In the present blog I’ll try to avoid terminologies and elements of Greek chant that, for one with no intimacy with the subject -a Gregorianist for example – can be perceived as foreign, difficult and laborious to deal with; mainly something exotic that should be left to those devoted to (Latin and / or Greek) music theory. I am aware that it could appear as more “neutral” and “unbiased” if I chose to simply list the online sources, but I prefer to go into more detail, adding some comments in the end about modern vocabularies. Addressing Latin chant specialists about online sources of Musica Enchiriadis is, after all, more straight-forward than informing them about Greek chant theory stuff. Last but not least, those who still believe that “it’s all Greek” to them can enjoy the diagrams and the schemes of the MSS; some of them are really beautiful.
A small introduction
The earliest Byzantine MSS of ancient Greek music theory (below I give the links of about 130 online MSS from 11th century onwards) appear to us –believe it or not- only after the 11th century. The D-Heu: Cod. Pal. gr. 281 (Mathiesen, 1988 No 14 [=Math. 14]) is written on 14 January of 1040 (or 6548 W.E.). The other MSS of 11th and 12th centuries are I-Vnm: Gr. app. cl. VI/3 (coll. 1347) (Math. 270, Vitrac 2019 [=Vitrac] p. 142, Acerbi-Gioffreda 2019, p. 655), I-Vnm: Gr. 307 (coll. 1027) (Math. 261, Vitrac p. 142) and later I-Rvat: Gr. 2338 (Math. 234, Acerbi-Gioffreda 2019 Va [13th century], p. 661) with I-Vnm: Gr. app. cl. VI/10 (coll. 1300) (Math. 273, Düring 79 M, additionally the 14th century hand of Grēgoras has been identified [Bianconi 2005, p. 413 No 12, Acerbi 2016, p. 186, No 10, e.g. he added the numbers and titles of chapters of book I of Ptolemaios’s Harmonica, see also Vitrac, p. 66 and p. 142]). But for us it is important to know the relation of them (and of the later ones) to medieval music.
Indeed, some of the, for example, 13th and 14th century Greek manuscripts that contain the treatises of ancient musicographers (who go back to 4th century B.C.), are full of medieval scholia and paratextual diagrams (mainly on Claudios Ptolemaios’s Harmonica [2nd century A.D.]) about Greek chant theory; a good deal of them (especially those connecting ēchoi to the names Dōrios, Phrygios etc.) never published. But first, let us begin with a useful note which shall underline the importance of these relatively late sources about the modern prospects of medieval chant in general.
A pattern? The earlier the sources the later the socio-cultural entity
We do not have in our disposal – in contrast to Latin chant- any text of chant theory in Greek (excluding few ekphonetic signs lists) from the 1st millennium. But in the neumes table of M. Lavra Γ 67, f. 159r (10th / beginning 11th century) there is the following - not rudimentary- chant theory sentence: the voices are seven, but the ēchoi four, three mesoi, two phthorai and four plagioi, voice 1st, voice 2nd, voice 3rd, voice 4th, voice 5th, voice 6th, voice 7th, that is the “fin(e)-al” (τελεία, more economically in French: “fin-al,” a medieval Latin speaking scholar would tended to translate it with the meaning of perfect, David Cohen, “‘The imperfect Seeks Its Perfection’: Harmonic Progression, Directed Motion, and Aristotelian Physics,’’ Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 23, No. 2 [Autumn, 2001], p. 155 with n. 58 and 62). The, now conventionally named, Hagiopolitēs is a 14th century manuscript; we do not know how the 1st millennium appearance(s) of this treatise was. The first question is what happened and, given the cultural importance of medieval Jerusalem and New Rome, an earlier material didn’t reach us. As most people of M.M. know, the same question applies to the scarcity of indigenous sources from Old Rome before the Carolingian times [1*], not to mention theoretical treatises or even something like “primitive” considerations of – let us accept the linear phraseology for the moment – a not “full-fledged” Octoēchos. Rome was -and still continues frequently to be- thrown inferentially, together with any kind of material that “we” do not feel comfortable / understand, into the convenient box with the label “pre-theoretical period” (of exactly what and concerning whom?). The problematic on such speculations acquires even more importance if one thinks that we have MSS of Boethius’s De Institutione Musica already from 9th century – thanks to the preferences of the new Carolingian realm - and that the first Greek text of the Harmonica of Claudios Ptolemaios (who is quoted by Boethius) is appeared only in an above-mentioned 12th century MS (the MS Math. 273). Indeed, the sources that reached us [2*] didn’t appear in the past ex nihilo and / since, among others, they are the residues of many of historico-ideological sieves (like the issue of the existence of an Old Tropologion in Greek).
[1*] I am not referring here, of course, to the later notated sources of the so-called Old Roman chant.
[2*] Of disparate nature; as for the much better studied mathematical material see now, Vitrac, 2019, and for music already in Barbera’s edition of the Euclidean Division of the Canon (1991), especially pp. 104-111, see also p. 205 and n. 6 of my contribution to the 13th meeting of Cantus Planus (2006, here).
How music historiographies could be a projection to the past of modern conceptual frameworks
Let us now return to our subject. Surprisingly enough some of the above mentioned scholia / diagrams reflect, among others, Hagiopolitan music theory topics by quoting - and thus connecting them to - certain chapters of the Harmonica. One can assume that such an important material would attract the attention of the scholars of Byzantine chant of the 20th century, but this wasn’t the case and the aforesaid material remained a terra incognita. Why this happened is mainly the work of the ethnomusicologist of the future (here I give only some samples), but it is so amusing that Jorgen Raasted in his, “Quis Quid Ubi Quibus Auxilis… Notes on the transmission of the Hagiopolites,” Scriptorium 42-1 (1988), p.91 (Persée), passed just next to this Hagiopolitan material of Vat. gr. 192 since he referred to this MS but had not had the chance to consult it!
One can find such kind of information sporadically not in studies of Greek chant but in the book Ancient Greek Music Theory, by Thomas J. Mathiesen, RISM (BXI), 1988. In the bibliography (and mainly in the description of some MSS) Mathiesen gives information that there are interlineated and marginal scholia (extensively or not) mainly to the Harmonica of Ptolemaios and in some cases he understands that they have relation to Greek chant theory. Interestingly, he uses an atypical wording about the modern classification of Byzantine music theory in two classes (indeed, medieval reality appears to be more complex if one consults the MSS of ancient Greek music theory): “There are at least two major classes of Byzantine music theory, one dealing primarily with practical problems of musical notation and liturgical chant (the papadikai), and the other representing an archaicizing attempt to preserve ancient Greek music theory and philosophy and to apply it to Byzantine music theory” (emphasis mine). As a matter of fact the phrasing is not inaccurate if one recalls that even the earliest papadikai of the 14th century, report also a certain correlation of Dōrios Phrygios etc. with (i.e. apply them to) the numbering of the ēchoi in which, for example, the Lydios / Hypolydios is correlated to 2nd / pl.2nd ēchos respectively. Moreover, the papadikai system was also a product of intellectual (and “archaicizing”) effort (not only about the above mentioned correlation) [3*]. But for the above Mathiesen’s (1988) passage and his wider rationale and decisions see pp. xxx-xxxi (and about his hopes - some of them relative to our subject here - on p. xxxv-xxxvi). In my opinion, the high degree of isolation of these two frameworks in modern academia 1) on ancient Greek music and 2) on Greek (and other Eastern and Oriental) chant is the main reason that all this material remained unpublished, not catalogued and uncommented. A fitting analogy would be the scholia on Martianus Capella and Boethius having the same treatment. Adding to that is the seemingly established approach (based on our reconstructions) that Byzantine chant theory (whatever relation “had” this theory to actual practice) and ancient Greek music theory (whatever relation “had” this theory to actual practice) are treated as more separate entities in accordance to the degree of interaction they really had (especially after the documentation of the MSS of the 13th or 14th centuries we will see below). So this little presentation of online MSS is concerned with this “gray area” [4*] between the somewhat well-defined boarders of these two modern disciplines beginning the discussion with a primary selection of some online MSS just to realize the Byzantine chant status of affairs (or, the “accepted facts”) during the 20th century (and the first fifth of the 21st). The D. Touliatos-Banker, “Check List of Byzantine Musical Manuscripts in the Vatican Library,” Manuscripta. A Journal for Manuscript research 31 (1987) has to be seen under this paragraph’s prospect.
[3*] The exceptional use of a Hagiopolitan correlation in a papadikē would just demonstrate that a) in performance practice the results would be not of so much difference (at least, for us) and b) that all that theoretical effort and different streams was something important (for them), not only in terms of periphery-center.
[4*] As André Barbera, J.A.M.S., 43 2, 1990, p. 363 named it in his review of Mathiesen (1988) referring also to the importance of Vat. gr. 191 and connecting it, after A. Turyn of course, mainly to Maximos Planoudēs
N.B. A somehow exhaustive list of MSS, persons and scholia, given the problems of Düring’s edition of the Harmonica of Ptolemaios, could be possible only after a real critical edition of this text (Mathiesen, 1988, p. xxxiv and 2000, p. 432) and the inclusion of further paleographical studies (especially after the identification of the inks via spectral imaging) of the relative MSS. But the progress already made in the last few decades is of remarkable importance and any kind of skepticism based on the latest or future technologies (implying that the current state is not “convincing enough”) would be unfair, only alluding on supposed “neutrality” and an absence of “bias” and “ideology” of the wo/man who expresses such skepticism. The field is continuously being studied, with new additions being published; regarding earlier “codicological and palaeographic units” of the MSS we are dealing with, see now F. Acerbi-A. Gioffreda, “Harmonica membra disjecta,” Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies 59 4, Winter 2019 [=Acerbi-Gioffreda 2019] (here), accessed 24 November 2019. And one can also add the Mathiesen’s (1992) “Hermes or Clio…” (here), especially on p. 4 (on Why and How these treatises survived), p. 7 and pp. 14-15 with n. 22.
Below, slowly but surely, I have advanced my older work on the subject by giving a selection of eight MSS that include Greek chant information mainly on two - and occasionally on more - chant related topics i.e., α) on the I.16 of Ptolm. Harm. i.e., concerning the medieval use of equal diatonic genre and β) on the II.10 of Ptolm. Harm. i.e., concerning the correlation of Dōrios Phrygios etc. with the numbering of the ēchoi.
Eight online MSS with Greek chant information
1.
I-Vat: Gr. 191 (Math. 214 [13th], Dür. 64 W [13th /14th], Acerbi 2016 p. 195, Vitrac [1296-1298] p. 145)
Content and Bibliographic References and at Pinakes (here)
According to Ingemar Düring, the editor of Harmonica (1930), it is stemming from the m-class and gives rise to the recension of its own subclass [W]. This is one of the most studied codices in relation to the included astronomical and mathematical material. Importantly, in some scholia the hand (the revisoris manus R of A. Turyn) of the intellectual and deacon Ioannēs Pothos Pediasimos recently has been identified (Pérez Martín, 2010) and he “assembled, and annotated at least between 1296 and 1302/3 the early Palaiologan mathematical encyclopaedia in Vat. gr. 191” (Acerbi 2016, p. 183 No. 3). His hand is also responsible for some crucial chant related scholia, within Harmonica, and a small theoretical text just after it. What, at first glance, we have here is:
α) As far as Ptol. Harm. I.16 (entitled, in Jon Solomon’s tr.: How Many and Which Genera Are More Familiar to the Hearing), on f. 331r, there is not any remarkable marginal or interlinear scholion in connection to equal diatonic.
β) Referencing to II.10 of Harmonica, on f. 340r, there is one extra correlation of the names Dōrios Phrygios etc. with the ordinals (and additionally, here, to the martyriai [modal signatures]) of the ēchoi. This correlation was the most proximate to the more widespread of the Latin chant and is different to the Hagiopolitan and the one of the Bryennios’s stream. I transliterate and provisionally translate in English:
Dōrios (is the name of) the 1st ēchos, Phrygios the 2nd, Lydios the 3rd, Mixolydios the 4th, Hypodōrios the plagios of the 1st, Hypophrygios the plagios of the 2nd, Hypolydios the plagios of the 3rd, that is the Varys, Hypomixolydios the plagios of the 4th. Ptolemaios, not properly (?!), says that the ēchoi of them are seven. And other people, speaking nonsense, name them otherwise. (emphasis mine, then follows the same nomenclature and the relative martyriai, I transliterate:)
Picture 1
The pneumata (spirits) are four, hypsilē, chamēlē, kentēma and elaphron, because we are in need of pneuma (both) for ascending and descending.
The tension in the wording is indicative of the tension among personalities of the time. Here most probably it is the monk Maximos Planoudēs (his friend Manuēl Bryennios and the historian and deacon George Pachymerēs represent the same ēchoi correlation stream [see them on f.101v of the autograph of Pachymerēs I-Ra: Gr. 38, not included in Math.]) that is implied to “speaking nonsense.” Remind also that –not only- in Hagiopolitēs the “schemes of diapason” are not numbered, as I wrote some years before, here in M.M., in the ancient way from 1 to 7 but from 2 to 8 (the online MSS that contain this form of Anōnymos III passage are: [Math. 87=] F-Pn: Gr. 2458 68r-v, [Math. 89=] F-Pn: Gr. 2460 27v, F-Pn: [Math. 95=] Gr. 2532 82r-v, [Math. 219=] I-Vat: Gr. 221 pp. 388, [Math. 230=] I-Vat: Gr. 1364 f. 134v, [Math. 238=] I-Vat: Barb. gr. 265 p. 458, [Math. 253=] I-Vat: Ross. gr. 977 pp. 178-179 and of course its ρ recension, the Hagiopolitēs MS F-Pn: Gr. 360 f. 229v together with the EG-MSsc: Gr. 1764, f. 94r-v [the very last MS, numbered 299, that Mathiesen decided to include in his Catalogue]). Vincent (p.224) already at 1847 realized that there is an interesting variation here and, reasonably, felt the need of an explanation.
Additionally, we have a totally unknown and unpublished small theoretical chant text on f. 359v, just after the Harmonica, with strong affinity, even in wording, to Pseudo-Damaskēnos [=Ps-D] text. Thus, we can legitimately label it as proto-pseudodamaskēnos and it is also important for the “pre-history” of Ps-D. The earliest testimony of the latter belongs to the 15th century. I provisionally translate the half of the whole text, in order to understand some of its content. It is also interesting regarding modern phraseologies about Latin chant in which we see terms like sign and neume. The relative concordances to Ps-D are given in parentheses as its editors did not use at all this early (as far as the Byzantine chant) text:
The principal (κύριοι) tonoi (are) ison, oligon and apostrophos (Ps-D 42-43): oxeia and petastē (are) so-called tonoi because they (are) dominated and diminished (συστέλλονται) (Ps-D 44) by the ison: as tonoi (are) called also the compound (σύνθετα) signs (contra [?] in Ps-D 49), but signs (σημάδια) (are) called when they are placed and written, and tonoi when they are sung (Ps-D 50-51):-
Ēchos and melos are different, because ēchos precedes melos (Ps-D 79-80), and there is not melos without ēchos, but ēchos exists without melos, and the ēchos always begins with the ison, but the melos begins with tonos and pneuma (spirit):
Psalm (is) melody with the use of a musical instrument, but Ōdē (is) the one with the use of mouth and without an instrument (Ps-D 85-88). The tonoi (are) fifteen since the (main) frets / bridges [5*] in Music are fifteen (Ps-D 152-153), and Ptolemaios said all these:-...
And then continues with another categorization of the 24 signs.
That means that the above text, one of the oldest best dated complete [6*] treatises of Greek chant, is not found in a papadikē and the like “church” MSS, as most people would expect, but just next to Ptolemaios, in a MS of ancient Greek music theory! This is an example of how “innocent” prospects predispose modern narrative as well as… findings.
Of the other online subclasses of Harmonica’s m-class we have 1) the E i.e., I-Vat: Gr. 186 (Math. 210, Vitrac p. 145, 13th c.), 2) the I-Vat: Pal. gr. 60 (Math. 242, Vitrac p. 165, where we see for α) the “softer of the intense diatonic” together with “equal diatonic” in the same scheme on f. 16r [like BNF gr. 2450, see below] and for β) ēchoi and enēchēmata (the intonation syllables of the ēchoi), on f. 26r in the order of Bryennios / Grēgoras) and 3) the 13th century I-Vat: Pal. gr. 95 (Math. 243, Dür. 73 13th/14th century, Pinakes [here]) of the M subclass.
[5*] Καβάλια / kavália (or καβάλλια / kavállia in Hagiopolitēs, as well as κάβαλα / kávala in other sources of Ps-D), in the edition of Ps-D a not good reading is adopted: kavála, see MS Dionysiou 570, 8r; best translation in French: chevalet (=almost a transliteration). In modern Greek something like καβαλάρηδες or better γέφυρες / περντέδες (from Ottoman-Turkish perde).
[6*] Complete, because there was plenty of space - in this initially blank page- for Pediasimos to continue to write if there was more text to add, but he didn’t. This text is not like 1) the (one) question-(one) answer material of the MS RUS-SPsc: Gr. 495, ff. 1v-4v, or 2) collections of en-ēchēmata (in-tonation formulas of the ēchoi) (here) without theoretical text, or 3) neumes material like F-Pn: Gr 260 ff. 253v or even 4) the dated 1289 F-Pn: Gr. 261 ff. 139v-140r that includes headings, and on f. 140v we have the oldest testimony - in the form of a “table”- of the widespread nomenclature of the papadikai. Here is not the place to discuss these –and more- cases (and their one by one labeling).
2.
I-Vat: Gr. 192 (Math. 215 [13th], Dür. 65 V [13th /14th], Vitrac p. 145 [second half of 13th century])
Bibliographic References and at Pinakes (here)
This is a “mathematical miscellany” stemming from the m-class that gives rise to the recension of Düring’s subclass labeled V. It seems that this MS is the immediate (not entirely in chronological terms) predecessor of Vat. gr. 191 and unfortunately, it didn’t acquire so much –and not only - paleographical attention like that until now (consider e.g., the above Bibliographic References where some 11 works are sited in relation to the 116 for the Vat. gr. 191). As far as the content there are learned scholia written within and after the Harmonica linking it to the Hagiopolitan theoretical tradition of the Greek chant. But in this case we have one personality that published such an important material of scholia. He was the French polymath Théodore Reinach (1860-1928) in his - more than a century before – “Fragments Musicologiques Inédits,” Revue des Études Grecques, Tome X, No 39, July-September 1897, pp. 313-327 (Persée). Reinach transcribed and commented the theoretical texts / diagrams found - only after - the main texts of the MS Vat. gr. 192, leaving aside the scholia within the Harmonica. I will not elaborate, for the moment, on Reinach’s work. In relation to Greek chant and Ptolemaios we have the α) on f. 201v (and f. 223 [here there is only the name of “softer of the intense diatonic,” on that, see the next MS below] i.e., two times) and the β) on f. 225v (a scheme using whole tones and leimmata and in an name-order that Bryennios’s stream inverts in an absolute manner) respectively. Terms like mesos, phthora, enēchēmata, epēchēmata and apēchēmata and a trochos like scheme on f. 227r are found.
Other online MSS of this subclass [V] of Harmonica are F-Pn: Gr. 2451 (Math. 80) and F-Pn: Gr. 2453 (Math. 82).
3.
F-Pn: Coislin gr. 173 (Math. 103 [15th], Dür. 51 [14th], see Acerbi 2016, p. 151, Vitrac p.154 [first half of 14th]) see also: Notice rédigée par Anne Lapasset, Fevrier 2015 (here) and at Pinakes (here)
On f.1 there is a possession note of the Megistē Lavra monastery at Mount Athos / Greece. Christos Terzēs in his edition of Dionysios (Athens, 2010, p. 115*) believes that the hands had not been identified (quoting Mathiesen, 1988) and that the MS is produced in Mount Athos. As far as the Harmonica the text belongs to Düring’s g-class that represents the recension of Nicēphoros Grēgoras (ca. summer 1293/June 1294 - 1358/1361 [after Divna Manolova’s Dissertation, Budapest, 2014, academia.edu]). Indeed, “concerning the musical treatises, I-Vat.: Gr. 198 [Math. 218, Vitrac p. 146] is an apograph of Paris gr. 173” (Acerbi 2016, p.160). Note among Grēgoras’s autograph scholia (Bianconi, 2005, p. 415, No 25), the partly autograph one at the beginning of Harmonica on f. 32r (B. Mondrain, “Maxime Planoude, Nicéphore Grégoras et Ptolémée,” Palaeoslavica 10, 2002, p. 321 n.26).
α) On f.58r as scholion to I.16 of Harmonica. Here Ptolemaios begins accepting that the diatonic genera in general are more familiar to hearing than the enharmonic and the soft chromatic and continues extensively with the equal diatonic genus. Then he presents some other genera and their tunings / positions in musical instruments, and finally, he “can hardly fail to accept” the ditonal diatonic (roughly saying, the one using semitones and whole tones). But, since the “equal diatonic is a logical modification [and “more even / ὁμαλώτερον”] of the intense diatonic” (Mathiesen, 2000, pp. 450-451) the scheme here, together with “equal diatonic,” gives another title - referencing the position (numbers 24 to 18) – to it, this is the “softer of the intense diatonic”; thus uses the same ratios! The naming of the equal diatonic as (and its connection to) softer (μαλακώτερον, see also in Ptolm. Harm. I.12.28ff.) of the intense diatonic, has important consequences for the use of equal diatonic in the theory and the actual musical praxis in medieval times. A variation of this scheme exists also in the next F-Pn: Gr. 2540 (and I shall transliterate that form there).
β) On f. 74v, in relation to II.10, a scheme is given with the correlations of Dōrios Phrygios etc. with the ēchoi, their enēchēmata and the four phthorai. This correlation, at first glance, is the same as the tradition of Bryennios i.e, the prōtos ēchos is placed at the highest position (Hypermixolydios). For the moment, I have not any definitive opinion if it is exactly the same system as the one of Bryennios since we know that Grēgoras’s work consisted of, more or less, a new “adjustment” of the ancient material in order “to save the phenomena.” Here is a transliterated form of that diagram:
Picture 2
See also the trochos like schemes on ff. 110v-111r.
Other online MSS of this Grēgoras’s recension of Harmonica are: GB-Ob: Bar. gr. 124 (Math. 134), F-Pn: Coislin gr. 336 (Math. 105), and F-Pn: Gr. 2456 (Math. 86) (from [?, Math. p. 226] I-Vat.: Gr. 2365 [Math. 235]), I-Rvat: Pal. gr. 389 (Math. 245), I-Rvat: Pal. gr. 390 (Math. 246).
4.
F-Pn: Gr. 2450 (Math. 79 [14th], Dür. 42 [14th /15th], Acerbi 2016 p. 152, [about 1335], Vitrac p.157 [about 1335]) see also: Notice rédigée par Anne Lapasset, Fevrier 2015 (here) and at Pinakes (here).
According to Düring’s Harmonica edition the text of this MS belongs to the gp-subclass that stems from the main Grēgoras’s g-class. Is this a representation of a separate choice (to the degree Düring’s classes are reliable), in relation to the text / content, of (or someone close to) him? His hand is identified in some scholia of the ff. 57r, 59r, 71v, 72v, 73r. (Pérez Martín, 2008). As far as the schemes in relation to Greek chant the α) and the β) of F-Pn: Gr. 173 are found on 32r (in a different form but “better” as for our understanding) and 53r (again in Bryennios’s order) respectively. A transliterated form of that 32r diagram is the following:
Picture 3
See also the trochos like scheme on 89v.
Other online MSS that belong to the gp recension of Harmonica are I-Vat: Gr. 221 (Math. 219, ēchoi, phthorai and enēchēmata on p. 106), I-Vat: Barb. gr. 265 (Math. 238, ēchoi, phthorai and enēchēmata on p. 138) that we’ve already met and note the transcription of Ismaël Boulliau (in 1656), in F-Pn: Sup. gr. 292 (Math. 111).
5.
F-Pn : Coislin gr. 172 (Math. 102 [15th], Dür. 50 [14th /15th], Vitrac [14th /15th] p.154) see also: Notice rédigée par Anne Lapasset, Mars 2015 (here) and at Pinakes (here).
It is somewhat posterior to the aforementioned F-Pn: Coislin gr. 173, but this time its Harmonica, according to Düring, belongs to his f-class stemming from D-Mbs: Cod. gr. 361a (Math. 22 [13th-16th], Dur. 28 [13th-16th], see Vitrac p. 153, Acerbi-Gioffreda 2019 Mo, [2nd half of 13th century] p. 659). Again, is this a representation of one more separate choice, in relation to the text / content, of (or someone close to) Grēgoras? The relative scheme of α) is found on f. 13r (with no reference to “softer of the intense diatonic”). Note the diagrams on ff. 17r-18v on dynamis and thesis phenomena in relation to Ptolem. Harm. II.5-6.
There is another online MS that belongs to f-class the I-Vat: Barb. gr. 257 (Math. 237).
6.
I-Vat: Gr. 187 (Math. 211 [14th], Dür, 61 [14th], Vitrac [14th] p. 145)
Bibliographic References and at Pinakes (here)
This is a MS that represents the circle of the monk Barlaam the Calabrian as the I-Vat: Gr. 196 (Math. 217 [14th], Dür, 66 [14th], Vitrac p. 146 [14th]) and F-Pn: Gr. 2452 [Math. 82]). Note the diagrams on ff. 32r, 34v and 35r on thesis and dynamis phenomena in relation to Ptolem. Harm. II.5-6.
7.
I-Vat: Gr. 176 (Math. 208 [14th], Dür. 58 [14th], Vitrac [14th] p. 145)
Bibliographic References, and Pinakes (here).
Acerbi (2016, p. 173) notes: “A further recension of Harmonica was redacted by Isaac Argyros, whose fair copy is preserved (but recall that Argyros was used to correct in scribendo) in the autograph Vat. Gr. 176, ff. 101r-159v.” It is the A-subclass of Grēgoras’s g-class but this time “favoring the readings of the f-class” (Mathiesen 2000, p. 431).
The other online MS that belong to the same reduction of Harmonica is the F-Pn: Sup. gr. 449 (Math. 114).
8.
F-Pn: Sup. gr. 1101 (not in Math., A. Gastoué 70 [14th]) See a description (here) and Pinakes (here)
The MS contains mainly the early translations of Maximos Planoudēs into Greek of Boethius’s, De Consolatione Philosophiae, Cicero’s, Somnium Scipionis and Macrobius’s Commentary on it and other material. But importantly enough for us, at the last folia, there are music related schemes on 162r, 163v, 164r and 165v. Also another small music related scholion on 137r. On 162r we see the correlation of ēchoi with the Dōrios Phrygios etc. in the order of Bryennios / Grēgoras (ie. prōtos ēchos placed in the position of Hypermixolydios) and a trochos like diagram; compare it with two small schemes in the later F-Pn: Gr. 2339 f.59v. On f. 163v there is a scheme of the 7- and 8-stringed lyres of Hermēs (or Orpheus in other MSS) and Pythagoras respectively. See them in F-Pn: Gr. 2339 f. 60v, and, together with Bryennios’s MSS, on f. 47r of Pachymerēs’s aforementioned autograph I-Ra: Gr. 38).
A note on modern classifications and vocabularies
Indeed, why 20th century people didn’t “see” all this set of sources of Ptolemaios with their relative to Byzantine chant material and why the studies for chant wasn’t so decisive as the other disciplines (especially for the medieval Greek MSS on mathematics, see Vitrac, 2019, 6.B, p. 48 and 7.B, p. 59)? A possible answer of mine is already known to the list of Μ.Μ.: “we” “see” only what we have pre-theorized to see or more simply, when two people look at the same direction (and set of things) they do not acknowledge (and taxonomize) the same phenomena, although ‘all of them’ are there. Think of the results if they look at different directions….
And some final notes on the grand narrative of the society, the time and our vocabulary remembering Christian Troelsgård’s, “Ancient Musical Theory in Byzantine Enviroments,” Cahiers de l’Institute du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin 56 (1988), (here) in p. 229 where he writes: “On the other hand we find an increasing interest [7*] in copying, exerpting and commenting on the remains of ancient theory [are we sure that there wasn’t an – perhaps even more – “increasing interest” before?]. It is an accepted fact that these activities were centered around two different milieus in Byzantine society, the church [7*] on the one side and the scholarly circles of quadrivial study [7*] on the other. But I think there are some very important points or area of contact and interaction between these milieus.” And also, in the concluding p. 237, he speaks of “… the interaction between the two hemispheres [7*] of the musical culture of Byzantium. They imply that the Byzantines took a far more active and dynamic interest in the ancient musical theory than usually accepted.”
In my view, and after what we saw here, we can speak of an even far more active and dynamic interest in the ancient Greek theory and this, not only because we added the Harmonica, the main sholiated treatise in relation to chant.
But as it becomes obvious, the issue isn’t exactly the potential infinite discussions (past or future) on a degree of interaction of “two” domains. All these medieval theoretical constructions in this kind of sources are related to the everyday ecclesiastical music of the ordinary – differentiating, case by case, on degree of knowledge- faithful people (and psaltes). In contrast with other branches of knowledge, like Geometry or Arithmetic (with problems that sometimes still a modern wo/man, can’t understand), the ecclesiastical music circles or “parties” of people (recorded by the sources [remember the “many people” / πολλοì of Bryennios]), give us an idea about our narrative on the structure of that world. These intellectuals weren’t debating as isolated personalities because, among others, they had a vision about their society as a whole. I ask and explain: in our mind, where do we have to place an intellectual? Over, next to, in parallel or among ordinary people? Especially if we remember the other similar ecclesiastical case of theological debates among highly educated people (we met some of them already above) like Barlaam, Grēgoras, and others, not music related figures, like Grēgorios Palamas etc. who were also supported by their (larger or smaller) circles or “parties.”
Last but not least, referring to the current vocabulary (I will not criticize, for the moment, nation-centered vocabularies here in Greece) used on music related issues of the time: a generalized view of “church” and “scholarly circles of quadrivial study” would be misleading [8*] since a lot of the personalities (belonged to all the theoretical streams) we are dealing of were highly educated clerics, monks etc. And again, we have the same problematic with the “theoretical hemispheres.” In which MSS, who is theorizing, at what music(s) exactly? Are there more than two interacted “spheres” (including their “middle grounds,” a] and b], as I described them in my above given paper, pp. 217-218), thus not “hemispheres,” that we have to use in the narrative of the earlier or later medieval chant?
[7*] This is not a comment on what (and when) meant by “increasing interest,” “scholarly circles of quadrivial study,” “church” etc. as I have no intention to interfere in any kind of interpretation of “what the X scholar means,” but I make use of this quotation in order to express my skepticism – separately- on the use of certain terms.
[8*] Giving room even to potential polarization and not interaction, in other words, this could be a case of ‘glass half empty and glass half full’ within the same proposition.
MORE SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acerbi, Fabio. “Funzioni e modalità di transmissione delle notazioni numeriche nella trattatistica mathematica Greca: Due esempi paradigmatici.” Segno e Testo 11 (2013). (academia.edu)
----------------. “Byzantine recensions of Greek mathematical and astronomical texts: A survey.” Estudios Bizantinos 4 (1016). (academia.edu)
Bianconi, Daniele. “La biblioteca di Cora tra Massimo Planude e Niceforo Gregora. Una Questione di mani.” Segno e Testo 3 (2005).
----------------.“La controversia palamitica. Figure, libri e mani.” Segno e Testo 6 (2008). (academia.edu)
Düring, Ingemar (ed). Die Harmonielehre des Klaudios Ptolemaios. Göteborg, 1930.
Gastoué, Amédée. Catalogue des manuscrits de musique Byzantine de la Bibliothèque de Paris et des Bibliothèques publiques de France. Paris, 1907. (Archive.org)
Mathiesen, Thomas. Ancient Greek Music Theory. A catalogue raisonné of manuscripts (RISM, B XI). München, 1988.
---------------. Apollo's Lyre : Greek music and music theory in antiquity and the Middle Ages.Lincoln and London, 2000.
Mondrain, Brigitte. "Les écritures dans les manuscrits byzantins du XIVè siècle." Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici (2008).
Pérez Martín, Inmaculada, “El estilo Hodegos y su proyección en las escrituras constantinopolitanas.” Segno e Testo 6 (2008). (academia.edu)
----------------. “L’ecriture de l’hypatos Jean Pothos Pédiasimos d’après ses scholies aux Elementa d’ Euclide.” Scriptorium 64 (2010). (Persée) and (academia.edu)
Ruelle, Charles-Émile. Études sur l’ancienne musique grecque. Paris, 1875. (BSBdigital)
Turyn, Alexandrer. Codices Graeci Vaticani saeculis XIII et XIV scripti annorumque notis instructi. Citta del Vaticano, 1964.
Vincent, Alexandre Joseph Hidulphe. Notice sur divers manuscrits Grecs relatifs à la musique. Paris, 1847. (Gallica)
Vitrac, Bernard. “Quand? Comment? Pourquoi les textes mathématiques grecs sont-ils parvenus en Occident?” (academia.edu), April 2019, accessed 29 November 2019.
Wolfram, Gerda – Hannick, Christian (eds). Die Erotapokriseis des Pseudo-Johannes Damaskenos zum Kirchengesang. Vienna, 1997.
THE ONLINE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF ANCIENT MUSIC THEORY
The links of the online MSS that has relation to the Harmonica of Claudios Ptolemaios are given above, together with a small description of some of them, since this is the treatise that medieval Greek speaking theorists scholiated the most in connection to chant theory. The other online MSS of ancient Greek musicographers I have located so far are the following (the MSS links that have already given in the above text are just referred to below with no link):
AUSTRIA
Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
A-Wn: Cod. Phil. gr. 64 (Math. 2), A-Wn: Cod. Phil. gr. 176 (Math. 5, Vitrac p.194).
GERMANY
Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek
D-Heu: Cod. Pal. gr. 281 (Math. 14), D-Heu: Cod. Pal. gr. 415 (Math. 15).
Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek
D-Leu: Rep. I 2 (Math. 39).
München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek
D-Mbs: Cod. gr. 104 (Math. 17, Vitrac p.179), D-Mbs: Cod. gr. 301 (Math. 21, Vitrac p.180), D-Mbs: Cod. gr. 385 (Math. 23, Vitrac p.180), D-Mbs: Cod. gr. 403 (Math. 24, Vitrac p. 180), D-Mbs: Cod. gr. 418 (Math. 25), D-Mbs: Cod. gr. 487 (Math. 26).
Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek
D-W: Cod. Guelf. 3 Gud. gr. (Math. 29, Vitrac p.195).
SPAIN
Madrid, Bibliotheca Nacional
E-Mn: Gr. 4621 (Math. 57, together with C. Laskarēs the codex has a relation to Sultan Cem), E-Mn: Gr. 4625 (Math. 58), E-Mn: Gr. 4678 (Math. 59), E-Mn: Gr. 4690 (Math. 60), E-Mn: Gr. 4692 (Math. 61).
FRANCE
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Fonds Grec
F-Pn: Gr. 1671 (Math. 66), F-Pn: Gr. 1672 (Math. 67), F-Pn: Gr. 1806 (Math. 68, Vitrac p.185), F-Pn: Gr. 1819 (Math. 70, Vitrac p.185) F-Pn: Gr. 1820 (Math. 71, Vitrac p.185), F-Pn: Gr. 2013 (Math. 72), F-Pn: Gr. 2014 (Math. 73, Vitrac p.185), F-Pn: Gr. 2379 (Math. 74, Vitrac p.188), F-Pn: Gr. 2381 (Math. 75), F-Pn: Gr. 2397 (Math.-, Vitrac p.188) F-Pn: Gr. 2430 (Math. 77, Vitrac p.188), F-Pn: Gr. 2449 (Math. 78), F-Pn: Gr. 2450 (Math. 79), F-Pn: Gr 2451 (Math. 80, Vitrac p.188), F-Pn: Gr 2452 (Math. 81, Vitrac p.188), F-Pn: Gr 2453 (Math. 82, Vitrac p.188), F-Pn: Gr. 2454 (Math. 83, Vitrac p.188), F-Pn: Gr. 2455 (Math. 84), F-Pn: Gr 2456 (Math. 85, Vitrac p.188), F-Pn: Gr. 2458 (Math. 87), F-Pn: Gr. 2459 (Math. 88, Vitrac p.188), F-Pn: Gr. 2460 (Math. 89, Vitrac p.188), F-Pn: Gr. 2461 (Math. 90, Vitrac p.157), F-Pn: Gr. 2462 (Math. 91), F-Pn: Gr. 2463 (Math. 92), F-Pn: Gr. 2464 (Math. 93), F-Pn: Gr. 2531 (Math. 94, Vitrac p.189), F-Pn: Gr. 2532 (Math. 95), F-Pn: Gr. 2533 (Math. 96), F-Pn: Gr. 2534 (Math. 97), F-Pn: Gr. 2535 (Math. 98, Vitrac p.188), F-Pn: Gr. 2549 (Math. 99), F-Pn: Gr. 2622 (Math. 100), F-Pn: Gr. 3027 (Math. 101, Vitrac p.190).
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Fonds Coislin
F-Pn: Coislin 172 (Math. 102), F-Pn: Coislin 173 (Math. 103), F-Pn: Coislin 174 (Math. 104, Vitrac p.154), F-Pn: Coislin 336 (Math. 105, Vitrac p.185).
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Fonds Supplément Grec
F-Pn: Sup. gr. 20 (Math. 106), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 59 (Math. 107, Vitrac p.190), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 160 (Math. 108), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 195 (Math. 109, Vitrac p.190), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 213 (Math. 110, Vitrac p.190), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 292 (Math. 111, Vitrac p.190), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 335 (Math. 112, Vitrac p.190), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 336 (Math. 113, Vitrac p.190), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 449 (Math. 114, Vitrac p.190), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 450 (Math. 115, Vitrac p.190), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 1101 (Math. -).
GREAT BRITAIN
London, British Library
GB-Lbm: Harley gr. 5691 (Math. 128), GB-Lbm: Additional 19353 (Math. 130, Vitrac p.175).
Oxford, Bodleian Library
GB-Ob: Barocci gr. 41 (Math. 133, Vitrac p.182), GB-Ob: Barocci gr. 124 (Math. 134, Vitrac p.182).
Oxford, Magdalen College Library
GB-Omc: Magdalen Col. gr. 12 (Math. 150), GB-Omc: Magdalen Col. gr. 13 (Math. 151, Vitrac p.184).
ITALY
Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria
I-Bu: Gr. 2048, v.1 (Math. 154, Vitrac p.162), I-Bu: Gr. 2048, v.2 (Math. 155, Vitrac p.162), I-Bu: Gr. 2048, v.5 (Math. 156, Vitrac p.162), I-Bu: Gr. 2280 (Math. 157, Vitrac p.162), I-Bu: Gr. 2432 (Math. 158, Vitrac p.162), I-Bu: Gr. 2700 (Math. 159).
Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana
I-Fl: Ms Plut.28.11 (Math. 160), I-Fl: Ms Plut.28.12 (Math. 161), I-Fl: Ms Plut.56.1 (Math. 162), I-Fl: Ms Plut.58.29 (Math. 163, Vitrac p. 151), I-Fl: Ms Plut.59.1 (Math. 164), I-Fl: Ms Plut.80.5 (Math. 165), I-Fl: Ms Plut.80.21 (Math. 166), I-Fl: Ms Plut.80.22 (Math. 167), I-Fl: Ms Plut.80.30 (Math. 168), I-Fl: Ms Plut.86.3 (Math. 169).
Napoli, Biblioteca Nazionale
I-Nn: Gr. 261 (f. 53r, Math. 202, Vitrac p. 153).
Roma, Biblioteca Angelica
I-Ra: Gr. 35 (Math. 205), I-Ra: Gr. 101 (Math. 206).
Citta del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana
I-Rvat: Gr. 139 (Math. 207), I-Rvat: Gr. 176 (Math. 208), I-Rvat: Gr. 186 (Math. 210, Vitrac p. 145), I-Rvat: Gr. 187 (Math. 211), I-Rvat: Gr. 191 (Math. 214), I-Rvat: Gr. 192 (Math. 215), I-Rvat: Gr. 196 (Math. 217), I-Rvat: Gr. 198 (Math. 218), I-Rvat: Gr. 221 (Math. 219, Vitrac p.166), I-Rvat: Gr. 1013 (Math. 221), I-Rvat: Gr. 1033 (Math. 222), I-Rvat: Gr. 1048 (Math. 225, Vitrac p.167), I-Rvat: Gr. 1060 (Math. 226), I-Rvat: Gr. 1364 (Math. 230, Vitrac p.167), I-Rvat: Gr. 1374 (Math. 231), I-Rvat: Gr. 2338 (Math. 234), I-Rvat: Gr. 2365 (Math. 235, Vitrac p.168), I-Rvat: Barb. gr. 257 (Math. 237), I-Rvat: Barb. gr. 265 (Math. 238, Vitrac p.164), I-Rvat: Barb. gr. 278 (not in Math.), I-Rvat: Ottob. gr. 372 (Math. 237), I-Rvat: Pal. gr. 53 (Math. 241), I-Rvat: Pal. gr. 60 (Math. 242, Vitrac p.165), I-Rvat: Pal. gr. 95 (Math. 243), I-Rvat: Pal. gr. 303 (Math. 244, Vitrac p.165), I-Rvat: Pal. gr. 389 (Math. 245, Vitrac p.165), I-Rvat: Pal. gr. 390 (Math. 246, Vitrac p.165), I-Rvat: Pal. gr. 392 (Math. 247), I-Rvat: Reg. gr. 80 (Math. 248), I-Vat: Ross. 977 (Math. 253, Vitrac p.165), I-Vat: Ross. 986 (Math. 254), I-Vat: Urb. gr. 78 (Math. 256, Vitrac p.166), I-Vat: Urb. gr. 99 (Math. 257).
Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana
I-Vnm: Gr. app. cl. VI/3 (coll. 1347).
SWEDEN
Uppsala, Universitetsbiblioteket
S-Uu: Gr. 45 (Math. 292, Vitrac p.193), S-Uu: Gr. 47 (Math. 293, Vitrac p.193), S-Uu: Gr. 52 (Math. 294, Vitrac p.193).
UNITED STATES
New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript
US-NHub: MS 208 (f.30v, Math. 295)
EGYPT
Mount Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery
EG-MSsc: Gr. 1764 (Math. 299).
Additionally, a small collection of online MSS of BNF that include medieval music theory (some of them referred to in Vincent [1847]) is given below although I didn’t include, for example, all the Pachymerēs, Pediasimos etc. music related MSS. All these MSS need a fresh look together with the similar MSS of other libraries.
F-Pn: Gr. 2338, F-Pn: Gr. 2339, F-Pn: Gr. 2340, F-Pn: Gr. 2341, F-Pn: Gr 2448 see Notice rédigée par Anne Lapasset Mars 2015 (here) and (Pinakes), F-Pn: Gr. 2536, F-Pn: Gr. 2762 see: Notice rédigée par Morgane CARIOU (here) and (Pinakes).
And also: F-Pn: Gr. 1810 see: Notice rédigée par Jocelyn Groisard (novembre 2008) (here), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 51.
Comments
Maybe one further piece of thought from my side, since you have been so patient with me:
For me your collection of sources here is very precious, maybe you are right with your ambition just to look at them for their own sake, but I often wonder about your critic perspectIve on theoretical "pre-conceptions" which for me seems to be the most natural thing. My perspective is about 180° degrees opposed to yours… Concerning "music" in its proper meaning of that Greek term, from where it has also derived in English, I would approach the whole subject from the opposed angle, and face up a desperate need to use harmonics as a vehicle to develop a new and own autochthone theory.
Just take the Arabic-Persian reception at the library of Baghdad during the tenth century as an example whose focus was wider concerning the repertory of Greek treatises, because they knew much more treatises than any classical philologue knows today (in fact 100 years of philological work laid before them to re-translate und reconstruct unknown Greek treatises dedicated to all kinds of subjects, but then all got lost due to the imperial wars of the United States for new resources in a name of an insane "New World Order" which was first proclaimed by Bush junior during the 90ies)! There was a motivation behind this. The same is true for the very selective Latin reception, which was focussed on Ptolemy concerning Boethius. Michel Huglo explained this extremely limited focus and the small library of the Carolingian Renaissances in 2000 for a German series about the history of music theory. But it might be as limited as it was, the "pre-conception" was always the architect of medieval autochthone theories, whatever its language and the contemporary music was which needed to be described by Ancient Greek terms taken from the Hellenic harmonikoi. As well there are two ways to look at the excerpts taken from earlier autochthone treatises. They were not simply auto-referential, but these quotations were also needed to develop and enrich the former meaning of a term applied to music and such an evolution was based on re-interpretation.
Very kind of you to say so… Our correspondence resulted that you are in a need of an update.
Already verified, since I was asked for an opinion by Nicolas Meeùs about his material who teaches at the Sorbonne:
http://gregorian-chant.ning.com/group/melos/forum/topics/discussio...
I did the same for another kind colleague at Milan to make myself even more useful. You have just to speak to them, that is all. Do not be shy!
By the way I did this, while I was at a conference on the island of Cyprus, where I had a panel together with these authors and Giuseppe Sanfratello. Since my and Giuseppe's subject was a little bit specific for your standards, I will not bother you with that (you might even ask me to verify my field, otherwise), but I imagine that there could be an interest in their publication:
Maria Alexandru, Christian Troelsgård, "The ‘Elements of the Papadikê’ and Modality Features in Byzantine Chant," Series Musicologica Balcanica 1-1 (2020), pp.168-204. doi:10.26262/smb.v1i1.7727. ISSN 2654-248X.
Dear Oliver,
!?
P.S. I see you have posted on this blog once again to inform me and its readers about your past collaborations, communications, and the like, as well as your views on certain topics. Most of these topics are unfamiliar, mostly unverifiable, and filled with terminology unknown to most members of Musicologie Medievale, concluding with a few references at the end. Nonetheless, that is perfectly fine, Oliver. Statements made in the public square, like yours here, are always far better than safer, private ones or backroom dialogues. Indeed, do not hesitate to write here whenever you like, as your posts are, at times, thought-provoking.
Ah, I see!
I must say that I am not used here, that someone here answers as prompt as you do at your blog. In that case let us agree about that you can go for the rest of August just to the beach, and it is more than enough to react here to me, just when you really feel inspired to do so. The outcome will be better for all of us, and it is far from my intentions to put pressure on you.
Nevertheless, your excessive "Chartres correction" on which you go on and on, starts to amuse me, it is almost as good as a parody played by Thanasis Vengos. But your remarks about the convenience of a musicology which is divided by experts who only study Greek, Latin and Slavonic sources (each one relying on the ignorance of the other!) without being able to create any context between each other, are absolutely brilliant. Maybe you should prepare such a performance for the next Cantus planus conference, our colleagues will love it, but also be educated about the real problem! I always get the creeps, when I see the incapacity to communicate to each other. Just forget about "Gregorianists", you should be happy that you never had an idea about the true nature of such polemics.
You did not directly answer me, but since you revealed your interest in Papadikai studies, I assume the artificial and useless separation between harmonics and music theory as the application to autochthonous theories which you suggested, is no longer an option and talking about terms of the Hellenic harmonikoi like metabole, genos and phthongos and their use in chant theory, from where Balkan people get inspiring ideas to understand them more profoundly thanks to their musical socialisation, I get finally an idea, what this blog is about. Because until now, I was not sure what to write about and what are the things you are interested in.
Good to know that Alexandru's project is on your screen, but this is still the conventional approach which works well with sources like sticherarion and heirmologion (the lists of apechemata are all taken from those books), it does work for larger parts with the book akolouthiai, but not very well with the older books asmatikon and kontakarion-psaltikon or the four kontakaria-asmatika written at Messina (which is a more appropriate way to talk about what Thodberg misnamed "the short psaltikon style"). The category in itself is nonsense, because each kontakarion-psaltikon is full of individual realisations of kontakia, hypakoai, prokeimena and allelouiària sometimes shorter, sometimes longer depending on the local context for which it was composed (in rare cases the authors of these realisations are mentioned). The same exists in certain parts of the akolouthiai, but the focus was more theotokia, kalophonic realisations of stichera and the first odes of the heirmologion, sometimes with an appendix called kratematarion for conclusions over abstract syllables called kratemata, nenanismata or teretismata (depending on the syllables).
Maria Alexandru was very nice by the way, about 2009 she invited me to Thessaloniki. That was my first journey to Greece to show her students a virtual storehouse constructed over the Koukouzelian wheel, while I was very Interested to get her doctoral thesis about the great signs. But I was surprised, how she described her own contribution as well as mine in her research report about the first decade between 2000-2010. None of those were described in a proper way, and if this is not enough, working together on a book publication about Ioannis Koukouzeles curated by Svetlana Kujumdžieva in Sofia, we both found out that we never had any notice about a third Bulgarian contribution similar to ours by Klara Mečkova which happened about the same time, while we both worked independently on the Papadike with main focus on the Koukouzelian wheel, Mega Ison and other methods of parallagai and metrophonia.
The whole truth is, despite we had reached out for each other, the collaboration for this research report had failed (and I say this as someone who is really grateful for everything she does alone or with her students). She could only integrate English publications by Bulgarian authors. For this reason she established a contact with Stefan Hěrkov about 2015, so that also Bulgarian publications could be reviewed.
Thus, I offer you now here my summary just focussed on that contribution of us three concerning the beginning of the Papadike.
Maria, as you might know, did her doctoral thesis coming from an exhaustive study of the great signs and the different ways during history to classify and to organise all signs of notation starting with the Hagiopolites. Since not all the relevant signs which ruled metabolai of all kinds, were phthorai, her approach was deeply rooted in the notation of Greek music palæography. You might compare her approach with Jørgen Råsted, but even if it was in German, you could easily read it, because large parts are just Greek quotations taken from sources, and she left them untranslated. Her work was to compile them and make them available under a certain context (similar to Evangelia Spyrakou's Greek book about typika which have valuable information about the Asmatic or choir rite).
Klara Mečkova did a typical Bulgarian approach which was based on theology and the hagiographic instrumentalisation of Ioannis Koukouzeles' vita (vios) to integrate, but also to defend the Athonite mystic movement of hesychasm as a column of Orthodox Christianity (who has studied the role of Italy in Byzantine history will not be surprised about her approach). For her kalophonia and even technical parallage diagrams are almost reciprocal, as if a certain quality of kalophonic chant was a musical expression of a hesychast contemplation. Her first book was focussed on tetraphonia, and the second on triphonia which is a clear musicological approach.
Mine was coming from the medieval art of memory and I designed the wheel as a mnemonic store house in the shape of a spiral, going up and down in tetraphonia ad infinitum (the real limit is the voice). It is like the keyboard of the ṭanbūr for Ottoman musicians (which developed from al-Kindi's four-stringed 'ūd), but it was simple and complex at the same time. With the material imagination of a keyboard and its frets you confront yourself with the physical complexity of intonation, but in a virtual storehouse it is absent and depends on a refined intonation of the apichimata while moving in metrophonia, the amazing thing is you can go beyond the cognitive horizon and even after several temporary transpositions the wheel serves you like Ariadne's thread, so that you will always find out your way (maybe slightly shifted depending on the transpositions). Consider what that means for each phthongos, it has the potential to become any echos!
You should not believe that the wheel just represents one tone system, even if there is a term like the "system of the wheel" (which can refer to different shapes of the wheel), it is universal like the other parallage diagrams by Plousiadinos and Laskaris.
But we all three did the same mistake to publish the doctoral thesis in our mother tongue. There was not only the problem that most of our interested readers did not know German or Bulgarian. In those years my English skills were still low, and thus, I was forced to a simplicity which helped me a lot to make myself understood. My longest chapter went through the whole oktoechos comparing the oktoechos of the tonaries with the Papadic oktoechos, and just its introduction concluded with an analysis of the Doxastikon oktaechon Θεαρχίῳ νεύματι (SAV 714), where I compared the version of the Milanese sticherarion (Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Ms. A 139 sup., ff. 163’-164) with Strunk's one based on the sticherarion of Mone Koutloumousiou (Ms. 412, f. 161v).
I do not find any "romanticising" in it, but you can imagine, an analysis without having never been introduced to do the thesis of the sticheraric melos based on a sticherarion of the 13th-century reform was quite an adventure. But Råsted and Strunk had done that before me, and it did not come to my mind to consult Chourmouzios' exegesis, although I had read later Flora Kritikou about the built-in composition machine. But writing on my thesis I had read the famous essay by Konstantinos Psachos that during the 18th century, Greek singers went to Plovdiv (Philippopolis) to learn from experienced teachers to sing directly out of Middle Byzantine sticheraria according to the traditional way (called palaion). The analysis aimed mainly at a description of the different medial signatures used by two different scribes, but I mentioned that this was nothing else than a basic structure and during the 14th century, different methods of doing the thesis could be applied to it also with respect of a section was sung by the choir or a soloist. During public presentations I used for reasons of time an animated power point to follow in real-time a recording of Petros Peloponnesios' version according to the official exegesis since the Doxastarion syntomon edition by Petros Ephesios. The presentation showed all transpositions. Only recently for my essay about Petros Peloponnesios I presented an extract of my own exegesis based on Petros' hyphos notation. The music is basically the same, but the ambitus is wider thanks to the transpositions as notated by Petros.
But to the third oktoechos, the one used for the old cathedral rite is completely different. In 2016, I met Andreas Pfisterer at the Russian-German conference "Theorie und Geschichte der Monodie" at Vienna, where he tried a kind of review of Constantin Floros' habilitation which had published very late in 2015, but it provoked a long discussion and I was deeply involved in it. As response to it, I had a paper at Vienna 2018 where I offered a systematic overview over all kontakaria whether with or without musical notation. My own studies of the repertoire revealed that the whole oktoechos as well as the relations between the echoi are organised in a completely different way than the oktoechos of the sticherarion which is in the main focus of the Papadikai. The most interesting subject are the medial signatures or intonations, and thus, I could not confirm the number of sixteen echoi mentioned by the author the Hagiopolites who told about a symmetric system, where each of the four echoi have next to the plagios also a mesos and a phthora. But studying the manuscripts this symmetry does not exist, most of the echemata belong to the tetartos, protos has only one, which could be either a kyrios eso or a plagios. And phthora nana does not connect the tritos echoi with the tetratos echoi, but the devteros echoi with the tritos echoi. And the echemata allow a reconstruction of fourteen echoi, but not sixteen.
And then in 2020, when Svetlana Kujumdžieva asked me to contribute to the Koukouzeles volume, I decided to check, what happens with this third oktoechos, when it was embellished by kalophonia in the oikoimatarion? Is there an adaption to the Papadic oktoechos in the kalophonic compositions attributed to Ioannis Koukouzeles? At the beginning I used the opportunity that all three of us contributed to the same book to compare Alexandru's and Mečkova's interpretation of the Koukouzelian wheel with mine, because these differences had never been discussed except orally at the Aristotle University with the students.
You find everything on my academia.edu account, otherwise do not hesitate to address me.
References
Dear Oliver,
You may claim whatever you wish regarding our past communications. I am not going to continue at this level of personal bickering along the lines of "you told me this, I told you that." The situation will end up tragicomic. If you continue at this level, I will simply state in every subsequent post that I do not respond to this kind of writing. Now, let us move on to what is important.
The main goal of this blog is not to attract Gregorianists or any other specialist on Medieval Latin chant or other fields of expertise. Do not think that I always have the inclination and time for discussions. Of course, anyone who wishes can write their views whenever they want and if I deem the point worthwhile, I will respond. When I have time, I publish some posts. Nevertheless, some of what you write on this blog is thought-provoking. As I wrote in the same aforementioned post, “Your reference, Oliver, to ‘Western and Eastern chant’ prompts me to share a few thoughts regarding Professor Charles Atkinson’s terminological preferences in his recent work, specifically his contribution, “On Modulation in Eastern and Western Chant,” Plainsong and Medieval Music 34.1 (April 2025)…” I am already preparing the next one or two posts, which will be titled, "Reclaiming the Global: From Romanticizing Over-theorization to Grounded Practice." This forthcoming analysis revisits it with full appreciation for Atkinson’s broader body of work, focusing strictly, for the time being, on isolating his specific terminological preferences as well as some more related issues as emanate from the edition of Pseudo-Damaskenos by Gerda Wolfram and Christian Hannick, and hoping that these nuances will appear in the forthcoming edition of Papadike by Christian Troelsgård and Maria Alexandru.
Dear Pavlos
Further on, I did not only read carefully your comments, but as well plenty of words you left here at the mother page concerning what one is allowed to talk about and what not! My observation is that I am also glad that your suggested separation of theoretical terms to attract "Gregorianists" is not possible. You just proved it yourself. Maybe you should try to be less hard on yourself, and also others might answer you except me. But even if they do not. Somebody else here told me, that most of our colleagues did the wrong choice and prefer facebook. All what is to say about it, I have already said in a comment of a video, where Martin Sonneborn interviewed a former Staatssicherheits officer about facebook (not even I can find it any longer, but it was funny).
Dear Oliver,
To address a few points from your last message:
In any case, don't hesitate to write on this blog whenever you like.
Dear Pavlos
There was a situation, when you became very aggressive many years ago that you even interrupted our discussion to leave private messages at my personal page here instead (which is open to everyone, you could also have written them privately), our first encounter here was a discussion in my Byzantine groupe of your contribution in the proceedings of Lillafüred about the synthesis between harmonics and contemporary church music in the Hagiopolites.
But if you were quoted and discussed there, it was nothing else than due to a polite interest for your work. But you were not very willing to go exactly to the point where your knowledge has a limit given by a lack of sources (which is usually the point I aim directly at to start an interesting debate).
We have naturally only vague ideas, how the synthesis was done facing three oktoechoi, [1] the Hagiopolitan (which I associated with the notation of over-regional collections in the books sticherarion and heirmologion, tetraphonia is prevailing), [2] the Constantinopolitan (which I associate with Asmatikon notation concerning Greek sources, triphonia is prevailing), and [3] the Frankish transfer of the Hagiopolitan by the use of the analytical tonary (oktoechos made according an own design based on one "tetrachord of finales", heptaphonia is prevailing) which is the fundament of any neume dialect whether palæo Frankish or Bretonic, Lotharingian, Saint Gall, central-French, proto-Aquitanian, Ambrosian or the later forms like Beneventan etc. Since you did rarely react, others took over there.
Concerning Mozarabic notation, there are some sources who mention a link between Gallican chant (French local customs before the Frankish reform) and Visigothic chant, but we have no theoretical sources from Andalusia, but a really sophisticated system of liturgical books which had not been used elsewhere. The Gallican elements are litanies called «preces», certain local neume shapes not in use elsewhere and the genre Benedictio (apokryphic parts of prophet Daniel, better known to Byzantine musicologists as ode 7 and 8 among the cantica) in connection with OT readings which did exist as well in Milan and Benevento, but with local psalmody which is definitey older than the official Frankish psalmody taught by the tonaries.
If your approach to Byzantine music integrates Old Church Slavonic music palæography, you have to face sematic notation (znamennaya notaciya) where triphonia is prevailing (very likely an impact from the Russian book kondakar' which integrated the asmatikon, but neither in the Sicilian way of the scriptorium of Messina nor according to the composition of the classical kontakarion-psaltikon, the kontakarion in the narrow sense as a collection of kontakia was a separate part composed in three sections miney, fasten and flower triod like it was used in the unnotated book kontakarion-tropologion, while it had other parts for the psaltic and asmatic chant).
But I am glad to read that you are no longer cross with me.
When I become sometimes very detailed here at Musicologie médiévale, it is due to a serious decline I observed in current musicology. Usually the old handbooks, although outdated in many aspects, are made much better than the current ones. It is just an example, but there you can see it very clearly.
Please allow me just one remark, you wrote that this blog is supposed to be open for Gregorianists and that you prefer to talk just about Ancient Greek music theory (translated as harmonics in English) without bothering them with the terminology of chant theory. Apart from the fact, that none of them had ever dared to answer you here, I simply wondered, how you could ever make that magic trick of such a separation. Terminologically speaking you might make difference between harmonics (αἱ ἁρμονικαὶ) and the application on contemporary music which is the Greek origin of the term music, even in English (ἡ μουσική, Arab. muziqī) whether church or maqām' music (before 1400 the modal Arabic term was naġme in plural)… Is it allowed to use the term genus (τὸ γένος) in combination with the term to change between different genera (ἡ μεταβολή κατὰ γένος), or am I supposed to look here at beautIful diagrams, if I ever dared to use them?
Without any doubt the music theory, however badly it might be taught at universities, derives from a Greek terminology, in Latin you might only have the choice to translate a term like ἡ φωνή into Latin like voces (φωναὶ) like in the treatises of sound steps (K-J Sachs "Klangschrittlehre") or to use it transliterated as a loanword (phonai), look up in LmL «phthongus» (ὁ φθόγγος) which was used as a loanword in most Latin treatises.
Anyway I apologise carefully for discussing with you the nomenclature of Old Byzantine notation (you started it, but you see that I can do so without using difficult terms too often), and I tell you a well-known secret here: never confuse palæo Frankish notation with Lotharingian, and even if the former looks archaic, it is not older than the formed out neume system of Laon notation! Partly because the latter was also used as ekphonetic notation, and one of the oldest sources of palæo Frankish notation is a treatise of Aurelian's tonary written at his abbey—the Abbey Saint-Amand.
Now you are really prepared to talk to them!
I wish you a happy continuation here, whether in the heat or in the cold!
Oliver
No problem at all about the posting order, Oliver! I am reposting my reply here simply to restore the chronological flow of our discussion for the readers, while adding a brief clarification regarding the Chartres fragment and its original provenance from the Mount Athos monastery of Megiste Lavra (=Lavra Γ.67) manuscript. This clarified reposting of mine is happening now. Just for the information of the readers, my first answer to him earlier had already been published at 3:58, whereas Oliver's second post today (his first post at 3:23), as it appears currently, was published—as one can verify below—at 7:36 on August 3, 2026.
Dear Oliver,
Thanks for the clarification. Just to be absolutely clear: I never meant to imply that you had insulted me in the past. My comment was simply a general reminder about maintaining a welcoming environment for everyone on this platform, not a personal critique.
I wrote in my last post:
“And do not forget it again, my dear Oliver: you are not disturbing me. Feel free to write and criticize ideas, methodologies, and the like on medieval music as you see fit, as long as it is done without, of course, any personal insults on this platform. You are also welcome to use this space to inform both me and this blog's readers about your current or upcoming projects and books.”
I certainly hope you didn't get the impression that I felt personally insulted by you in any way; that was not the case at all. As I said, I value your insights and you are always welcome to share your musicological work and projects here.
Your critique of "global musicology," the ideological traps of postmodernism, and your personal academic memories from Paris and Bucharest make for an engaging theoretical discussion.
However, my initial observation was much more grounded and strictly factual. You explicitly wrote that the manuscript containing the list of the signs was preserved there (in Chartres). My point was geographical: that crucial list is famously found in the Lavra Γ.67 manuscript on Mount Athos, not in France. Only “a fragment” of this Lavra manuscript was kept in Chartres before its unfortunate destruction. This is said because you wrote:
“Now Byzantine history, I understand your problems with Old Byzantine notation whose names "Chartres" (because the manuscript with a list of its signs was preserved there) and "Coislin" to honour a certain bishop of Metz…”
No matter how many ideological layers, neo-colonial theories, or academic perspectives one synthesizes, a manuscript on Mount Athos cannot simultaneously be in France. It’s a straightforward error of location, not a deep debate about "Eastern" or "Western" schools. But don't worry, the summer heat gets to the best of us!
Dear Pavlos
I hope you had a nice time at the beach. Although I can hardly say that I got used to the heat, I live without any TV and I am not very scared by heat, at least much less than by earthquakes… I also would like to apologise that the order of our correspondence was partly disturbed by posting this after you had already answered.
Please be aware that you are very easy insulted, but if "I did insult" you, I never did it with any intention, I am interested in musicological exchange not in you as a private person (also for the simple reason I do not know you enough, not enough for being motivated to insult you, just to let you know if there was a misunderstanding, it is up to you to communicate, what gave you the impression that I would ever insult you out of a mean motive). Thus, whenever you turned here into a whosps' nest, I felt just forced to turn away, because I would not waste any energy in such misunderstandings which were obvious to anyone here except you (you usually needed some time to understand that).
The last time I tried to exchange with you at this blog, I simply gave up. I freely admit that and after having expressed my admiration for your blog, the polite side of this encounter was anyway done.
And with "Chartres", you probably need to trust me a little bit more, but it is in two ways arbitrary (and irrelevant to an Eastern focus as well as those details you mentioned here, who was the scholar who left part of a manuscript in library x):
First, because Chartres might have a clear meaning for scholar of Western chant (who associates with it the cathedral and the responsorium «Stirps iesse» composed by Fulbert de Chartres, and definitely the local organa which developed in this school during the 11th century), but it does not ring any bell for a "Byzantine musicologist" (26 years ago, when Maria Alexandru finished her doctoral thesis with Christian Troelsgård, director of MMB in Copenhagen, she would have said the "Occidental" and the "Greek school", nowadays she uses the latter term, counting herself probably closer to the Greek school after having lived and taught so many years in Thessaloniki educated by the Occidental school, but the term was chosen to integrate both "schools" avoiding the term insinuated here "scholar of Eastern chant"). Her term in any case is far from neutral…
Second, Chartres is also virtual, because the library and many of its manuscripts were damaged by the war and many sources only can still be considered thanks to photos and microfilms made of them (unlike the burnt parts of the fonds Coislin which are definitely lost).
You missed completely my point (shiting corinths would be the idiomatic German expression) that both schools of notating hint at a certain provenance which is much more relevant for a historian than a palaeographic classification operating with bizarre terms "Chartres" or "Coislin", if you perceive them for probably good reasons too much as "occidental" or even colonial! As I wrote, just make your own one, if my suggestion did not satisfy you (you could even chose the name of one sign of "Coislin" notation which was definitely the most important, and you even offered a donkey bridge to your students that this sign, widely used later, was deriving from there).
But you are right, this network is a much better choice than many other ones, especIally because it is free from censorship (even if the edit function is really missing here as you already pointed out, in my groups you can edit as often as you need and you are always welcome there, after you got tired here). And I turn once more to the topic "Byzantine musicologist" and why I have been always between the chairs. The real question is, why does there exist just the option "either or"? Who can say that just Greek or just Latin music palaeography is enough, even to understand an "eurocentric" history of music? The word "occident" for it was chosen by Eggebrecht and he was criticised for it most harshly by his own students (so far about "the North"), but what is about Old Church Slavonic, Hebrew, Arabic and Persian music palaeography?
You are right, simplicity is always good, if it is the result from many years of profound research and not just simple-minded, anyway my best professors were always those who had no need to exclude anyone in a discussion, whatever the level of a student or guest was. Do not forget, it takes a lot to get there, even if these professors behaved mostly like clowns. But being between the chairs does not mean that you do not know the different methodical ways to discuss similar problems under completely different terms, but you are the one to understand different perspectives and also what they have in common. And as a last step you can do the synthesis of these perspectives and move on, as it has been once one of the noble aims of the Cantus Planus study group. Yes, Charles Atkinson would be up to its standards. I have already quoted from his own translations taken from his handouts in discussions here (I was also invited together with him in Paris, where I sang for him Gerda Wolfram's "Byzantine examples"), but there is also another thing which makes a difference to others: I do not need to go to Cantus Planus to meet him. The last time I met him, was in Bucharest at a conference of the Studia musicologica balcanica study group held in 2019. As so often you are running through an open door.
You say it is "easy to talk to scholars of Western chant about Byzantine music" alluding to another very weird way to use terms like post-Byzantine or using the adjective "Byzantine" for a currently existing living tradition. There we have the useful term "heritage" (or «patrimonio» in Romanic languages) to talk about a current historical presence. For the latter you must understand that Orthodox cantors are envied by "Latin" ones... but be assured my essay with a bunch of ideological terms exposed right in its title is the most read among my Greek colleagues and students (with a positive resonance, because it is really tough stuff: an archon protopsaltis forced into emigration in 1964, quotes an embellishment of Nât-i Mevlana, the beginning of a Mevlevi ceremony in Turkey, while singing an echos tritos cherouvikon, it is like a hidden reference to a dervish friend). You see, a real conversation which leads you somewhere, is always possible. But you need a minimum of confidence.
But if "it is remarkably easy to talk about Byzantine music" with those whom you assume that they might never had a proper introduction into it (unfortunately the suspicion might prove as founded, after Floros emiritated in Hamburg and his student Zannos left for Corfu to teach something completely different), what makes it so impossible for you to talk with me about Western chant, after you expressed a clear opinion about how to name local ways of notating neumes? Do not be shy, outsider opinions attract usually more attention than an approach where we even smell a certain school. I personally enjoy always this privilege and much tolerance, when I am in the Balkans, also because they know as well as me that I can do what they believe they are not allowed to do (just have a look at my essay about psaltic art in Bulgaria). But you are right, at the beginning they always feel provoked—just reading the abstract of my proposal is usually enough.
I personally stay away from terms like "global" and I can also explain, why. There is no problem to address something local as long as you understand, why it is local and what is the precise territory you are referring to. But "global musicology" was coined by some misled colleagues in ethnomusicology, who were asked by some universities whose budget was plundered by neoliberal politicians, that they should teach as one professor all kinds of music of this planet. Thanks to this colleague, the vacant position was called "Global Musicology". Now there is a problem and I can only hope she finally learnt the necessary lesson! If you apply for such a position seriously believing that you are up to the job, you disqualify yourself from the very beginning, because true knowledge is only, after you had understood your own limits. The better way is to bargain with your application for the budget which is needed to invite enough guests who allow your students to choose their topic however they like (definitely after having been well advised) and to ensure that they will have a competent jury (partly composed with external tutors) for making their degree and to establish an argumentative level useful for their forthcoming.
"Global" refers to globalism and simply means neo-colonialism according to the style of American misanthropists. An ethnologist who is not capable to make this connection between Postmodernism as a bad excuse for ignorance (which just gave academic entrance first to Posthumanism and later even to Transhumanism), is unfit for the own discipline which had once developed from the colonial genre of travel writing. If an ethnologist talks about "sustainabilty", you must be very careful and ask the person what it means (probably the person was naive, lacked phantasy and just meant something like the own fieldwork aims to support the future of a living tradition), but if your bank mentions that word you should be alarmed and inform yourself better about the projects, where they invest your money (and looking for an alternative). Otherwise, you are simply forced to merge against the unethical. During the last years I have seen it with my own eyes and more than once.
Just to conclude, our second effort to speak to each other passed by splitting a hair about what was once at a certain library at Chartres. I take this for a well-known communicative deficit which is so typical for scholarly unwillingness to get engaged there. Maybe another time…
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 8 Next