn Misğah during the 7th century.
^On the one hand, the most important source of the New Method is still Chrysanthos' "Mega Theoretikon" (1832), on the other hand, Konstantinos the Protopsaltes (Keltzanides 1881) defined on a drawn scheme of the tambur keyboard as well the Byzantine phthongoi as the Ottoman fret names and also added calculations of the used intervals (diastemata) in certain echoi and in certain makamlar.
^In his essay "The Heavy Mode (ēchos varys) on the Fret Arak" Oliver Gerlach described a particular melos taken from certain complex compositions of makam sabā which was used in several compositions by Gregorios the Protopsaltes. But several makamlar and meloi can be discussed in connection with compositions notated according to the New Method, which have the modal signature of the diatonic echos varys (have a look on the discussions collected in a blog of the internet forum Analogion).
^The Doxastarion syntomon of Petros Peloponnesios was transcribed and published by Petros Ephesios in Bucarest (1820), and, together with the latter's Anastasimatarion (1820), they were the first printed chant books. But there was not only one Anastasimatarion neon. The one published by Petros Ephesios was simply called "according to the Constantinopolitan teachers and their New Method", Nicolae Gheorghiţă wrote in is essay "The Anastasimatarion of Dionysios Photeinos (1777-1821)" (2010, pp. 91-101) about a manuscript already written by Dionysios in 1809. Together with the his Doxastarion both books had been published and translated into Romanian language by his student Anton Pann.
^See Chrysanthos (§ 404). The contemporary Anthology written in Late Byzantine notation (Athens, Historical and paleographic Archiv, MIET, Ms. Pezarou 15) has two collections of kekragaria which are recognized as the "palaia kalophonika" of Panagiotes the New Chrysaphes (fol. 15ff), the kalophonic elaboration of the "syntoma" by Balasios Iereos (fol. 229ff), and the simple syntoma by Antonios (fol. 233ff).
^The manuscript belongs to the collection of Antonios Sigalas preserved at the Pontian's National Library of Argyroupolis 'Kyriakides' in Naoussa (Ms. 52, Anastasimatarion: fol. 1r-44v; Menaion, Triodion, and Pentekostarion: fol. 45r-85v).
^The manuscript or a copy of it had been published by the Koventareios Public Library.
^Iakovos the Protopsaltes' Doxastarion argon (1836). In controversies about the Byzantine tradition, Maria Alexandru had always argued in favor of the exceptional knowledge of the traditional composers of this period (see her comparisons in third volume of her doctoral thesis).
^Here it was Stephanos the Domestikos, who transcribed and published a third Doxastarion in the version of Konstantinos (1841). Konstantinos Terzopoulos (2003) analysed the latter's "syntmesis" in a comparison with the other two Doxastaria (see also the Greek script with the paper behind the presentation) and concluded that he abridged moderately Iakovos' Doxastarion.
^The old sticherarion (Ms. ΜΠΤ 707-709, 715), Germanos of New Patras' sticherarion (Ms. ΜΠΤ 747-750), and Panagiotes the New Chrysaphes (761-765) can be still studied at the National Library (EBE) of Athens.
^For instance a Sticherarion kalophonikon written by Gabriel of Yeniköy (today a district of Istanbul) during the 1770s, which contains only the cycle of the Menaion: Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Music Department, Mus. ms. 25059 (Gerlach 2009). Chourmouzios Chartophylakos (the Archivist) just filled 8 volumes with own transcriptions and he called these books "Μαθηματάρια τοῦ στιχηραρίου" (Ms. ΜΠΤ 727-734 of the National Library of Athens, EBE).
^Jørgen Raasted (1995) wrote about the 14th-century revision of the sticheraria and made a catalogue of its typology.
^For instance Konstantinos Pringos composed this dialogue in the "Kurdish makam" (makam kürdî) as a melos of the pentachord under the finalis of plagios protos (Γ Δη—D πα).
^In a first contribution to a conference dedicated to the tradition and reform of Byzantine Chant, Ioannis Arvanitis (1997) evaluated the attitude of the 18th-century reformers by a comparison with older sources, and defined already several own methods of doing the thesis like "long", "short", and "syllabic exegesis". Lykourgos Angelopoulos' contribution to the same proceedings had been focused on Chourmouzios' transcription of compositions ascribed to John Koukouzeles. During the last years Ioannis Arvanitis confounded his ideas in an intensive study of the sources and elaborated their interpretation within his PhD thesis (2010) under supervision of Gregorios Stathis and Maria Alexandru. It is worth to read the general discussion of "speculative reconstructions" at Analogion.
Pseudo-Zosimos (1988/89). Berthelot, Marcellin; Ruelle, Charles-Émile (eds.). Collection des anciens alchimistes grecs. Vol. 2. Paris: Georges Steinheil. p. 219ff. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)
Raasted, Jørgen, ed. (1983), The Hagiopolites: A Byzantine Treatise on Musical Theory, Cahiers de l'Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin, vol. 45, Copenhagen: Paludan.
Bellermann, Johann Friedrich; Najock, Dietmar, eds. (1972), Drei anonyme griechische Traktate über die Musik, Göttingen: Hubert.
Hannick, Christian; Wolfram, Gerda, eds. (1997), Die Erotapokriseis des Pseudo-Johannes Damaskenos zum Kirchengesang, Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae - Corpus Scriptorum de Re Musica, vol. 5, Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, ISBN3-7001-2520-8.
Papadikai (14th-18th century)
Alexandru, Maria (1996). "Koukouzeles' Mega Ison: Ansätze einer kritischen Edition". Cahiers de l'Institut du Moyen-Âge grec et latin. 66: 3–23.
Conomos, Dimitri, ed. (1985), The Treatise of Manuel Chrysaphes, the Lampadarios: [Περὶ τῶν ἐνθεωρουμένων τῇ ψαλτικῇ τέχνῃ καὶ ὧν φρουνοῦσι κακῶς τινες περὶ αὐτῶν] On the Theory of the Art of Chanting and on Certain Erroneous Views that some hold about it (Mount Athos, Iviron Monastery MS 1120, July 1458), Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae - Corpus Scriptorum de Re Musica, vol. 2, Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, ISBN978-3-7001-0732-3.
Fleischer, Oskar, ed. (1904), "Die Papadike von Messina", Die spätgriechische Tonschrift, Neumen-Studien, vol. 3, Berlin: Georg Reimer, pp. 15–50, fig. B3-B24 [Papadike of the Codex Chrysander], retrieved 11 April 2012.
Hannick, Christian; Wolfram, Gerda, eds. (1985), Gabriel Hieromonachus: [Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ ψαλτικῇ σημαδίων καὶ τῆς τούτων ἐτυμολογίας] Abhandlung über den Kirchengesang, Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae - Corpus Scriptorum de Re Musica, vol. 1, Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, ISBN3-7001-0729-3.
Hucbald (1784). Gerbert, Martin (ed.). "De harmonica institutione". Scriptores ecclesiastici de musica sacra potissimum. 1 (Hildesheim 1963 reprint ed.). St Blaise: Typis San-Blasianis: 103–125.
"Prague, Národní knihovna (dríve Universitní knihovna), Ms. XIX.C.26, fol. 1-11". Tonary in red ink ("Primus igitur lydius...") of the "Ratio breviter super musicum cum tonario [fol. 4r]" (Tonary of Lyon) with lorrain neumes and Greek terminology (close to the "alia musica" compilation) in a treatise collection near Liège (ca. 1100). Retrieved 22 March 2012.
Berno of Reichenau. "St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 898, p. 2–25". "De consona tonorum diversitate" with tonary, in "Bernonis Epistolae cum sermonibus et hymnis", St. Gall Abbey, copy of a dedicated collection for King Henry III (11th century). Retrieved 30 December 2011.
"Bologna, Biblioteca del Liceo Musicale, Ms. P.147 (olim Cod. 155)". Triodion of the Old Sticherarion, partly damaged - Cod. 155 of Padre Martini's Manuscript Collection (16th century). Bologna: Museo internazionale e Biblioteca della musica di Bologna. Retrieved 18 October 2012.
Germanos Hieromonachos. "Athens, Ιστορικό και Παλαιογραφικό Αρχείο (ΙΠΑ), MIET, Ms. Pezarou 15". Anthologiai of Psaltic Art (late 18th century). Athens: Μορφωτικό Ίδρυμα Εθνικής Τράπεζας. Retrieved 29 September 2012. {{cite web}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
"London, British Library, Ms. Add. 19456". Papadike and Anthologia (Anoixontarion, Anastasimatarion, Polyeleoi, and Leitourgika) (18th century). British Library. Retrieved 3 May 2012.
Iakovos the Protopsaltes (1836). Chourmouzios Chartophylakos (ed.). Δοξαστάριον περιέχον τα δοξαστικά όλων των δεσποτικών, και θεομητορικών εορτών, των τε εορταζομένων αγίων του όλου ενιαυτού, του τε Τριωδίου και Πεντηκοσταρίου, μελοποιηθέν παρά Ιακώβου Πρωτοψάλτου της του Χριστού Μεγάλης Εκκλησίας. Εξηγηθέν απαραλλάκτως εις την Νέαν της Μουσικής Μέθοδον παρά Χουρμουσίου Χαρτοφυλακός. Vol. 1–2. Istanbul: Isaac De Castro.
Sarafov, Petĕr V. (1912). Rĕkovodstvo za praktičeskoto i teoretičesko izučvane na Vostočnata cĕrkovna muzika, Parachodni uroci, Voskresnik i Antologija (Polielei, Božestvena služba ot Ioana Zlatoousta, Božestvena služba na Vasilij Velikij, Prazdnični pričastni za prĕz cĕlata godina, Sladkoglasni Irmosi). Sofia: Peter Gluškov.
Alexandru, Maria (2000). Studie über die 'großen Zeichen' der byzantinischen musikalischen Notation unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Periode vom Ende des 12. bis Anfang des 19. Jahrhunderts. Universität Kopenhagen.
Amargianakis, George (1977). An Analysis of Stichera in the Deuteros Modes: The Stichera idiomela for the Month of September in the Modes Deuteros, Plagal Deuteros, and Nenano ; transcribed from the Manuscript Sinai 1230 <A.D. 1365>. Cahiers de l'Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin. Vol. 22–23. Copenhague: Univ.
Arvanitis, Ioannis (1997). "A Way to the Transcription of Old Byzantine Chant by means of Written and Oral Tradition". Byzantine Chant: Tradition and Reform — Acts of a Meeting Held at the Danish Institute at Athens, 1993. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens. 4. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press: 123–141. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
Brandl, Rudolf Maria (1989). Elsner, Jürgen (ed.). "Konstantinopolitanische Makamen des 19. Jahrhunderts in Neumen: die Musik der Fanarioten". Maqam - Raga - Zeilenmelodik: Konzeptionen und Prinzipien der Musikproduktion. 1. Arbeitstagung der Study Group "maqām" beim International Council for Traditional Music vom 28. Juni bis 2. Juli 1988 in Berlin. Berlin: 156–169.
Gerlach, Oliver (2012). "About the Import of the Byzantine Intonation Aianeoeane in an 11th Century Tonary". In Altripp, Michael (ed.). Byzanz in Europa. Europas östliches Erbe: Akten des Kolloquiums 'Byzanz in Europa' vom 11. bis 15. Dezember 2007 in Greifswald. Turnhout: Brepols. pp. 172–183. ISBN978-2-503-54153-2.
Hannick, Christian, ed. (1991). Rhythm in Byzantine Chant – Acta of the Congress held at Hernen Castle in November 1986. Hernen: Bredius Foundation.
Huglo, Michel (1971), Les Tonaires: Inventaire, Analyse, Comparaison, Publications de la Société française de musicologie, vol. 2, Paris: Société française de musicologie.
Huglo, Michel (2000), "Grundlagen und Ansätze der mittelalterlichen Musiktheorie", in Ertelt, Thomas; Zaminer, Frieder (eds.), Die Lehre vom einstimmigen liturgischen Gesang, Geschichte der Musiktheorie, vol. 4, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, pp. 17–102, ISBN3-534-01204-6.
Makris, Eustathios (2005). "The Chromatic Scales of the Deuteros Modes in Theory and Practice". Plainsong and Medieval Music. 14: 1–10. doi:10.1017/S0961137104000075. ISSN0961-1371. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Maloy, Rebecca (2009). "Scolica Enchiriadis and the 'non-Diatonic' Plainsong Tradition". Early Music History. 28: 61–96. doi:10.1017/S0261127909000369. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Manik, Liberty (1969). Das arabische Tonsystem im Mittelalter. Leiden: Brill.
Neubauer, Eckhard (1998), "Die acht "Wege" der arabischen Musiklehre und der Oktoechos – Ibn Misğah, al-Kindī und der syrisch-byzantinische oktōēchos", Arabische Musiktheorie von den Anfängen bis zum 6./12. Jahrhundert: Studien, Übersetzungen und Texte in Faksimile, Publications of the Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science: The science of music in Islam, vol. 3, Frankfurt am Main: Inst. for the History of Arab.-Islamic Science, pp. 373–414.
Phillips, Nancy (2000), "Notationen und Notationslehren von Boethius bis zum 12. Jahrhundert", in Ertelt, Thomas; Zaminer, Frieder (eds.), Die Lehre vom einstimmigen liturgischen Gesang, Geschichte der Musiktheorie, vol. 4, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, pp. 293–324, ISBN3-534-01204-6.
Pfisterer, Andreas (2002). Cantilena Romana: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des gregorianischen Chorals. Paderborn: Schöningh. ISBN3-506-70631-4.
Popescu-Judeţ, Eugenia; Şırlı, Adriana Ababi (2000). Sources of 18th-century music : Panayiotes Chalathzoglou and Kyrillos Marmarinos' comparative treatises on secular music. Istanbul: Pan Yayıncılık. ISBN975-843405-5.
Powers, Harold, "Mode, § II Medieval Modal Theory, 1. The Elements, (ii) The Byzantine Model: oktōēchos", Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, retrieved 26 October 2011.
Raasted, Jørgen (1966). Intonation Formulas and Modal Signatures in Byzantine Musical Manuscripts. Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae, Subsidia. Vol. 7. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard.
Raasted, Jørgen (1988). "Die Jubili Finales und die Verwendung von interkalierten Vokalisen in der Gesangspraxis der Byzantiner". In Brandl, Rudolf Maria (ed.). Griechische Musik und Europa: Antike, Byzanz, Volksmusik der Neuzeit ; Symposion "Die Beziehung der griechischen Musik zur Europäischen Musiktradition" vom 9. - 11. Mai 1986 in Würzburg. Orbis musicarum. Aachen: Ed. Herodot. pp. 67–80. ISBN3-924007-77-2.
Raasted, Jørgen (1995). Szendrej, Janka; Hiley, David (eds.). "Koukouzeles' Revision of the Sticherarion and Sinai gr. 1230". Laborare fratres in unum: Festschrift in honor of László Dobszay's 60th birthday. Spolia Berolinensi. 7. Hildesheim, Zurich: Weidmann: 261–277. ISBN3615001710.
Strunk, William Oliver (1960). "The Latin Antiphons for the Octave of the Epiphany". A Musicological Offering to Otto Kinkeldey upon the Occasion of His 80th Anniversary — Journal of the American Musicological Society. 13: 50–67. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
Troelsgård, Christian (1997). "The Development of a Didactic Poem: Some Remarks on the Ἴσον, ὀλίγον, ὀξεῖα by Ioannes Glykys". Byzantine Chant: Tradition and Reform — Acts of a Meeting Held at the Danish Institute at Athens, 1993. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens. 4. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press: 69–85. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
Troelsgård, Christian (2011). Byzantine neumes: A New Introduction to the Middle Byzantine Musical Notation. Monumenta musicae byzantinae, Subsidia. Vol. 9. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. ISBN978-87-635-3158-0. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Werner, Eric (1948), "The Origin of the Eight Modes in Music", Hebrew College Annual, 21: 211–255.
Williams, Edvard V.; Troelsgård, Christian. "Glykys, Joannes". Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Retrieved 19 April 2012.
Wolfram, Gerda (1993). "Erneuernde Tendenzen in der byzantinischen Kirchenmusik des 13. – 14. Jahrhunderts". Actas del XV Congreso de la Sociedad Internacional de Musicología: Culturas musicales del Mediterráneo y sus ramificaciones, Madrid/3-10/IV/1992. Revista de musicología. 16: 763–768. ISSN0210-1459. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Zannos, Ioannis (1994). Vogel, Martin (ed.). Ichos und Makam - Vergleichende Untersuchungen zum Tonsystem der griechisch-orthodoxen Kirchenmusik und der türkischen Kunstmusik. Orpheus-Schriftenreihe zu Grundfragen der Musik. Vol. 74. Bonn: Verlag für systematische Musikwissenschaft. ISBN3922626742, 9783922626749. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
Meyer, Christian. "Sources of Medieval Music Theory". Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften online. Retrieved 16 January 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
"Thesaurus Musicarum Latinarum". Index for the 9th-11th century. Jacobs School of Music Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47405. Retrieved 22 March 2012.
This article or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this article or section has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This article was last edited by Platonykiss(talk | contribs) 11 years ago. (Updatetimer)
!["You descend 4 steps [φοναὶ] from the echos protos [kyrios protos/authentic protus: a—G—F—E—DD] and you will find again the plagios protos , this way [D—F—E—DD]."](/wiki/File:Enechemata_(%E1%BC%A6%CF%87%CE%BF%CF%82_%CF%80%CF%81%E1%BF%B6%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82,_%E1%BC%A6%CF%87%CE%BF%CF%82_%CF%80%CE%BB%CE%B1%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82_%CF%84%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6_%CF%80%CF%81%CF%8E%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85).jpg)
![You do the same way in echos devteros. If you descend 4 steps [b—a—G—F—EE] to find its plagios, i.e. πλ β', thus [E—F—G—F—EE].](/wiki/File:Enechemata_(%E1%BC%A6%CF%87%CE%BF%CF%82_%CE%B4%CE%B5%CF%8D%CF%84%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82,_%E1%BC%A6%CF%87%CE%BF%CF%82_%CF%80%CE%BB%CE%AC%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82_%CF%84%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6_%CE%B4%CE%B5%CF%85%CF%84%CE%AD%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%85).jpg)
![Hence, you descend four steps from echos tritos 4 steps [c—c—b—c—G—a—G—a—G—F—E—FF] and you will find its plagios which is called 'grave' (βαρύς), this way [F—G—E#—FF].](/wiki/File:Enechemata_(%E1%BC%A6%CF%87%CE%BF%CF%82_%CF%84%CF%81%CE%AF%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82,_%E1%BC%A6%CF%87%CE%BF%CF%82_%CE%B2%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%8D%CF%82).jpg)
![Also from echos tetartos you descend 4 steps [φοναὶ: G—F—E—D—CC] and you will find its plagios, which is πλ δ', like this way [C—D—C—CC].](/wiki/File:Enechemata_(%E1%BC%A6%CF%87%CE%BF%CF%82_%CF%84%CE%AD%CF%84%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82,_%E1%BC%A6%CF%87%CE%BF%CF%82_%CF%80%CE%BB%CE%AC%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82_%CF%84%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6_%CF%84%CE%B5%CF%84%CE%AC%CF%81%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85).jpg)
.svg)
