Neil Moran wrote:
One would assume that Atkinson’s The Critical Nexus: Tone-System, Mode, and Notation in Early Medieval Music would be the study which one would consult regarding the role of John Damascene in the development of the Church modes. Musicologists dealing with Eastern chant attribute to him the organization of the Oktoechos, a liturgical book containing sets of hymns for each of the eight modes . Atkinson however does not even mention him but rather, referring to M. Haas, states “one should be extremely cautious in 'backdating' the origins of the Byzantine oktoechos” . The statement is symptomatic of the approach that researchers on Gregorian chant take in dealing with so-called Byzantine influences. Yes, the Eastern origin of the church modes cannot be denied but it was supposedly only in the West that the full potential of the system of the eight modes was realized. Hence Atkinson’s “that medial signatures or other modulatory signs are not found in Western manuscripts, however, is rather telling evidence against an immediate translation of Byzantine practice” and “the likelihood that the Western practice was taken over from the East seems a bit remote” (cf. his parapteres study). One would appreciate a simple acknowledgement from Gregorian scholars that the system of 8 church modes in use in at the time of John of Damascus (c. 676 – 749) is compatible with the 8 church modes of Gregorian chant. Once that is established perhaps it might be possible to proceed to a recognition of the numerous instances of Byzantine melodies transmitted in Old Roman chants on the same texts as well as the recognition of the close connection that exists between the Latin modi mesi and the Greek echoi mesoi.
Bibliography:
Replies
But I remember a very similar case to yours during the conference at Cassino. Unfortunately Roger Reynolds did not feel well, so his paper about canon law was read by Matthew Peattie in his absence (see the abstracts). When he was reading a canon law concerning chant that the singers should sing in a simple way and with their natural voice, avoiding singing with a high feminite voice with a lot of manneristic and artificial effects, some participants started laughing, reminded by Umberto Eco's rule that it is usually forbidden, what really did happen.
Looks like Orthodox singers today obey a similar law today and they do not like to be reminded by the fact, that Eunochs were part of Byzantine court culture. A Bulgarian friend who has a very deep and male voice, started a family éclat, after he found out, that the singer we were listening (Aziz), was not a woman, but gipsy and transvestite. This was simply too much!
It was not a response of outrage, but they never left the labyrinth, because they could not wait to let me show them the way out in the second part which was well prepared from my side :D But an important result during my field research anyway.
Nanna Schiodt and I get this same sort of response of outrage from Orthodox clergy with our documentation that the singers in the Hagia Sophia during the 12th century were all castrati!
Honestly, you are such fools that I would like to ask you to read my doctoral thesis, because you have the right passion to read it (despite the fact that I wrote it for other fools in Berlin) ;)
If we would like to believe the "enemy" of the cathedral rite (I mean the author of the Hagiopolites), the system of the Asma had 16 echoi and not 10 like the Hagiopolitan oktoechos (4 kyrioi, 4 plagioi, 2 phthorai, and no mesoi - mesos is rather a term for describing kinships between the echoi). This came later with the papadikai, when the mixed rite replaced the former tradition of Constantinople, after the court and the patriarchate had returned from exile during the 1260s. But it was continued elsewhere, for example in Saloniki. Also in Southern Italy, but Italo-Greek singers went their own ways during the Staufen period, the cherouvikon in Γ.γ. VII (later addition about 1400) is certainly too short, if you compare it to the earlier versions of the cherouvikon asmatikon in the new chant book akolouthiai. It has about 20 pages!
Later Constantinopolitan authors like Manouel Chrysaphes and Gabriel Hieromonachos have written their treatises within the tradition of papadike, because the Hagiopolitan oktoechos reform was finally accepted, but not before. Concerning the extract that you send me, it uses the Hagiopolitan terminology and it was a hypothesis by Gerda Wolfram (see her article "oktoichos" in the current MGG edition), that the Constantinopolitan mesoi as own echoi were reconstructed by signatures of the plagios or the kyrios. For kyrios the term mesos was used to describe a lower position with respect to the finalis of the kyrios, but from the plagios the term "mesos" was replaced by another name which describe the exact degree with respect to the finalis of the plagios.
Concerning the troparion τοῦ δείπνου σοῦ, we already had this discussion around Neil Moran's essays and mine about the Western intonation AIANEOEANE. As far as I could study the version in Byzantine Round notation given in Neil Moran's essay, the mesos tetartos was expressed by a phthora nana. In later Ottoman times it was also called according to makam acem phthora atzem. It was associated with the Western world, because the abundant use of b fa in the Tritus sounded for Greek and Turkish ears not diatonic, but enharmonic, because the MI was always attracted by FA during cadences. At least in the melismatic style of singing the troparion without psalm as communion chant (koinônikon) or offertory (anti-cherouvikon), the old troparion in echos devteros has turned into another enharmonic tonality which could not be farer from the melos of the diatonic echos devteros. Here the elxeis MI which is shifting, becomes finalis and basis MI (in a slightly lower intonation). But phthora nana in the tetraphonic system like SOL–RE–MI–FA–SOL–RE (the proper solfeggio/parallage according the papadike would be "neagie—neanes—nana—agia—ananeanes") can be mesos tetartos. So it is SOL—FA or echos plagios tetartos triphônos or SOL—MI or echos plagios tetartos diphônos, but definitely not SOL—RE. You are right, here it does not matter, whether the finalis of devteros is kyrios or plagios. If E is plagios devteros and the tone system has changed by the phthora nana on F into triphônia, the pitch of the kyrios devteros, its finalis is expected on a low b natural, is no longer available, because it is replaced now by b flat and the enharmonic tetrachord is far from the diatonic one.
But it is true that all tritos modes and the plagios tetartos are "destroyed" by the phthora nana in the living tradition of the oktoechos nowadays. The diatonic varys does never avoid the tritone between the first and the fourth degree (triphônos), but it was only sung by singers of the old school who died during the 80s, like Thrasyvoulos Stanistsas or Dionysios Firfiris. You might read about it in my article for Cantus Planus 2004.
I once sang the cherouvikon in echos varys during the Divine Liturgy in the Greek-Orthodox church of Naples. I was following a model used by Thrasyvoulos Stanitsas, because it can be sung in a very short time without being boring. So I had to use his intonation on B flat because of the pentachord between kyrios (F) and plagios (B flat or "zô yphes"). The priest and the other singers were lost for the next 30 minutes, because Constantinople… that's another world! Today everybody is used to intone the diatonic varys on B natural, this is according to the New Method and the concept of Chrysanthos and, by the way, an adoption of certain makamlar. You see, how paradox, interesting and confused the traditions became during the Ottoman empire.
Everything which I said about Atkinson was referred to the Byzantine Round notation. The Slavic kontakarion notation of the 12th century is a completely different system and has very few in common with the later kryuki notation. It has on own system of 12 glas which is organized in another wheel without any resemblence to the Koukouzelian wheel. Even experienced experts which I am not, have no proper understanding of the medial signatures, but they recognized a complete different use which made it impossible to translate them by the medial signatures of Byzantine Round notation. At least we could learn from Neil Moran's synopsis for the troparion τὸν σταύρον σοῦ, that the Kievan notators do not even use the same hypostaseis than the Greek psaltes.
In addition as for comparisons between melodies of the post-Byzantine period with melodies in the earliest Byzantine manuscripts, then why when looking at Orthodox Church music in its totality, the Greek liturgical choral tradition and its Russian counterpart seem to represent two entirely oppositional complexities? Apart from the manner in which the readings from the Old and New Testaments are recited, it would appear that the two realms share little in common and have no relationship with one another. In addition it is an indisputable fact that the Russians acquired the Byzantine scared chant repertoire when they accepted Christianity and that the cradle of Russian church music is to be sought in Byzantium. Nevertheless the musical development of sacred music within the two traditions took place along two very different pathways. (The origins of Russian Music, 2009, p. 1).
Regarding the oktoechos, the first to demonstrate that the 10 modes of the asmatikon existed not in theory but also in actually was C. Floros in his ground-breaking study of Die Enzifferung der Kondakarischen Notation (available since 2009 in an English translation). As for the 16 modes of the repertory of the Asma sung by the castrati of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, it is doubtful that they will ever be reconstructed since the singers of the Hagia Sophia had to flee after the Hagia Sophia became a Latin cathedral in 1204 and the central ambo was destroyed. The Codex Messina gr. 161 is one of the few surviving documents from which I was able to transcribe the Ordinary Chants of the Mass in my dissertation. Most of the other chants are unica which made the task of transcription more difficult. As for medial signatures or other modulatory signs, where did Atkinson find the evidence that they were included in the modal system transmitted to the West in the 8th century? Medial signatures were not necessary for short syllabic chants and even in more melismatic chants, such as in all the Hypakoae of the Oktoechos transcribed by Floros in accordance with Old Russian kondakaria, they are infrequent. Atkinson seems to grasping at straws. Floros writes: ‘…die lateinische Terminologie der medial Modi … ist nicht einheitlich. … Und man braucht nicht Anhänger einer byzantinischen Ursprungshypothese zu sein, um zu erkennen, daß zwischen modi mesi und den byzantinischen Echoi mesoi ein enger Zusammenhang besteht’ ( Floros, ‘Byzantinische Musiktheorie’, 310–11).
Oliver Gerlach a dit :
Dear Luca
Not only, it is within the context of Floros' parapteres and Neil Moran's new publication, but we three had already several interesting correspondences about the topic. As I said earlier, the idea can already found in Oliver Strunk's second essay about the Byzantine tonal system which was first published in 1945:
Strunk, William Oliver: "Intonations and Signatures of the Byzantine Modes", Musical Quarterly 31 (1945), pp. 339-355.
But if I understood you wrong, please tell me what is in your eyes the simplification of the finalis concept among Frankish cantors of the 11th century. Concerning the offertory "Hodie christus natus est" I agree with you so far: The finalis is on the second degree from the basis, according to the Greek terminology an enaphônos. The only question is, is the melody based on FA or SOL?
Concerning the three tone systems used by Byzantine psaltes and how they work together, I already wrote you everything (please have a look at the fourth paragraph):
https://gregorian-chant.ning.com/group/vieuxromain/forum/topics/abso...
Dear Neil
Charles Atkinson was not wrong in both observations quoted by you: "medial signatures or other modulatory signs are not found in Western manuscripts, however, is rather telling evidence against an immediate translation of Byzantine practice".
He just realized that the transfer between different notation systems, especially from the Byzantine to the Latin neumes, could possibly corrupt the melodies. The main difference between the Hagiopolites and theoretical tonaries is that Greek psaltes discuss the practical problem of how to change from one mode to another within the melos in one composition, while Latin cantors tend to discuss how to classify a certain chant according to the oktoechos, as we still do in the discussion about the correct reconstruction of melody and its mode in the Old Beneventan offertory "Hodie christus natus est".
Medial signatures were mainly used in the book sticherarion, because melodies of stichera and doxastika change the echos according to the medial signatures. These changes were usually communicated by final cadences (while definitely final cadences finish the chant and communicate to the priests or Hieromonks behind the ikonostasis to continue). These final cadences were often not on the final degree used by the definitely final cadences, but more often on the basis degree of the new echos. This way a change could be communicated easily to the ison singers (if the ison was really sung, is another question which I will not touch here). Hence, the discussion of relationships between the echoi was motivated by the practice of these transitions. In the books heirmologion and oktoechos there are very rarely used medial signatures, and certainly no medial intonations like in the psaltikon and asmatikon, because there is no need for them, because both books provide the melodic models for the melos of a certain echos. In the older practice the main signature was already enough, because these models were part of the oral tradition and a certain model was chosen according to the main signature.
The first generation of fully notated chant manuscripts, written by Frankish cantors during the 10th century, are much more detailed in any respect than any Byzantine notation, and tonaries were usually attached as an appendix. The direct modal classification of chant can be rather studied in breviaries and sacramentaries.
From this point of view, I can easily agree with Charles Atkinson, when he said that “the likelihood that the Western practice was taken over from the East seems a bit remote”. Despite of the differences in notation used as the medium of written transmission, Western cantors did indeed, but there is enough reason to doubt that they did it properly. On the other hand, Byzantine notation before the reform of the 19th century was always more or less stenographic, so it is hard to reconstruct medieval manuscripts of Greek chant without any proper knowledge of the melos, that has been lost with the oral transmission known among medieval psaltes. This explains, why Byzantinists pay nevertheless so much interest for Western transcriptions of Eastern chant.
The main difficulty was certainly the Carolingian cantors' need for a simplification which was the need for a precise modal classification by the definition of one tetrachord of the finales: D–E–F–G. And this need was never so clearly expressed than by the form of the book tonary. Peter Jeffery remarked that the oktoechos classification was deduced for the Roman repertory a posteriori. This is certainly not the simplification of the 11th century, and concerning your identification of the mesoi by a figura or differentia section, you will certainly not assume that Frankish cantors of the 11th century abandoned the concept of differentia within a Cluniac chant reform.
The later simplification can rather be found among Hermannus Contractus' and Guido of Arezzo's perception of the Dasia tonal system (the Byzantine term is systêma kata tetraphôniam) as myopic, because they did no longer understand the concept of absonia in the Carolingian treatises Musica and Scolica enchiriadis. But it is indeed the tonal system that this passage taken from alia musica about the ἦχοι is talking.
Unlike the systema teleion the tetartos octave has a major seventh as in C-c. So the pitch which had to be tuned "according to the melos" to become a degree of the mode tritos was f sharp, to make the octave to basis and finalis F or B flat. I am not sure that this was really identical with the system used by Roman cantors, because it would also mean that they were so precise that they also adopted the two Hagiopolitan phthorai, when they imported the Easter-Allelouiarion from Jerusalem. This is a very interesting question which nobody has asked so far.
On the other hand, this means nothing else, that the popular concept of tritos, which follows the Guidonian simplification as long as a cantor is always avoiding the tritone, is probably not according to the Carolingian reform of the 8th century.
Concerning your expectations of the mesoi the Hagiopolites is certainly not satisfying. It only uses categories like mesos, which is a medial degree under the finalis (kyrios or plagios), or diphônos or triphônos, which is the third or fourth degree with regard to the finalis, to describe kinships and relations between the modes of the Hagiopolitan oktoechos. The Hagiopolites also mentions a tonal "system of the Asma" which is referring to the Constantinopolitan tradition and the book asmatikon (choir book). Unlike the Hagiopolites which consists of 4 kyrioi, 4 plagioi, and 2 phthorai, the system of the Asma has 4 kyrioi, 4 plagioi, 4 mesoi, and 4 phthorai. It also says that the mesoi were originally not subjected to the oktoechos, but to the kyrioi echoi.
The assumption that the phthorai and mesoi have to be defined according to the eight modes of the oktoechos, is a result of the Jerusalem practice which organize the church year in eight week cycles dedicated to the oktoechos. But within the oktoechos order of the book heirmologion, each of both phthorai appear at least in four modes.
As far as I followed the debates, Michel Huglo recognized in his late and important essay for the "Geschichte der Musiktheorie" (published in 2000 at SIM, Berlin) that there was an earlier time when the Frankish Empire got interested in the Hagiopolitan oktoechos than the synode held 787, during which Pope Adrian accepted the Eastern octoechos reform. This synode confirmed the Octoechos reform of 692, before John of Damaskus became monk at Mar Saba. It was the visit of a Byzantine legacy at Aachen, an episode which was referred long time ago by Oliver Strunk (first published 1964).
It is also interesting that there is not really an Old Roman tonary, which could testify a Roman reception of the Hagiopolitan oktoechos. But if we compare the Latin reception of the Greek oktoechos (e.g. in the alia musica treatise), and understand the difference to the Latin or Carolingian use of it, than we will easily recognize that Old Roman melodies rather follow the Greek one.
Concering Charles Atkison's Critical nexus I realized that he did not really understand the Greek terminology in the relevant passage of alia musica. Here you get mine:
I hope that this Latin source which is earlier than any source that we have today of the Hagiopolites, might calm down even an anxious colleague like Max Haas.
Alia musica: Anonymous (1965, 196f).
Quotation according the digital edition of Thesaurus Musicarum Latinarum, available at
http://www.chmtl.indiana.edu/tml/9th-11th/ALIAMU_TEXT.html.