Medieval Greek Chant Theoretical Streams as Scholia on the Harmonica of Claudios Ptolemaios: The Online Sources

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

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).

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).

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).

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 g^p-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 g^p 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).

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).

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.

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).

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.

An improvement and on Mesarites’ “nonsensicality” ca. 1200

The last sentence, as footnote no 8, of the main text of this blog needs an improvement about the results of a “potential polarization” (as conceptual process not as a “finished/completed” status): So, instead of

[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.

please read:

[8*] Giving room even to a potential polarization (not “sterilization,” I hope), i.e. an a posteriori image of not a direct but a remote interaction, in other words, this could be a case of ‘glass half empty and glass half full’ within the same proposition.

This interaction, as we said, was a direct one because a good number of those personalities were Church people and intellectuals at the same time. The medieval framework is different than ancient times and any over-projection of “markers of differentiation,” in order to denote “distance” instead of the various – partially - “mutually explanative” environments (full complementarity was not always the case), is misleading. Indeed a systematic polarization of a “Christian heritage” with – the documented - ancient Greek lore and knowledge was not always the case. Additionally as we already said: to suppose that all these medieval intellectual efforts by, also, clerics are connected exclusively to a later movement as a product of a “popularization” of the Quadrivium-texts (only then?) is the result of a methodological canonicity where “our narrative” is juxtaposed, uncritically, to the survived sources [*] not leaving room for possible analogous musical processes within the earlier well-known various movements (labeled as “Byzantine renaissances”) of archaizing “Academizations” of teaching in Byzantium. To describe the whole millennium of Byzantine music via the “lens” of 14^th century Papadikai is, the least, very ambitious and optimistic and as we well demonstrated predispose… the findings. The case of the “unknown” and “not seen,” by Byzantine music scholars of the 20^th c., small chant treatise (one of the very oldest best dated) found in this blog within a MS (Vat. Gr. 191, see the description) with ancient Greek music theory is revealing enough.

[*] We have not in our disposal [as in the chant of Old Rome] any extensive “early” Greek theoretical source; even of ancient Greek music theory.

So let us have a look to the earliest, until now, documented, case where Harmonic Theory was involved “seriously” and in a passionate way, to Chant theory, within an Academic environment i.e. not exactly as a product of an increasing verbalization and popularization (among whom?) of the Quadrivium-texts but in already “well formed” theoretical systems. This is an enlarged, with more material, version of the first part of my 2001 paper referred to previously in this blog.

------------------------------------------------------

There is not any reason for us to describe the music(s) of the Byzantines in a grandiose way. It is better to consider them in context. The way Nikolaos Mesarites (ca. 1200) describes, among others, some disciplines as taught in the Patriarchal School in the second bigger Church of the City i.e. the Holy Apostles (in the same location of the nowadays Fatih Camii) consists, among others, of an illustration of the different level of passion of Byzantines in relation to some disciplines. Arithmetic and Geometry for example are described not in a very high level of passion (I cannot have any opinion on the scholarly level of theirs in these two disciplines); these two fields were really an issue of intellectuals, not of the people. For Mesarites, the case of Grammar and mainly Medicine seems to be described in a somewhat “louder” level; especially the teachings about the seats (in brain or heart) of the objects of sensory faculties. Moreover, as for some intellectuals of the time, supported by considerable masses of common people, we reasonably can say that about the theologico-philosophical/dogmatic issues the scholarly level, and the passions of common people expressed, was much higher. The same we can say considering the passion that Mesarites, as an eyewitness, describes with his, now, well-known vivid and atypical style, the case of the teaching(s) of ecclesiastical chant in relation to ancient Greek music theory. If we look closer we will see that things weren’t the way Egon Wellesz tried to explain in E. Wellesz, A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography, 2^nd Revised and Enlarged Edition 1961, [I make use of the reprint of 1980]). So I’ll give an extensive passage of him (since it contains a translation of two relative passages of Mesarites) in order to understand of what I am talking about (as for the Greek text I use the text of Downey [=D, in “Transactions of the American Philosophical Society,” Vol. 47.6, 1957 here; his English translation, is found on pp. 861-897], but in the modern Greek monotonic system in order to minimize compatibility problems of the electronic fonts. The MSS of the Mesarites’ text in Biblioteca Ambrosiana are now online, the A, F 93 sup. and the B, F 96 sup. ; square brackets, emphasis in bold and underlining mine). So, Wellesz’ text reads:

[p. 62] … In close connection with these subjects [dialectic and rhetoric] elementary training in music was given. [then Mesarites’ first extract, IX., is given:] ‘On the other, western side you can see hymn - singers with children, almost babes, stammering, just took from the breast. These infants open their mouths and talk wisdom and rehearse the praise of God the King of all, and of his saints, who imitate his Life and Passion. [D. 2] Going a little further you will find with young men just emerged from boyhood, singing a well - shaped song [D= sweet melody, εύρυθμον μέλος] and a well - sounding harmony [D= harmonius song, σύμφωνον αρμονίαν] with their throat, mouth, tongue, with their lips and teeth. [D. 3] They make conductor’s movements with their hands in order to guide the beginner in following the mode [ήχων] with his voice, that he may not slip away from the melodic line [μη του συντόνου εξολισθαίνειν], drop out of rhythm [ρυθμού καταπίπτειν], nor fall away from the other voices, nor sing out of tune [διαμαρτάνειν του εμμελούς].’ [Just after this excerpt Wellesz continues:]

Continuing his description of the church of Apostles, Mesarites suggests that teaching the theory of music [p. 63] is completely separated from elementary teaching in singing as described above. After dealing with the school of geometry, Mesarites draws a picture of the students who debate about tones and intervals. [then Wellesz’ second extract of Mesarites, XLII.9, reads:] ‘They argue with each other discussing terms unfamiliar to most people [τοις πολλοίς] or even unheard of, such as nete’s, hypate’s, and parhypate’s, mese’s and paramese’s instead [αντί] of strings; further they say that the interval which they call diatessaron is denominated epitritos, in agreement with the arithmeticians [επονομαζόμενος, be aware of this word, it is important for the echoi of the Greek chant]; but the interval called diapente seems to them to be a kind of hemiolios, corresponding to the diapente of the arithmeticians. And also, why the octave [ογδόη fem., more accurate translation: why the 8^th string] is called [επικέκληται] diapason, why the first mode [ο των ήχων πρώτος] in it [in “her”] is found to be the principal, why they call [επωνόμασθαι] the fifteenth string disdiapason, and why the whole instrument is named fifteen - stringed when it has sixteen strings.’ [And Wellesz concludes:]

From this account, which is almost entirely nonsensical, it becomes evident that Greek musical theory had no connection whatever with Byzantine music [only to the part of Byzantine music preferred by Wellesz, of course, because Mesarites reports just the opposite] in the twelfth century. The latter [in a mutual exclusive way?] was taught merely as [always?] practical singing, the former was part of mathematical science. [then some elaboration with no citations is given] Mesarites drew his knowledge, directly or indirectly, from passages in the pseudo-Aristotelian Problems, the Eisagoge of Gaudentius, and the Encheiridion of Nicomachus, without understanding the subject-matter he cited. Not only did he no longer understand the meaning of the subject he tried [as we will see his piece of information is accurate and by no means “nonsensical”] to explain to the reader, but we may also accept as a fact [why?] his view that in his day the terms nete, hypate and parhypate were mere names, or were completely unknown to [all of?] them. They had no significance [in an ahistorical prospect?] in actual Byzantine musical practice [it is the same prospect for someone today to say that, according to her interests, the existence of not rudimentary elements in modern music theory/ies has no significance in actual singing; the 12 notes of piano and some, “the useful ones, to her,” conventions are enough; in a way “she is right” just for the kind of music(s) heard, lively of course, by her!], and were only found in discussions on topics taken from classical authors.

This is the way Wellesz ends the chapter with the title THE BYZANTINE CONCEPTION OF MUSIC. I’ll try to be as brief as I can.

Wellesz’ (and Downey’s) translation, at least, of the word ογδόη=eighth (fem.) with the term octave (a word with modern music connotations) is misleadingly “neutral,” and draws his reader away from the, at least, ancient Greek musicotheoretical environment. So let us have a look on his text (I will not propose more corrections in the translation of Wellesz, in order to avoid confusion):

α) First and foremost, Mesarites (from a wealthy family of bureaucratic origins with knowledge of Greek classics and later antiquity scholars) is openly very passionate about musical issues. For us, at first level, it is not so important if he (later a Metropolitan of Ephesos) had a higher education in relation to chant but 1) how (due to his personal interests) he transmits his observations and mainly, 2) if - since these two are not mutual exclusive - he is an accurate observer, “as he was less bound by literary convention than his contemporaries, he writes with a refreshing directness.” (from the recent book of M. Angold). Instead of “trying,” according to Wellesz, to explain an issue he does not understand, he explains it in a “populist” way. The editor and translator of the text Downey (1957) gives such a view next to the “confident” and exclusive reading of Wellesz. In the footnote 10 of p. 895, Downey writes: ...it is not impossible that the account which he [Mesarites] gives of the debates of the theorists is deliberately presented as nonsense. To understand such kind of practices and attitudes (see also Bydén p. 233, but thinking additionally the Vat. gr. 192 in this blog and Pachymeres’ treatise) at those times one can read the very beginning of Bryennios’ later treatise; this man is almost fully aware of how he will be treated (Jonker’ translation; emphasis and square brackets mine):

“…for I am not of those who are wont to distort and paraphrase cunningly what has been said by others correctly and clearly, on the pretence of saying something original. … yet I mention it because such people, even when they are absolutely incapable of grasping a certain scientific matter, endeavor to minimise [εξουδενούν] and ridicule [or calumniate, διαβάλλειν] this matter, hoping that thus it may seem to the masses [again, τοις πολλοίς, this wording is also attested in Planoudes’ conceptual sphere] and especially to those who generally hold all knowledge in contempt, that they are deprived of this knowledge not on account of the ineptitude of their minds, but because this knowledge is itself unreliable [σφαλερόν] and unprofitable [άχρηστον]; and therefore they are as eager as possible to consider it in many manners and to condemn out of hand, so to speak, those who apply themselves to it; and sometimes they simply use fallacious reasons, bringing up all the foolish arguments that they have been used before against this science by others of their kind.

As all this may be considered by means of the strings [χορδαίς] or tones [φθόγγοι] of the Complete Harmonic Tone-system [του τελείου του ηρμοσμένου θεωρείται συστήματος] it will be necessary to give first their number and the names that have been given to each of them….

Bryennios couldn’t imagine one more case: That his work would be treated only partially, as Harmonic Theory and not very “useful” to Octoechos phenomena and to a revealed in advance “actual Byzantine practice.” Let us return now to Mesarites remembering that the authorship of the “Ethopoiia of a Mathematician” (not in the sense of a modern mathematician, of course) is ascribed (Flusin, 2002) to him; this is another text where he “sketches” an unnamed, again, personality he does not like. In the same manner in our extract, once more, our observer, tries (yes, this time “tries” is an appropriate verb) to - in Bryennios’ wording- calumniate also the unnamed intellectuals, who posed such theorizings [1*], by demonstrating that all these things are “confusing” and sometimes “incompatible” when he reports that ‘the whole instrument [of the one “group” of such a debate/διαμάχης] is named fifteen - stringed when it has sixteen strings.’ But, the same could be said, provocatively, about Bryennios’ p. 69.13: … and also that this system is made up of two eight-stringed lyres [2X8=16], i.e. of fifteen strings, (fifteen notes, in Jonker’s translation) …

Interestingly, the passion in their debates, within one cultural environment (and the highest institutional level), is reported in more detail in the next chapter XLIII.1-3, which Wellesz failed to inform his readers about it as he didn’t realize that we have an important, in terms of consciousness, exchange here and, for sure, not a debate of nonsense. Indeed, these seriously debating people, as Mesarites reports, would ask for the judgment (and the elucidation of the matters of disagreement) of the then Patriarch John X Camateros. In the next XLIII.4-10, he describes the ecclesiastical and secular wisdom of this ecclesiastical figure. Especially for the secular knowledge, the abilities of Patriarch John are compared with other widely respected ancient authorities: with e.g. those of Nicomachos as an arithmetician, with Euclides as a geometrician and, yes, with Ptolemaios as, only (mainly because this is the matter of the debate), a μουσικός/musikós (there are also more reasons that Ptolemaios is cited only as Musikós). We do not informed if finally the Patriarch accepted to judge that musical debates but if this was the case then we understand the importance of Ptolemaios (also for Mesarites himself) as a criterion of appeasement than of a conclusive solution by one more personality of the “Christian heritage” (and legacy) John X Camateros, who belonged both to the Church, and the “scholarly circles.”

The existence of such kind of passionate attitudes leads to the opposite conclusion that one could see the medieval understanding(s) of ancient Greek music theory –in a misleadingly wholesale manner- as “strange” and nothing more than a not-useful nostalgic archaizing educational epitome; especially if we remember that the streams of Greek chant had their intellectual side (that used also ancient Greek material). In reality, Psellos himself, already in 11th century, expressed a well-known topos that denotes admiration and esteem to the width of ancient Greek music theorizing in relation to the then contemporary music. He wrote: “the kind of music which occupies our minds to-day is only a faint echo of the former.” (E. Wellesz p. 61) There are earlier Byzantine testimonies, escaped from Wellesz, of such a topos with more important documentation on this status of ancient Greek music and its medieval consideration(s) – certainly not only for educational purposes. Additionally, in our days we realize sometimes that ancient Greek music theory is considered monolithically as one, “the classical.”

[1*] The direct teachers of the children too have not to be excluded although they do not appear in the scene (see p.896 n. 2 of Donwey); Mesarites will write in the next chapter: now one thing, now another, is put forward for examination by the learners or by the teachers / μαθητιώντων ή και των διδασκόντων.

β) According to Mesarites those children argue about netes, hypates etc. “instead of strings”/αντί χορδών. Wellesz failed to realize the importance of the word instead/αντί of the extract, which means that, Mesarites reports, that there was one more (not only theoretical but also more widely known, especially by the audience of Mesarites’ text) way of determining the strings of, let’s say, a then psaltery/kithara alike instrument. Instruments with their tunings as a tool, at least, of scale instruction (as the term Kavália/chevalet we saw in this blog) should not be excluded - by using a declarative style- as something that belonged, exclusively, to the teachings of the “remote” “scholarly circles” and their behavior to intricate Byzantine chant phenomena. Moreover, because this extract of Mesarites uses the term eighth/ογδόη (in feminine gender, as the word string/χορδή is), a string numbering like 1^st string, 2^nd string…8^th string is attested (remember a similar, much older, case in the superscriptions of the book of Psalms [not mention the Babylonian case]). Later, in early 14^th c., Bryennios explains on p. 58.20ff. that an 8^th string can, also, “historically” be understood in relation to paramese and the disjunction phenomenon. I wrote, additionally, somewhere else here in MM, about the strings of an instrument with the name Musike (one of the possible “manuals/tools” for music instruction [the existence of more than one kind of “manuals” should not be ruled out since “instruction” was not, and is not, only scales]) as is described in the Hagiopolites treatise.

Moreover, in a boarder perspective, the existence of more than one types of numbering or, even, naming of the strings should not been excluded, perhaps separately for each instrument.

γ) Additionally, although for Mesarites the theoretical placement of protos echos on the 8th string, named “by them” Diapason, is presented as something not usual to the majority of the people, he perfectly understands that he reports about the relation of chant’s ordinals (1^st mode, 2^nd… plagal 1^st, plagal 2^nd,…) to their theoretical position in relation to some “strange” teachings expressed in that school. But for us, this is a report of another (then new?) theoretical stream of Greek chant, especially if we don’t choose to consider those teachers/students the way they are sketched. Additionally, because of α) and γ) we understand that Mesarites’ critique/provocation aimed mainly to this stream of the debating people. Furthermore, both “groups” because of β) used the “string factor” in their theorizing.

It is not, that is to say, a problematic of what such a “silly,” ca. 1200, theoretical stream/construction, with reference to ancient Greek music theory, had in relation to what “we” consider as “the actual Byzantine practice” (or an “eigentliche Musiklehre” within the Carolingians) in accordance to what we imagine as “the useful” part of it, but to understand (just as, e.g., in the Carolingian framework) all its theoretical streams; and this, not only 1) to understand the evolution of the Greek (or Latin [2*]) chant, but also 2) to have more material for reconstruction(s) or even restitution(s)[3*]. As far as for the majority of the Byzantine people all these not fully understood issues were just an alibi in order to join or belong to a certain “party with its own intellectuals” (or even, were “useless,” though in a different way for every single person). Such a case is, just, one more aspect to consider, not “the case.” So, I will not insist, here, to any reconstruction and on the position of those two streams in relation to the other theoretical streams; in this post, let us stick to the report of Mesarites and its “nonsensical” perspective (and its consequences) according to Wellesz.

As a matter of fact, Wellesz equated the supposed "nonsensical" character of Mesarites' narrative to the desired "nonsensical" relation – using, additionally, a decreasing process (e.g. “mere names, or completely absent”) - of an ancient Greek music theory (in my view: its several medieval readings) aspect of the chant in the tiny, then, eastern Roman State. The result of such an effort is a “visionary” ideal, proposed as a metatheory, where important pieces of evidence are bypassed.

Furthermore, their existence, especially of one more theoretical stream of Greek chant ca. 1200, would weaken – especially to the majority of the unsuspected Latin chant people- an exoticized, “obvious,” “less changed” and of an easy to digest “restricted positivism” image of an imagined (in terms of a specific a posteriori “usefulness”) “actual Byzantine musical practice” and it’s description by a “unified [Byzantine] theory.”

[2*] Imagine a hypothetical state of affairs where Martianus and Boethius (as well as, mainly, all their medieval scholia and glosses) to be considered as not very important for Latin chant because, e.g. “we can prove” that terms like proslambanomenos, hypate etc. - to use a similar to Wellesz’ wording - had no significance for the most medieval people of the “actual Latin chant practice.” Indicative of that would be the following –directly connected to the way we see Greek chant- problematic: Is it worthwhile for Pachymeres’ and Bryennios’ treatises (and the scholia on Ptolemaios’ Harmonica appeared in this blog) to be included in the future construction of the Greek part of the - proposed here in my post dated December 15, 2019- multilingual Lexicum Musicum Medii Aevi?

[3*] For example, by giving room to plausible reconstructions which use intervals different than tone and semitone. And this not only as far as the, additional, use of the intervals of even/equal/ομαλόν diatonic genre of Ptolemaios as appeared in the eight Greek sources we described in this blog.

You need to be a member of Musicologie Médiévale to add comments!

Join Musicologie Médiévale

Comments

pavlos erevnidis March 16, 2021 7:18
Gevaert and are the thèmes incompatible to échelle (and Modes)?

This post is a direct continuation of my previous one.

As far as I know the “pattern of thinking” of the “direction comparison” is also proposed at first by Wellesz (A History of Byzantine music… p.70, 2^nd ed. 1961, Reprint 1980, emphasis and square brackets mine):

“Until recently the eight echoi in Byzantine music [at that time there wasn’t “Jerusalem modes,” but see also Wolfram’ similar to Wellesz’ wording in the previous post] had identified by modern scholars [who? What about medieval theorists?] with the eight modes of ancient Greek musical theory. This was a mistake, because the Greek ‘scales’ – if we are permitted to use the term- were reckoned from the highest note downwards, whereas the Byzantine theorists built up the modes from the lowest note upwards: [here we see that the ‘scales’ of “the ancient Greek Modes”-reckoned from the highest note downwards (it seems that for Wellesz “ancient Greek modes” had focal points like final because his next scheme is build up over notes) - are compared to the “echoi”- builded up from the lowest note upwards-; then a scheme is given using a scale of 8 notes, this time d,e,f,g,a,b,c,d are given vertically between the words “Greek” and “Byzantine” next to two vertical arrows with inverted directions; then Wellesz continues his endeavor on the subject with the air of absoluteness of his exclusive metatheory] The essence of a melody sung in one of the eight echoi, however, was its musical content [of course, who could maintain the opposite?]. By analyzing the musical structure of the melodies belonging to one of the eight echoi I found [See 1*] that the melodies of each echos were build up of a number of formulae which were a peculiar feature of the mode, or in other words; it was not the ‘scale’ [suggested in a mutually exclusive way] which was the basis of composition for the early Christian and Byzantine hymnographer, but [only?] a group of formulae which belonged together and made up the material for each mode. The composer’s task consisted in adapting these melodic formulae to the word of a new hymn and in linking them together in accordance with the words.”

All these in the 1961 2nd enlarged edition of his book. This paragraph, or a part of it, there wasn’t (if I remember correctly; I can’t go to the library due to Covid 19), in the first edition (1949) of this book; If this is true then it would be a further fact of interest for the future exposition/appraisal of the evolution of the “established beliefs” of Egon Wellesz (and his legacy). Moreover, we have already seen several “direction comparisons” one between “church modes ascends from D to d” to the “the System” that “descends from a’ to A,” one with the “tonoi of Ptolemaios” to “the Byzantine modes” and third, the earliest I know, between the “notes” of the “eight echoi of the Byzantine system” to the “notes” of the ‘scales’ of the “Modes of the ancent Greek musical theory.” As we can realize the survival of a repeatedly recycled and thus “established” “conceptual pattern” is more stable than its, diverged, reasoning(s)! Moreover, future ethnomusicological research, I think, will show with more detail, than me here (my main purpose is to demonstrate, as briefly as I can, the divergence of the arguments, not to describe them in full with detail; people with knowledge of ancient Greek music could discern, I am sure, even more aspects), if such a direction issue was really a valid “comparison tool” with “important” consequences or just an effort to demonstrate (in terms of performativity) a desired differentiation and thus… distinction.

The topic has, also, a lot of interesting connections to the “mode” issue and the views of Harold Powers or Max Haas for example. But let us leave aside, for the moment, the above mentioned 2006 article of the later as well his earlier “Modus als Skala …”, cited so many times (uncritically, in my account) within the modern, in Danto-nian terms, Chant-world.

But interesting is also that a “direction issue” and its consequences to the Octoēchos numbering(s), is in reality a Byzantine controversy, as I wrote in the past. This time it was a debate on who interprets better, intrinsically, the ancient Greek music theory. The “desired result” wasn’t an attempt “to prove” the theoretical incompatibility (or whatever relative) of “ancient Greek music theory” with the “Christian heritage” but, instead, which is “the most accurate” reading of the first, in order to be in a “correct” compatibility with Octoēchos. The controversy was between the reading of the earliest, until now, known theoretical stream of Greek chant, the -12^th/14^th formation of the- system of Hagiopolitēs, with the inverted “revised reading(s)” of, at least, Pachymerēs, Bryennios, Grēgoras and Argyros affiliation. To consider that such kind of debates within the Byzantine cultural sphere is an exclusiveness of the 14^th century consists of a methodologically “restricted” canonicity which juxtaposes the, unfortunately, very late “survived sources” with “one narrative” that leads to a “systematic suppression” that predisposes the research and the… findings. The less I can say at this moment is that the existence of similar debates (and more streams, I am not referring only to the ca. 1200 Mesarites’ report as one can see at my post here dated March 5, 2021) in earlier times has not to be ruled out. Let us now read how Manuēl Bryennios describes passionately this “direction controversy” surrounding the medieval Greek sources, he writes (Jonker’s translation, p. 171, bold emphasis and square brackets are mine):

For that very reason, all who fail to understand these premises of the Ancients [παλαιών] with regard to the motion of the planets, will never be able to know exactly the arrangement [τάξιν] of the species of melody [ειδών της μελωδίας], which are called ēchoi by composers [μελοποιών] nowadays; they will from ignorance [απειρίας], or rather stupidity [αμαθείας], undoubtedly believe the first type of melody [είδος της μελωδίας] to be the seventh, and the second the sixth, the third the fifth, the fourth the fourth and vice versa. Let us now suppose a person who is not acquainted with the fact that the Hypodorian is the first and the lowest key [τόνος/tonos] of the harmonic system [του ηρμοσμένου], coinciding [επέχει] with the seventh species of melody [είδος της μελωδίας] whereas the Mixolydian is the seventh key (?) [είδος] of the harmonic system [ηρμοσμένου], coinciding [επέχει] with the first melodic species [είδος της μελωδίας]; when he learns that the Hypodorian tonos extents from…he will undoubtedly believe for the moment that the Hypodorian key [τόνος] coincides [επέχει] with the highest species of melody [είδος της μελωδίας] and the Mixolydian key with the lowest, being misled [εξαπατηθείς] by the different appellations of the notes [φθόγγων] enumerated, because his notion of the matter is not supported by knowledge [ανεπιστήμονα].

François-Auguste Gevaert and what Wellesz found (and Gevaert taxonomized by Werner)

[1*] Wellesz failed to refer in this book (he also gives as a footnote his 1919-1920 article, archive.org) to refer, even as an inspiration of his, to Gevaert’ thèmes. Any discussion on the possibility that this happens because Gevaert does not consider that échelle - thèmes are something mutually exclusive (as they both appear in the same book) is premature. Gevaert begins this book not by thèmes but with his theorizing about scales and modes and their evolution, according to him, in the Greco-Roman world (including citharodie [see also figure 1.2 in Jeffery’s article], St. Ambrose etc.). We read, in addition, his further exposition on Latin chant (chant antiphonique, Octoechos, exeptions, Aurelian, or what later we know as the “central problem” etc.). But what interests us here, is that conspicuously enough (the ethnomusicologists of the future will be more secure), the view that a downwards movement in ancient Greek music inspired Wellesz’ “direction comparison.” Indeed, Gevaert in his first page gives a representation of the downwards disposition of the sons: Conformément à l’usage des Anciens, nous la disposons de l’aigu au grave. And then the notes from aa (from the left) to A (right) are given as an illustration of this.

The Belgian scholar (characterized by Werner, Sacred Bridge, p. 28, as one of the representatives of a so called by him all-Hellenistic approach) nowadays, he is still cited, among others, about his thèmes work. I do not argue, of course, that we can not make selections from Gevaert’s work. Interesting, also, is the way Werner taxonomized the researchers of those years, in p. 367 of the same book (I do not want, as for myself, to be identified by the reader with anyone of Werners’ categorizations, although, it is obvious, I do not think that scale conception is something that has to be avoided in our descriptions of medieval chant(s), especially when we deal with transposition / modulation phenomena; square brackets and bold emphasis mine):

In modern musicology, there are three principle trends of thinking with regard to this subject, (1) The older view, as represented by Gevaert, Reinach, Jeannin, and most of the French scholars [this is one more reason that, so many times in this blog, I refer to the future appraisal by ethnomusicologists of such a 19^th- 20^th c. material]. These consider the Syro-Byzantine conception of the eight modes a natural derivation from the classic Greek system of the harmoniai. (2) In sharp contradistinction there to, R. Lachmann, A. Baumstark, K. Wachsmann, and H. G. Farmer emphasize the liturgic-cultic origin ofthe Syrian Octoechos and doubt, at least as regards the first five centuries, a decisive Greek influence upon the modality of pre-Gregorian chant which, in their opinion, was almost wholly oriental in form and substance. (3) A mediating position is held by scholars like Curt Sachs, Peter Wagner, E. Wellesz, G. Reese, U. Bomm and others, who assume that the systems of all modes were the results of constant repetition of certain melodic formulas. These passages of sacred folklore crystallized in the course of centuries to fixed phrases, the nuclear cells of the modes. These were then superimposed upon recurrent liturgical rubrics and connected (erroneously) with the Greek harmoniai. [here Werner gives his note No 137 = Cf. O. J. Gombosi, 'Studien zur Tonartenlehre des frühen Mittelalters’ in Acta Musicologica, X, XI, XII (1938-40) and C. Sachs, The Rise of Music in the Ancient World (New York and London, 1943), pp. 223-38.]

As far as I can discern the performative dimension of such taxonomy surpasses any “objectivity,” but it is better not to comment further on if one scholar could be belonged to another category in relation to this extract. After all, this is Werner’s categorization. As for O. J. Gombosi’s set of articles there is somewhere else here in MM a small comment of mine.

N.B.
1. 1) These posts are long because I want for the reader to have the material/references in front of him/her, ready to be read, in order not to waste time searching for some of my citations. Although I hope that all this will encourage further personal research on the issues raised.
2) I’ll give two more excerpts from the above referred latest 2021 article of Wolfram, as a reminder, since it is not my purpose to systematically criticize all of it in detail (and other relative material); the ethnomusicologists of the future will have a wider view, after all.

On page 207 she writes:

“As I have remarked at the beginning, the Armoniká of Ptolemaios were during all the Byzantine centuries the most important source of classical music theory. So, we can possibly assume a certain presence of these ideas in the background of Byzantine music.”

The last sentence of the text, again on page 207, reads (bold emphasis mine):

“So, we can at least suppose that church theoreticians of the 14th/15th century had to a certain degree received information of classical music theory.”

It is obvious that after the reading of my recent post in this blog dated March 5, 2021 on ca. 1200 Mesarites’ report (as an enlarged version of the first part of my 2001 article) one could understand that my relative sentence is the following:

So, we can at least assert that church theoreticians of the late 12th century Byzantium had to a certain degree received, consciously, information from ancient Greek music theory material.
Zeitschrift fuer Musikwissenschaft 02Jg 1919-20

Zeitschrift fuer Musikwissenschaft 02Jg 1919-20
pavlos erevnidis March 14, 2021 6:16

The issue of the way we should consider Latin chant’ theoretical treatises in relation to the “real” practice (and our modern “realizations”) it is also important, as its “origins.” Peter Jeffery in The Cambridge History of Medieval Music, 2018, began his recent text with the following sentence:

“Like all great civilizations, medieval western Europe was built upon what came before….”

At the end we have his understanding of how the medieval modes (“simple” in the beginning) emerged within the Christian community of Jerusalem (bold emphasis mine): “There the most important religious site was the tomp of Jesus, and it was in the Resurrection Vigil of Sunday morning, where the bishop read the four Gospels, that a form of musical organization emerged based on recitation tones organized in two tetrachords. These became the medieval modes of Gregorian chant, Byzantine chant, and some other Eastern chant traditions.” But what mostly I am interested here are his last sentences before his Summary (bold emphasis mine):

"Before long, efforts were being made to conflate the Latinized Oktōēchos with the modes of Boethius, though the two originally had nothing to do with each other."

Then he explains some “differences” of the “Jerusalem Modes” by using, in my account, scale related terms like octave (of the church modes), and the tetrachords of the GPS and LPS and the tetrachords of the Jerusalem modes. This is said because Jeffery some pages before writes: “It should be understood that, even though Boethius called these “modes,” they should be thought of as tunings, octave species, or transpositions rather that scales.” This is not an unanimously accepted view. For example, A. Barbera in his “Octave Species” (p. 232) wrote (square brackets and bold emphasis are mine): “A genus [especially of a tetrachord] is, after all, a tuning, or more precisely infinitely many tunings within firmly established boundaries. Such tunings presume a musical scale or system as background –a first note or string, a second note, a third, [i.e., established intermediate degrees of a scale unit] and so forth.” Additionally, the “species of diapason” are scale units that were “necessary” for the modes –especially for Boethius’ contemplation (their focal points within an octave [a heptatonic scale] in the various modal practice(s) is a different, case by case, issue) and we have to add that transposition is not a mutual exclusive phenomenon to scale; not mention additionally that we still hear about the use of pentatonicism [as historical phenomenon or as a tool of ours?]). So the text of Jeffery then reads (bold emphasis square brackets and underlining mine):

“The octave of the church modes ascends from D to d, while the System, descends [1*] two octaves from a' to A, and the tetrachords of the Greater and Lesser Perfect Systems were not the same as the tetrachords of the Jerusalem modes. These efforts resulted in the D mode being linked to the name Dorian and so on, as students are still being taught today. But the notion that the modes of Gregorian chant go back to ancient Greece has no more historical reality than the idea that Gregorian psalmody goes back to the Jerusalem temple.

What at first level I want to examine here is firstly in more general terms the notion of “origins” (and “go back”) and then, secondly (as [1*], the “ascends/descents” recurring pattern that early (and later) modality of church music is considered until our days.

It is well known that anyone who belongs to a community can create/construct (for “herself” or “the other”) a “selective” “theory” of belonging (of something) or not belonging as well as parallels and contrasts with the past; even Carolingians themselves. As far as for our understanding of them things are not always clear. Do we understand a kind of music as Christian if it is taxonomized “later” in a “Christian system,” e.g. Octoechos? Are we obliged to use a systemic reason or labels in order “to prove” exclusive “identity”? Or there are other (whose?) parameters? Anyhow any idea that early (how early) Christian modality (one?) was “a product” of Jerusalem (only?) is nothing more than guesswork. If we accept it as working hypothesis, then, in my account, the most possible scenario (because only of scenarios we can speak in relation to the available sources) is that those local Christians adopted, at the very beginning, some tunes / melodic patterns (partially?) from “around,” i.e. Jewish, Iranian (an aspect not considered by modern chant-people), Roman, Gnostic environments etc. (if we have to use labels). Simplified versions of such tunes could be used for the more complicated kinds of recitation. In more general level: any use of liturgical material as proof of an isolated/intrinsic, intra-Christian, linear musical evolution of Christian chant and modality (e.g. beginning from 3-fold to 8-fold, or even from “1-fold” to 8-fold etc.) is nothing more than a presumption that silently constrains the evidence that might contradict it. I will give now some somewhat later known examples in order to realize how many possibilities exist in order to realize the dimensions of the evolution of the Christian (and not only it) chant.

1) If we accept the narrative, the way the ecclesiastical historian Sozomenos (d. ca. 450) gives it, that St. Ephraim’s (d. 373) musical work is connected with the musical work of the not Orthodox Bardaisan (and his intriguing named son Harmonios; the case of a double named /nicknamed personality –perhaps according to his audience- has not to be excluded, this phenomenon is not something strange) does not means automatically that he “accepted”

α) incompatible “ancient Greek melodies” to his own “traditional” or “autochthonous” music (if yes, in what manner and, finally, how much «Greek» or “Gnostic” etc. was Harmonios’s compositions?) and

β) an “ancient Greek theory” with, Phrygian and Lydian "Modes." (whatever kind of “Phygianess” or “Lydianess” they had, I do not myself use here as example the "Dorian" (only of mainland Greece?). For one brief narrative of these and their evolution (from “qualitative” to the “quantitative”) see the J. Solomon’ p. 88, note 88.

Additionally, since the case of Ephraim and the Byzantine automelic-prosomoiac chants are given, in our times, as a “restricted” “model melodies” favored theorizing, especially after Haas’ “Modus als Skala…,” what I have to say here, for the moment, is that things are/was not exactly the selective way Haas contemplates. In parallel, such kind of “influence” and identity discussions (not only in relation to scale [not exactly scale for Haas, see his later Griechische Musiktheorie in Arabischen,…here 2.3.Probleme I: Was sind Skalen? This issue needs a separate discussion]) are characterized by a lot of passion, given the way Max Haas writes the long footnote 42 of this 2006 article.

2) Let us remember the Arian musicians in Spain who lived with the Catholics. “Big” differences “important of identity” about some actors are “tiny” and “not important” in another framework (or age) of comparison. Imagine in the future (with a relative loss of information) what they will think about the “differences in performance” between two Conductors who are considered as “very different” by nowadays critics. Thus the existence of a “different” prospect (in terms, e.g. of Musical or Rythmical modes) does not mean, obligingly, “different music” for all medieval actors: What for Isḥāq al-Mawṣilī – in “rhythmical” terms - was different, for someone else would be – melodically - “very similar” and thus “problematic” in terms of a desired “clear” cultural differentiation. Only Isḥāq’s eulogized “authority” could understand – even with difficulty- a “small” but important, regarding identity, difference. One has to be cautious on the rhetoric of the existing sources. The absence is also meaningful. And there is not only this anecdote. Do different melodies (let us roughly say Gallican to Gregorian) mean, at all levels, different music? Sometimes the use of the word “autochthonous” is misleading especially when is connected, even occasionally, with a School of theorizing. Thus, the sole criterion to consider a composition is if it had relation to Al-Khalīl and Isḥāq al-Mawṣilī musicotheoretical affiliation? The Gregorian repertory was always the foreign and the Gallican is the “lost” autochthonous? The scarcity of sources does not mean that there wasn’t an autochthonous chant (and a secular music) in a given place. But the existence of common pieces with “other” traditions has not to be ruled out. What has to be theorized about the music sung by Claudianus (older and the then newly composed), in Vienna of the later 5^th c.? Was it a “different” autochthonous, Roman, “mixed” or something else? No matter Claudianus’ personal esteem about Greek sciences.

3) A similar, to Ephraim’s, imitation act is documented for Severus of Antioch (d. 538 c.) who accepted theatrical melodies of his Antiochian environment in order to “persuade” his laity to go to the church. Are we sure, at “first level,” that the theatrical melodies in early 6^th c. were composed without a theoretical system? The important for us musical part of the heated liturgical question (of the past two centuries) of what exactly was the liturgical work of Severus (an “octoechos” or a “tropologion” or even something “different”) belongs to a “second level,” i.e. if Severus used, if any, another (Christian?) musical system. Anyhow, Severus (as well as Ephraim) could perfectly include such “(if) foreign” melodies into another "system"; but the oral result, and the performance mode as I labeled it, of an imitated tune would not be so much different and for sure not “a coincidence.” Music phenomena of any autochthonous or foreign praxis could be described by more than one system/construction; but, always, not adequately.

If someone, in the future, find in a document the label “sauce hollandaise” (or “sauce espagnole”) what she will think about its origins? French or Dutch cuisine? Or, a French recipe that goes back to the Netherlands? Or, something else? (try at first to think of the possibilities of origin of these two sauces and then search for them in internet) Given the scarcity of sources, an innumerable number of plausible scenarios of belonging exist if one wants to “go back,” in order to search the oral and theoretical “origins” of the work of Bardaisan/Harmonios (not only a Greek layer of course), Claudianus, or the music of Arians in Spain or Alexandria or even the theatrical music in ca. 510 Antioch. This is not an issue of how much sophisticated is the modern research of Christian chant in relation to Jewish music, for example, as the oral aspect of both has been lost forever. It is not, because it cannot be.

Anyhow, when (and which) Christians "decided" to describe/taxonomize their melodies in some compatibility a) with a certain Greek or Greek-alike material (remember the Armenian evidence I referred to in my post here, dated December 27, 2019) or, b) with one of their current steams/readings of the ancient Greek theory, is something that is not known in detail by us until now. The fact that we have available material from the New, then, Carolingian cultural framework, where documents of such an effort exist, does not mean that they were the first who did that (just as [in a “restricted” methodological- canonicity] is the case of the (non)existence of a Greek exemplar for the ancient-Iadgari).

Going back to the origins of the ascending/descending issue of comparison

[1*] But let us discuss this somewhat manageable case, of music theory, with relatively better documentation (as we have the existence of some sources).

Is it a matter of musical comparison a) of a linear ascending of the “Church modes” in a given octave (let us forget, for the moment, the Echoi in Wheels which is something not exactly linear) to the way the “notes” (or les sons) of “the System” descent? This is because Jeffery wrote: “while the System, descends two octaves from a' to A.”. In this case, I can’t understand the consequences (as a tool for comparison and distinction between “notes” with “modes”) of a theoretical downwards disposition/direction of “notes,” especially for the vocal part of music. Furthermore, an ascending vocal disposition is something more “natural,” not only in terms of “humanness.” Indeed, such a case within ancient Greek music, is described by Ptolemaios himself, see the Harm. III.10 together with Solomon’s p. 158, note 195 and Barker II, p. 385, note 72.

Or, is it what Gerda Wolfram in her latest 2021 article (here), pp. 200-208 wrote b) as a comparison of the direction between “Modes of the Church” and the “Tonoi”? She writes about the “Tonoi of Ptolemaios,” p. 204 (bold emphasis, underlining and square brackets mine): “Ptolemaios localizes the whole system on seven tonoi, whose order of intervals is realized on the middle octave of the dorios e´-e (βου´-βου, mi´-mi). Within the octave, there are four fixed (symphone) tonoi and four movable (diaphone) tonoi. This is the precondition of the three gene: the diatonic, chromatic and enharmonic formed by higher or lower tension of the chords.”

Then an example (no 2) is given as an illustration of the following sentence: “The seven tonoi or transposition scales are in descending order: hypodorios from a´ to a, hypophrygios from g´ to g…dorios from e´ to e … mixolydios from b to B.” Some sentences latter she writes, p. 205 (bold emphasis mine): “In contrast with the classical system, Byzantine modes are arranged in ascending order: the first echos …”

It is not the place here to deal with the tonoi of Ptolemaios (e.g. see Harm. II.10, transl. J. Solomon on p. 88 / A. Barker II p. 336 and Harm. II.15, transl. J. Solomon on p. 103/ A. Barker II p. 350) and their direction in general (and Wolfram’s exposition), as we are focusing now on the modern “use” of the direction issue.

What we have to detect here, and in the next post as we shall see, is if it is more of something that has to be understood as an “established conceptual pattern” than an “objective” rationale that leads to any kind of “distinction” of “the System” and the Octoechos.

In order to understand this better, one could propose one more “direction rationale”: i.e. a direction comparison between, this time, species (or schema-ta) of octave, as scale units, in relation to some aspects of modality of Europe and the Near East. The “result” could be the opposite one of prof. Jeffery and Wolfram (and Wellesz as we shall see). Let us consider such a case:

Especially for the modes of Boethius, Calvin Bower proposed (but see also Hagel 2009, pp. 100-101, and p. 82 for those who have more free time) at least two, roughly saying, “origins” about Boethius’s one exposition of Modes: the High to Low pitch order (from a-B) of Species of Diapason (=according to Boethius, a “necessary” conception for Modes) that Bower ascribed to Nicomachos and the Low to High order (B-a,) that could be ascribed to Ptolemaios and others.

A small, for the moment, parenthetical comment of mine in favor to the existence until to the end of the first millennium of, the now lost, Nicomachos’ extensive book on Music: Fārābī (d. 950/951) like Boethius (d. 524), as I wrote in the past, writes about the two ways of direction/numbering the species of octave (no matter for us here which is the intervallic content he means; although this is a very important issue). With Fārābī we have an extra indication to reinforce, even more, Bowers’ view of the Greek origin (i.e. not of Boethius himself) of the High-Low order since I find of little possibility for Fārābī to read about such a double order/direction from a Boethius’ Arabic translation. Additionally, the Kitāb al-Fihrist/Book of the Catalogue of Ibn al-Nadīm (d. ca. 995) is referred to the existence of an Arabic translation of Nicomachos book on music; not as “Εισαγωγή/Introduction” but intriguingly the wording used is akin to the title of Fārābī’s book i.e. Kitāb al-mūsiqī al-kabīr / Great Book on Music. End of the parenthesis.

Regarding the available, now, Greek sources the “traditional numbering,” as Bower names it, is the upright down of the one preferred by Boethius for his description of the Modes.

As for the direction of the placing of Byzantine echoi (or, let us accept it for the moment, the “Jerusalem modes” whatever one theorizes about the nature of both of them) is identical for sure to one of the ancient Greek orderings of species of octave and thus there is not, in such a case, any reason for… distinction.

Back now to the “direction comparison” of prof. Jeffery (if finally this is a valid issue) about the “origins” of “the Latinized Oktōēchos with the modes of Boethius” (we are not dealing here with later European efforts of the 9^th, 10^th or 11^th etc. c.) had to each other: this is a not so self-evident and unquestionable topic, even within the much better documented environment of music theory. But the matter has some more modern complications where François-Auguste Gevaert is also, silently, engaged…

(PDF) GRIECHISCHE MUSIKTHEORIE IN ARABISCHEN, HEBRÄISCHEN UND SYRISCHEN ZEUGNISSEN

PDF | On Jan 1, 2006, Max Haas publi
pavlos erevnidis March 5, 2021 7:23

An improvement and on Mesarites’ “nonsensicality” ca. 1200

The last sentence, as footnote no 8, of the main text of this blog needs an improvement about the results of a “potential polarization” (as conceptual process not as a “finished/completed” status): So, instead of

[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.

please read:

[8*] Giving room even to a potential polarization (not “sterilization,” I hope), i.e. an a posteriori image of not a direct but a remote interaction, in other words, this could be a case of ‘glass half empty and glass half full’ within the same proposition.

This interaction, as we said, was a direct one because a good number of those personalities were Church people and intellectuals at the same time. The medieval framework is different than ancient times and any over-projection of “markers of differentiation,” in order to denote “distance” instead of the various – partially - “mutually explanative” environments (full complementarity was not always the case), is misleading. Indeed a systematic polarization of a “Christian heritage” with – the documented - ancient Greek lore and knowledge was not always the case. Additionally as we already said: to suppose that all these medieval intellectual efforts by, also, clerics are connected exclusively to a later movement as a product of a “popularization” of the Quadrivium-texts (only then?) is the result of a methodological canonicity where “our narrative” is juxtaposed, uncritically, to the survived sources [*] not leaving room for possible analogous musical processes within the earlier well-known various movements (labeled as “Byzantine renaissances”) of archaizing “Academizations” of teaching in Byzantium. To describe the whole millennium of Byzantine music via the “lens” of 14^th century Papadikai is, the least, very ambitious and optimistic and as we well demonstrated predispose… the findings. The case of the “unknown” and “not seen,” by Byzantine music scholars of the 20^th c., small chant treatise (one of the very oldest best dated) found in this blog within a MS (Vat. Gr. 191, see the description) with ancient Greek music theory is revealing enough.

[*] We have not in our disposal [as in the chant of Old Rome] any extensive “early” Greek theoretical source; even of ancient Greek music theory.

So let us have a look to the earliest, until now, documented, case where Harmonic Theory was involved “seriously” and in a passionate way, to Chant theory, within an Academic environment i.e. not exactly as a product of an increasing verbalization and popularization (among whom?) of the Quadrivium-texts but in already “well formed” theoretical systems. This is an enlarged, with more material, version of the first part of my 2001 paper referred to previously in this blog.

------------------------------------------------------

There is not any reason for us to describe the music(s) of the Byzantines in a grandiose way. It is better to consider them in context. The way Nikolaos Mesarites (ca. 1200) describes, among others, some disciplines as taught in the Patriarchal School in the second bigger Church of the City i.e. the Holy Apostles (in the same location of the nowadays Fatih Camii) consists, among others, of an illustration of the different level of passion of Byzantines in relation to some disciplines. Arithmetic and Geometry for example are described not in a very high level of passion (I cannot have any opinion on the scholarly level of theirs in these two disciplines); these two fields were really an issue of intellectuals, not of the people. For Mesarites, the case of Grammar and mainly Medicine seems to be described in a somewhat “louder” level; especially the teachings about the seats (in brain or heart) of the objects of sensory faculties. Moreover, as for some intellectuals of the time, supported by considerable masses of common people, we reasonably can say that about the theologico-philosophical/dogmatic issues the scholarly level, and the passions of common people expressed, was much higher. The same we can say considering the passion that Mesarites, as an eyewitness, describes with his, now, well-known vivid and atypical style, the case of the teaching(s) of ecclesiastical chant in relation to ancient Greek music theory. If we look closer we will see that things weren’t the way Egon Wellesz tried to explain in E. Wellesz, A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography, 2^nd Revised and Enlarged Edition 1961, [I make use of the reprint of 1980]). So I’ll give an extensive passage of him (since it contains a translation of two relative passages of Mesarites) in order to understand of what I am talking about (as for the Greek text I use the text of Downey [=D, in “Transactions of the American Philosophical Society,” Vol. 47.6, 1957 here; his English translation, is found on pp. 861-897], but in the modern Greek monotonic system in order to minimize compatibility problems of the electronic fonts. The MSS of the Mesarites’ text in Biblioteca Ambrosiana are now online, the A, F 93 sup. and the B, F 96 sup. ; square brackets, emphasis in bold and underlining mine). So, Wellesz’ text reads:

[p. 62] … In close connection with these subjects [dialectic and rhetoric] elementary training in music was given. [then Mesarites’ first extract, IX., is given:] ‘On the other, western side you can see hymn - singers with children, almost babes, stammering, just took from the breast. These infants open their mouths and talk wisdom and rehearse the praise of God the King of all, and of his saints, who imitate his Life and Passion. [D. 2] Going a little further you will find with young men just emerged from boyhood, singing a well - shaped song [D= sweet melody, εύρυθμον μέλος] and a well - sounding harmony [D= harmonius song, σύμφωνον αρμονίαν] with their throat, mouth, tongue, with their lips and teeth. [D. 3] They make conductor’s movements with their hands in order to guide the beginner in following the mode [ήχων] with his voice, that he may not slip away from the melodic line [μη του συντόνου εξολισθαίνειν], drop out of rhythm [ρυθμού καταπίπτειν], nor fall away from the other voices, nor sing out of tune [διαμαρτάνειν του εμμελούς].’ [Just after this excerpt Wellesz continues:]

Continuing his description of the church of Apostles, Mesarites suggests that teaching the theory of music [p. 63] is completely separated from elementary teaching in singing as described above. After dealing with the school of geometry, Mesarites draws a picture of the students who debate about tones and intervals. [then Wellesz’ second extract of Mesarites, XLII.9, reads:] ‘They argue with each other discussing terms unfamiliar to most people [τοις πολλοίς] or even unheard of, such as nete’s, hypate’s, and parhypate’s, mese’s and paramese’s instead [αντί] of strings; further they say that the interval which they call diatessaron is denominated epitritos, in agreement with the arithmeticians [επονομαζόμενος, be aware of this word, it is important for the echoi of the Greek chant]; but the interval called diapente seems to them to be a kind of hemiolios, corresponding to the diapente of the arithmeticians. And also, why the octave [ογδόη fem., more accurate translation: why the 8^th string] is called [επικέκληται] diapason, why the first mode [ο των ήχων πρώτος] in it [in “her”] is found to be the principal, why they call [επωνόμασθαι] the fifteenth string disdiapason, and why the whole instrument is named fifteen - stringed when it has sixteen strings.’ [And Wellesz concludes:]

From this account, which is almost entirely nonsensical, it becomes evident that Greek musical theory had no connection whatever with Byzantine music [only to the part of Byzantine music preferred by Wellesz, of course, because Mesarites reports just the opposite] in the twelfth century. The latter [in a mutual exclusive way?] was taught merely as [always?] practical singing, the former was part of mathematical science. [then some elaboration with no citations is given] Mesarites drew his knowledge, directly or indirectly, from passages in the pseudo-Aristotelian Problems, the Eisagoge of Gaudentius, and the Encheiridion of Nicomachus, without understanding the subject-matter he cited. Not only did he no longer understand the meaning of the subject he tried [as we will see his piece of information is accurate and by no means “nonsensical”] to explain to the reader, but we may also accept as a fact [why?] his view that in his day the terms nete, hypate and parhypate were mere names, or were completely unknown to [all of?] them. They had no significance [in an ahistorical prospect?] in actual Byzantine musical practice [it is the same prospect for someone today to say that, according to her interests, the existence of not rudimentary elements in modern music theory/ies has no significance in actual singing; the 12 notes of piano and some, “the useful ones, to her,” conventions are enough; in a way “she is right” just for the kind of music(s) heard, lively of course, by her!], and were only found in discussions on topics taken from classical authors.

This is the way Wellesz ends the chapter with the title THE BYZANTINE CONCEPTION OF MUSIC. I’ll try to be as brief as I can.

Wellesz’ (and Downey’s) translation, at least, of the word ογδόη=eighth (fem.) with the term octave (a word with modern music connotations) is misleadingly “neutral,” and draws his reader away from the, at least, ancient Greek musicotheoretical environment. So let us have a look on his text (I will not propose more corrections in the translation of Wellesz, in order to avoid confusion):

α) First and foremost, Mesarites (from a wealthy family of bureaucratic origins with knowledge of Greek classics and later antiquity scholars) is openly very passionate about musical issues. For us, at first level, it is not so important if he (later a Metropolitan of Ephesos) had a higher education in relation to chant but 1) how (due to his personal interests) he transmits his observations and mainly, 2) if - since these two are not mutual exclusive - he is an accurate observer, “as he was less bound by literary convention than his contemporaries, he writes with a refreshing directness.” (from the recent book of M. Angold). Instead of “trying,” according to Wellesz, to explain an issue he does not understand, he explains it in a “populist” way. The editor and translator of the text Downey (1957) gives such a view next to the “confident” and exclusive reading of Wellesz. In the footnote 10 of p. 895, Downey writes: ...it is not impossible that the account which he [Mesarites] gives of the debates of the theorists is deliberately presented as nonsense. To understand such kind of practices and attitudes (see also Bydén p. 233, but thinking additionally the Vat. gr. 192 in this blog and Pachymeres’ treatise) at those times one can read the very beginning of Bryennios’ later treatise; this man is almost fully aware of how he will be treated (Jonker’ translation; emphasis and square brackets mine):

“…for I am not of those who are wont to distort and paraphrase cunningly what has been said by others correctly and clearly, on the pretence of saying something original. … yet I mention it because such people, even when they are absolutely incapable of grasping a certain scientific matter, endeavor to minimise [εξουδενούν] and ridicule [or calumniate, διαβάλλειν] this matter, hoping that thus it may seem to the masses [again, τοις πολλοίς, this wording is also attested in Planoudes’ conceptual sphere] and especially to those who generally hold all knowledge in contempt, that they are deprived of this knowledge not on account of the ineptitude of their minds, but because this knowledge is itself unreliable [σφαλερόν] and unprofitable [άχρηστον]; and therefore they are as eager as possible to consider it in many manners and to condemn out of hand, so to speak, those who apply themselves to it; and sometimes they simply use fallacious reasons, bringing up all the foolish arguments that they have been used before against this science by others of their kind.

As all this may be considered by means of the strings [χορδαίς] or tones [φθόγγοι] of the Complete Harmonic Tone-system [του τελείου του ηρμοσμένου θεωρείται συστήματος] it will be necessary to give first their number and the names that have been given to each of them….

Bryennios couldn’t imagine one more case: That his work would be treated only partially, as Harmonic Theory and not very “useful” to Octoechos phenomena and to a revealed in advance “actual Byzantine practice.” Let us return now to Mesarites remembering that the authorship of the “Ethopoiia of a Mathematician” (not in the sense of a modern mathematician, of course) is ascribed (Flusin, 2002) to him; this is another text where he “sketches” an unnamed, again, personality he does not like. In the same manner in our extract, once more, our observer, tries (yes, this time “tries” is an appropriate verb) to - in Bryennios’ wording- calumniate also the unnamed intellectuals, who posed such theorizings [1*], by demonstrating that all these things are “confusing” and sometimes “incompatible” when he reports that ‘the whole instrument [of the one “group” of such a debate/διαμάχης] is named fifteen - stringed when it has sixteen strings.’ But, the same could be said, provocatively, about Bryennios’ p. 69.13: … and also that this system is made up of two eight-stringed lyres [2X8=16], i.e. of fifteen strings, (fifteen notes, in Jonker’s translation) …

Interestingly, the passion in their debates, within one cultural environment (and the highest institutional level), is reported in more detail in the next chapter XLIII.1-3, which Wellesz failed to inform his readers about it as he didn’t realize that we have an important, in terms of consciousness, exchange here and, for sure, not a debate of nonsense. Indeed, these seriously debating people, as Mesarites reports, would ask for the judgment (and the elucidation of the matters of disagreement) of the then Patriarch John X Camateros. In the next XLIII.4-10, he describes the ecclesiastical and secular wisdom of this ecclesiastical figure. Especially for the secular knowledge, the abilities of Patriarch John are compared with other widely respected ancient authorities: with e.g. those of Nicomachos as an arithmetician, with Euclides as a geometrician and, yes, with Ptolemaios as, only (mainly because this is the matter of the debate), a μουσικός/musikós (there are also more reasons that Ptolemaios is cited only as Musikós). We do not informed if finally the Patriarch accepted to judge that musical debates but if this was the case then we understand the importance of Ptolemaios (also for Mesarites himself) as a criterion of appeasement than of a conclusive solution by one more personality of the “Christian heritage” (and legacy) John X Camateros, who belonged both to the Church, and the “scholarly circles.”

The existence of such kind of passionate attitudes leads to the opposite conclusion that one could see the medieval understanding(s) of ancient Greek music theory –in a misleadingly wholesale manner- as “strange” and nothing more than a not-useful nostalgic archaizing educational epitome; especially if we remember that the streams of Greek chant had their intellectual side (that used also ancient Greek material). In reality, Psellos himself, already in 11th century, expressed a well-known topos that denotes admiration and esteem to the width of ancient Greek music theorizing in relation to the then contemporary music. He wrote: “the kind of music which occupies our minds to-day is only a faint echo of the former.” (E. Wellesz p. 61) There are earlier Byzantine testimonies, escaped from Wellesz, of such a topos with more important documentation on this status of ancient Greek music and its medieval consideration(s) – certainly not only for educational purposes. Additionally, in our days we realize sometimes that ancient Greek music theory is considered monolithically as one, “the classical.”

[1*] The direct teachers of the children too have not to be excluded although they do not appear in the scene (see p.896 n. 2 of Donwey); Mesarites will write in the next chapter: now one thing, now another, is put forward for examination by the learners or by the teachers / μαθητιώντων ή και των διδασκόντων.

β) According to Mesarites those children argue about netes, hypates etc. “instead of strings”/αντί χορδών. Wellesz failed to realize the importance of the word instead/αντί of the extract, which means that, Mesarites reports, that there was one more (not only theoretical but also more widely known, especially by the audience of Mesarites’ text) way of determining the strings of, let’s say, a then psaltery/kithara alike instrument. Instruments with their tunings as a tool, at least, of scale instruction (as the term Kavália/chevalet we saw in this blog) should not be excluded - by using a declarative style- as something that belonged, exclusively, to the teachings of the “remote” “scholarly circles” and their behavior to intricate Byzantine chant phenomena. Moreover, because this extract of Mesarites uses the term eighth/ογδόη (in feminine gender, as the word string/χορδή is), a string numbering like 1^st string, 2^nd string…8^th string is attested (remember a similar, much older, case in the superscriptions of the book of Psalms [not mention the Babylonian case]). Later, in early 14^th c., Bryennios explains on p. 58.20ff. that an 8^th string can, also, “historically” be understood in relation to paramese and the disjunction phenomenon. I wrote, additionally, somewhere else here in MM, about the strings of an instrument with the name Musike (one of the possible “manuals/tools” for music instruction [the existence of more than one kind of “manuals” should not be ruled out since “instruction” was not, and is not, only scales]) as is described in the Hagiopolites treatise.

Moreover, in a boarder perspective, the existence of more than one types of numbering or, even, naming of the strings should not been excluded, perhaps separately for each instrument.

γ) Additionally, although for Mesarites the theoretical placement of protos echos on the 8th string, named “by them” Diapason, is presented as something not usual to the majority of the people, he perfectly understands that he reports about the relation of chant’s ordinals (1^st mode, 2^nd… plagal 1^st, plagal 2^nd,…) to their theoretical position in relation to some “strange” teachings expressed in that school. But for us, this is a report of another (then new?) theoretical stream of Greek chant, especially if we don’t choose to consider those teachers/students the way they are sketched. Additionally, because of α) and γ) we understand that Mesarites’ critique/provocation aimed mainly to this stream of the debating people. Furthermore, both “groups” because of β) used the “string factor” in their theorizing.

It is not, that is to say, a problematic of what such a “silly,” ca. 1200, theoretical stream/construction, with reference to ancient Greek music theory, had in relation to what “we” consider as “the actual Byzantine practice” (or an “eigentliche Musiklehre” within the Carolingians) in accordance to what we imagine as “the useful” part of it, but to understand (just as, e.g., in the Carolingian framework) all its theoretical streams; and this, not only 1) to understand the evolution of the Greek (or Latin [2*]) chant, but also 2) to have more material for reconstruction(s) or even restitution(s)[3*]. As far as for the majority of the Byzantine people all these not fully understood issues were just an alibi in order to join or belong to a certain “party with its own intellectuals” (or even, were “useless,” though in a different way for every single person). Such a case is, just, one more aspect to consider, not “the case.” So, I will not insist, here, to any reconstruction and on the position of those two streams in relation to the other theoretical streams; in this post, let us stick to the report of Mesarites and its “nonsensical” perspective (and its consequences) according to Wellesz.

As a matter of fact, Wellesz equated the supposed "nonsensical" character of Mesarites' narrative to the desired "nonsensical" relation – using, additionally, a decreasing process (e.g. “mere names, or completely absent”) - of an ancient Greek music theory (in my view: its several medieval readings) aspect of the chant in the tiny, then, eastern Roman State. The result of such an effort is a “visionary” ideal, proposed as a metatheory, where important pieces of evidence are bypassed.

Furthermore, their existence, especially of one more theoretical stream of Greek chant ca. 1200, would weaken – especially to the majority of the unsuspected Latin chant people- an exoticized, “obvious,” “less changed” and of an easy to digest “restricted positivism” image of an imagined (in terms of a specific a posteriori “usefulness”) “actual Byzantine musical practice” and it’s description by a “unified [Byzantine] theory.”

[2*] Imagine a hypothetical state of affairs where Martianus and Boethius (as well as, mainly, all their medieval scholia and glosses) to be considered as not very important for Latin chant because, e.g. “we can prove” that terms like proslambanomenos, hypate etc. - to use a similar to Wellesz’ wording - had no significance for the most medieval people of the “actual Latin chant practice.” Indicative of that would be the following –directly connected to the way we see Greek chant- problematic: Is it worthwhile for Pachymeres’ and Bryennios’ treatises (and the scholia on Ptolemaios’ Harmonica appeared in this blog) to be included in the future construction of the Greek part of the - proposed here in my post dated December 15, 2019- multilingual Lexicum Musicum Medii Aevi?

[3*] For example, by giving room to plausible reconstructions which use intervals different than tone and semitone. And this not only as far as the, additional, use of the intervals of even/equal/ομαλόν diatonic genre of Ptolemaios as appeared in the eight Greek sources we described in this blog.
Oliver Gerlach January 7, 2020 22:24

Dear Pavlos

I am not motivated to continue here an exchange, since your answers convinced me that it is a one way road with somebody at the end, who is not able to communicate, because he has decided to hold back part of his knowledge. I know this attitude from myself, when I decided to live in another country. While you try too hard to adapt, you also do realise that it does not help others to find a way to them. On the contrary, it is much more communicative to try the impossible to express your thoughts in the language of the country, where you do live. I suppose it is a common experience... I am not bothered, when I realise that certain people do not understand the Greek terminology, even if it is the base of any Latin treatise concerned with music theory. I am used to it, since the viva of my doctoral thesis to be precise at the Humboldt-Universität of Berlin, to be precise. I can do it, because I wrote a glossary in my thesis (but it was written in German). I wrote another glossary in English two years ago (orginally for my students, since it was part of a contract I had with a certain University), and everyone who needs an explanation can learn this terminology (just visit my account at teaching documents), if it is really necessary! You see, if you have done your homework, it is always possible to encourage everyone without being rude or exclusive. My advice for you I have given already: just relax yourself... But for someone of your manners you will hardly be surprised, if not every answer here was meant seriously.

Allow me one other personal remark. As I already said, we met only once in person which was in Lillafüred in 2004. Now it is more than 15 years ago and I have never been a second time at a Cantus planus conference, although I would like to go there again... I was asked to come this year to Brno, I tried to agree and to make appointments, but I realised that I cannot afford such a high participation fee. After all these years I never thought, what participants might have thought about me (when it was still reasonable to imagine that they do remember me). But your way to protect the Gregorianists from me made me wonder... Obviously very few are aware that I made once (it might have been in 2005) suggestions to improve a dialogue between scholars concerned only with Eastern chant with those concerned only with Western chant. Yes, such an separation did (and does) exist indeed, and as someone who he is not suffering from being so mono-thematic I was also the one who suggested the “Eastern party” whom to address within the “Western party” and to suggest also subjects and Latin sources which might be interesting for them. It was probably surprising for myself, but they did exactly as I suggested and it did work out quite well. Thus, in a way I am still present at Cantus planus meetings also during my absence. You have already realised that I also address sometimes colleagues who are not even interested to be addressed by me. Your observation is correct, I might have my reasons to do so. I have many conferences to attend (since I am not only concerned with history, but actually working an an ethnomusicologist) that it is not always possible to be everywhere. There is no better reason to excuse my absence, but if one invites me, I usually try hard to come.

One last remark of less private nature, since you asked me how you should describe manuscripts here at musicologie médiévale, since my own example has obviously caused an irritation. The form I use was simply adapted to the very short description by Christian Meyer for his amazing list of manuscripts at BnF (first the date as a Latin numeral for the century, then the bold dot), because also Dominique Gatté adapted to it. It is very kind of you to suspect that behind all of my descriptions is original research. How could I do that, since nobody pays me for the job (and I also never asked anyone to be paid for it unlike Dominique).

My only background is that the Staatsbibliothek of Berlin had a box full of Ottoman Greek manuscripts, and it was a singer of my ensemble who “discovered” them during her practicum at the music department. She did a good job, because they just got it from the Oriental department and they just wanted to send it to another one! Among them was a sticherarion kalophonikon with almost 2000 pages written by Gabriel of Yeniköy. I needed months to describe its content. Nobody paid me and the librarians still do not pass the information on to readers. I have to publish it myself. But this was my way of learning by doing and to get acquainted of the very common ignorance among librarians which you even find at institutions such as the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (once the Köngliche Bibliothek of Prussia), and believe me even in Paris and Athens the situation is not very much better. I think it is very useful to pass at least these informations on in social networks visited potential readers who might consult manuscripts, since many of these instiutions are not able to provide them, even after I addressed the librarians personally.

The other problem is that most manuscripts have only a very vague datation, while most bibliographical databases use biblatex for the date field as a common format which requires four numbers XXXX. The unelegant way is to turn “XI” into “1001–1100” (note the long stroke which is only accepted!) or to define the middle of it such as ca. 1050 (whole century), 1080 (last third), 1090 (last quarter) etc. I usually consult different opinions, before I write the date. A preceding “about” will usually do the job to avoid the misunderstanding that I might know the precise date of a manuscript!

There are only two exceptions, where I found the common datations rather fishy, and you mentioned both here several times: F-Pn grec 360 and 261. These are exceptional cases! In both I mentioned it explicitly (usually also all the theories around such datations) and also the reasons, why I find the datation more than unlikely!
Oliver Gerlach December 28, 2019 8:22

Do not worry about my deadlines.

You can meanwhile (after you improved my description of the Great Lavra manuscripts), re-read my posts with focus on tone system, because you delivered an exact description of your drawers which prevented you to think...

If you would like to continue, you should avoid to leave your dialogue partner with the impression that he is just wasting his time with you. If there comes something substantial, I might answer to it.
pavlos erevnidis December 28, 2019 8:05

I look forward, Oliver, to the moment you come back hoping you’ll have the time to read more carefully what I write, and not to continue with newer distortions of my stance like: “I was mainly interested in your specific focus on the Greater Perfect System [sic, not a reference of mine to GPS],” “But since you alluded [!] to the difference between iadgari and Greek tropologia.[!] […]” etc. etc. If you, Oliver, want to continue this way, so be it. To be more precise, I really look forward to the moment you will find time to return here, although not happy, if you continue elaborating on your own categorizations on who “is a scholar of” the X chant (or the Y+Z+Ω chants or the Y+Z chants but not of the Ω etc. etc.) or your interpretations on the decisions made by some people and your information on “the” reason that a certain scholar wrote on something, who are your dear colleagues, their presents to you and what you discussed with them, on the Balkan crisis etc. etc. As for your posts and your descriptions of MSS, thank you for your invitation (but I won’t join, except, perhaps, if a distortion of my writings occurs), but please allow me a general technical suggestion: When you give the dating of a MS do not inform people the dating of yours (or the one you prefer), exclusively, as “the” dating of a MS, but give your readers the chance to know the dating of other people. I am referring, for example, to the dating “1000” for the B32 of Lavra of your latest Nativity Surprise discussion.

I hope you won’t miss the deadline you have.
Oliver Gerlach December 27, 2019 13:05

The period which was left unfinished:

Of course, one must consider that even in the case, where only one tone system is inherent in a certain notation, it can always be used in an odd way which allows also to transcribe melodies made according to another tone system. There are plenty examples of Dasia signs used in a way that the resulting tone system is in fact not organised in tetraphonia.
Oliver Gerlach December 27, 2019 12:07

Reading it, it seems to me that you got bored yourself by your last ominous and melodramatic post, but I assure you it was not my fault... I am not Jesus. You should not get so annoyed, because almost 400 hits by other users here is an encouragment by itself to keep fresh in your mind (do not expect that everyone here has your personal problems, they do not, please do not worry, do not worry at all)!

You referred yourself to the Armenian and Georgian evidence through your quotation of Peter Jeffery, now you even mentioned my dear colleague Anna Arevshatyan who made me so many presents. Since you insisted so much in a certain pervert way which is unique for you, I will mention this evidence in this paragraph! Peter Jeffery by the way is a scholar of Latin chant (and quite capable to do so on his own behalf) and very engaged at Cantus planus (where I also met you). But since you alluded to the difference between iadgari and Greek tropologia, it is true that the Georgian sources are not as early as papyrus fragments of Greek tropologia, and certainly not as early as the Oxyrhynchus hymn. Nevertheless, the Georgian scribes passing at Mar Saba and then at Saint Caterine's where they brought all the Georgian chant books are important, because (and here I refer to the publications by Stig Frøyshov) they made a difference between three layers of Hagiopolitan hymnographers (while only the school of Andrew of Crete and the next generation, the latest layer, are present in the Greek redaction of the books, next to the earlier one of Constantinople like Germanus I, which is completely ignored in the current print editions published in Greece). It is a unique case, because the Georgian tradition changed between the 9th and the 10th century its own repertoire, and thus documented also the Sabaite tradition of the 7th century (in a way which was neither documented in Syriac nor Greek sources—of course those we do know today). This was the reason, why Peter Jeffery mentioned it, since this knowledge is not present in the earlier Greek fragments (which offer other evidence not given by Georgian scribes).

I just teach students in Byzantine chant and my experience is that it helps them very much, if you just stick with the chant manuscripts of the period in question and look at them as notated or unnotated as they are. It is quite natural that this study is also concerned about chant theory, even in case there is no theoretical source concerned about mousike (which was indeed not the same as harmonics as a subject). There is no other way to find out about the specific role which Greek terminology played for chant transmission, even if Ptolemaios, Alypios or Aristoxenos have thought about music theory before the earliest papyrus.

You liked to refer to Lorenzo Tardo and you should know about his context, if you don't just let me tell you. I am living there. But the medieval Italian reference is a completely different story, and Martani's interest for both heirmologia at Grottaferrata was, in as much Greek scribes in medieval Italy dealt with both transmissions (the one of Constantinopolitan and Athonite scribes present in Chartres notation, and the one of the Patriarchates at Jerusalem, Alexandria and Cyprus). Her finding was that both transmission were present, although Italian scribes preferred Coislin notation and ordered many books in Palestine and Cyprus (under the Normans, of course, for material reasons!).

This is just to summarise. Now, coming back to you, I was mainly interested in your specific focus on the Greater Perfect System (Ptolemaios and his Latin "interpreter” Boethius and, if you like, Pediasmos), because I am preparing a publication about it which involves other authors. My personal problem due to my limited knowledge is that I do understand very well that GPS is important for Western plainchant, but I have no idea whatsoever, whether it ever played any role in mousike (Byzantine chant). Maybe it did (you made many thoughts which dare to got beyond others and I do appreciate that), but I came never across about any evidence about it. Of course, one must consider the

I prefer to answer you immediately, because I have a deadline by the end of a year and to look after some students and I will not write you here again (at least within this year).

If you would like to describe other important manuscripts of Great Lavra collection, please feel free to make yourself useful in the Byzantine group, where you are already inscribed. As you know you are already welcome and it is up to you to comment my discussion or to add your own one!

Thank you anyway for all your pain! It was my pleasure!
pavlos erevnidis December 27, 2019 7:21

I referred to Jeffery’s and Troelsgård’s tables saying that I will not make any comment on their decisions. What I wrote is that “the table of prof. Jeffery is not exhaustive and this is not because the ordering/naming of Pediasimos is not included.” To be more precise, this observation of mine, concerning mainly the Latin and Greek chants, by no means was any interpretation on why he decided not to include mode material of the Georgian and Armenian chant. This is said because of another Oliver’s information: “In any case it relevant for the numbering 1-8 (which existed independently from the Byzantine tradition also in Armenia and Georgia).” It is not my intention to confuse the issue of numbering by mixing, in chronological terms, several streams of any chant; I prefer to give priority and stay focused on the earliest possible documentation (as well as I have not any ambition to give a full survey of Syriac, Slavonic, Armenian Georgian etc. chants). Here I’ll make use of two articles of Anna S. Arevšatyan in Revue des Études Arméniennes, Tome 26 1996-1997. The first on pp. 339-355 is the: Deux textes Arméniens attribués à Basile de Césarée sur l’interprétation des modes musicaux. The other is found on pp. 357-366 and its title is: Les traités Arméniens médiévaux sur l’interprétation des modes musicaux et leurs parallèles au Proche Orient.

I transcribe here the French translation, found in the first article, of some important excerpts (regarding the numbering(s) of modes, and other auxiliary phenomena [like the phthorai that we saw in the 8 MSS of ancient Greek music theory with Byzantine music information]). This passage comes from what Arevšatyan calls “la rédaction longue.” I, also, hope that this is an intriguing excerpt to attract more Latin chant people to have a careful look on the medieval Armenian evidence exposed usually in the last pages (dedicated to arts [and music]) of this journal. I copy:

p. 346: Préface au Tropologion. Parole du Segneur Basile sur les modes des, chants, d’où et par qui ils furent trouvés; traduite par le philosophe Step‘anos, qui fut musicien et expert en cris de tous les animaux.[…] p.347: Pipien, fils de leur oncle maternel, inventa le demarton (τέταρτον [=tétarton]), à partir du bruit du ressac marin, et c’est le quatrième mode.

Les plagaux de ces modes

Ensuite Cynosthènes distingue le plaimin i pratoi, qui est le premier mode plagal. Puis vint le musicien Archelaos, qui inventa le płapłoroyn i pridu, auxiliaire du premier mode.

Et, distinquant le pridon i tewtewu [note 9.= C’est-à-dire «le premier du deuxième» (πρῶτον τοῦ δευτέρου)], iI créa le mode nommé kłewto, c’est-à-dire le deuxième mode plagal. Puis, conformément à cela, Aristarque et Pindare de Thèbes inventèrent le pap‘arown i deritu qui est l’auxiliaire du deuxième mode. Les memes inventèrent le mode bas, nommé tri(t)own, qui est aussi appelé lourd, c’est-à-dire le troisième mode plagal. Puis le musicien Eunome inventa le płais i (te)tartov, c’est-à-dire le quatrième mode plagal. Il inventa aussi un autre mode, nommé cinquième. […] [Double –bold- emphasis is mine]

Some preliminary observations: α) As Arevšatyan writes (p. 341): “Il n’est pas exclu que ce texte contienne des passages d’un traité grec perdu, rédigé à la limite de la basse antiquité et du haut Moyen-âge, qui, s’il n’appartient pas à Basile de Césarée, proviendrait peut-être d’un de ses contemporains hellénophones.” I will not elaborate now on the date of this material but one should see her essential notes on the Armenian terminology on p. 345 where “les modes plagaux” are “kołm jaynełankk‘,” “Tropologion” is “Kc ‘ordaran” or “[…] le mot ạpakanut ‘iwn, qui ne se recontre pas non plus dans les autres traits. Il faut sans doute le comprendre comme «écart, déviation» (litt. «altération, corruption») du mode principal.” α) Important for us here is that the Greek terms are “lost in the transliteration.” In some of them consonants or whole syllables are missing, e.g. płais i (te)tartov. Fortunately, as Arevšatyan did for tetarton etc., we can reconstruct the most of them i.e., plaimin i pratoi could not be something different than plagion/s tou prōtou. β) But most importantly, we see that the auxiliary modes have not name forms like mesos, moesi or medii toni. Their naming is more akin to the Latin term parapter (see Atkinson’s relative bibliography in his Critical Nexus). For the moment, we can’t exclude that the author(s) of this treatise used a term like pa[ra]p[t]‘arown i deritu i.e., parapteron/s tou deuterou. At least, we cannot suppose that, if they weren’t Greeks, they “Grecizing” in similar ways for similar phenomena with Latin speaking theorists. This is one reason that, we could think of the Armenian chant along with the Syriac one regarding the already proposed links of the latter to the early Latin chant. Meanwhile, I also think that those who believe that this term’s place is in the box with the label “Carolingian Grecizing movement of the 9th century,” they have to take this term out of that box and wait (all of us, together) if we will throw it back. γ) At first glance one, based on the personality-name transliterations of Arevšatyan (I could suggest alternatively Kinyras for Synerges but I will not make any comment on his connection to k‘nar, see p. 364), could think that these mythological inventors of ecclesiastical modes are from Greece; but my preliminary opinion is that the origin of this treatise (and of some of the referred personalities) is not Greece but Egypt. This is one reason, among others, that I suggest Egypt as a candidate “place of origin” of the Octoēchos (as an alternative or a parallel plan to the already important work). The case of a Heptaēchos is also important and not to be forgotten. Furthermore, I realize –roughly saying- that many people have an established foggy belief that the earliest Octoēchos is a “proto-system” that “created” in Jerusalem (or somewhere in Syropalestinian geography) by some Christians (“proto-theorists”?) “devoted” to the “creation” of a musical proto-tetraēchos, (if I discern some modern linear narrative trends well) or mainly, a “proto-octoēchos (=as something like a taxonomy of a collection of a melodic material). Egypt is also important about papyrus material as well as (secondarily in relation to our musical interests here) the most probable origin place of few of the oldest Greek liturgical MSS. These are some preparatory remarks on such late antiquity and medieval evidence(s) but as it is obvious I do not have any intention in this blog, to extent my exposition on any –modern- nation orientated origin issues. I, also, hope that no one will put –extra- words in my mouth on the subject.

After such an example, now is more apparent the urgent priority (and the importance) of the existence of a real multilingual Lexicum Musicum Medii Aevi.

-------------------------------------

And now, Oliver,

I proceed to less central issues of this blog but anyhow all this give me the opportunity to record here (as I had some free time these days) more precisely my views and work, albeit in a preliminary way (I have, also, to remind the one who decide to continue the reading that the following is, unfortunately, a long post not only because I include Oliver’s text [in “italics”] but because I chose to give the deserved accuracy to these topics.):

(1)

“Also here, there is a difference between Greek and Latin theory. You wrote [sic, is it me that I wrote the following? =] that the Greeks did not develop any [sic] kind of notation [sic] during the first millenium. But there is this hymn about Trinity in the Oxyrhynchus papyrus […] If I understand well this 2nd-century [sic] fragment uses Alypian notation (please correct me, if I got it wrong!), which means that Greek psaltes could have used musical notation since late Antiquity, if they did want to use it.”

Did you, Oliver, read what I wrote or you simply put words in my mouth? However, let us accept, for the moment, that I am not aware about 1st millennium’s Greek notations and of the existence of the Oxyrhynchus papyrus (there is also literature about papyri in relation to early chant’s modes): how could I correct you on something that I am not aware? For the Social Setting of this papyrus, the ethnic origins of the people of Oxyrhynchus and performance practice issues one should have a look to Cosgrove’s recent (2011) book especially after the p. 130. But, “2nd-century”? In DAGM (2001, No 59, pp. 190-194) we see in p. 192 that this papyrus is of the end of 3rd century and Cosgrove gives the same dating. Is this 2nd century one more dating of yours? BTW, “Bellermann fragment (11th century)”? “11th century”?

But let us be more precise. I did not write: “the Greeks did not develop any kind of notation during the first millenium.” How could be this done? What I wrote was about the scarcity of music theory writings, a part of which are the didactic (material which under certain circumstances can acquire theoretical status) tables or lists that expose the notational signs one by one, I give to the interested Latin chant people some examples: α) the oldest list of ekphonetic signs is included in the 10th cent. EG-MSsc: Gr. 213 (f. 116v) 10th century, note also similar lists as β) the most probably 11th/12th c. (or 14^th for others) EG-MSsc: Gr. 217 (f. 2r) and the γ) 10th/11th c. EG-MSsc: Gr. 8 (f. 303r) with parallel notation in paleobyzantine signs (of a 11th/12th century hand). These tables are also “music theory,” in a way. The oldest sentence of Byzantine, “real,” music theory we have, until now, is found within another neumes list; this time not ekphonetic. So I wrote the following sentence: “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,[…]).” In the same table there are also signs like 1) parēchon, 2) phthora, 3) semiphthora, 4) nana.

Indeed, pieces of evidence as α) the naming of the 7th voice as τελεία β) the existence of 3 mesoi and 2 phthorai and γ) the inclusion of, roughly speaking, several “modulation” signs, in my account, by no means represent the rudiments of that musical theory (and all the remaining neumes of this table, are also parts of a highly sophisticated system).

(This is, exclusively, an explanation to the abovementioned sentence of mine that belongs to the main text of this blog.)

Two more observations, in a more precise way: α) the “wheel of Koukouzelēs” is appeared in the sources several decades after the appearance, in F-Pn: Gr. 261 of AD 1289 (along with the term Papadikē), of the specific correlation (not the only one in Byzantium) of the names of ancient tropoi / tonoi with the ordinals of the ēchoi, e.g., Lydios/Hypolydios is associated to Deuteros/Plagios Deuteros respectively. There is no reason to continue, for the moment, on the subject. β) the issue is not if the ēchoi have two kind of names (διπλή παρονομασία is the modern Greek sometimes used, if I remember correctly) within an a posteriori musicological “unified [Byzantine] theory,” but the careful examination of the hierarchy of these “names/onómata” (as principal/κύρια etc.) in relation to the numberings of modes within the various Byzantine music theory streams through the ages. And all these not in a, wholesale linear narrative (e.g. that simpler structures are always prior to more complex structures). People, in this world, sometimes, make simplifications of older, more complex, phases/stages and there is no one who is characterized by a lack of ideology. In real history, and life, linear and economical solutions are not always the case, because people were (and are) human beings, not “unbiased” “statues or robots of positivism” with no ideology who always produce (what posteriorly could be -within differentiated ideologically environments- seen as) “consistent developments.”

Distortion of my stance (2):

“Why you are so eager to drop the Slavic evidence, since it was obviously about a whole reception just based on triphonia and on the Old Byzantine / adiastematic level of notation?”

To drop the Slavic evidence? Me? I believe just the opposite: all chants are central to the documentation of medieval times. And, Diphonia, Triphonia, tetraphonia…? So once again, what I wrote was: “Anyhow, the issue I am presenting is that the numbering 1 to 8 exists in Byzantine as well as in Slavonic and Syriac modes. Nothing more, nothing less.” Is this any “eagerness to drop” Slavic (or Syriac) evidence?!

(3)

“On the other hand, since you mentioned Cod. crypt. Ε.γ. ΙΙ (the first facsimile published within the main series of MMB) was written at a scriptorium of Constantinople and obviously ordered there (it fits perfectly for the needs of MMB who was interested in the 14th-century redaction of the heirmologion), a more local Italian redaction of Grottaferrata you will find in the earlier heirmologion Cod. crypt. Ε.γ. ΙΙI still with Old Byzantine notation written about mid 12th century, Sandra Martani has published about both heirmologia.”

It was Tardo’s reference not mine who referred to this to codex, Oliver. What I wrote in an elliptical way was the dating of Ε.γ.ΙΙ and that, in general, a Heirmologion is a book divided into mode-sections. This is the reason, and for the sake of brevity, I just alluded the “much earlier” 11th century Heirmologion Lavra Γ 9 (which also includes the poems [where, again, the pl.1 is “fifth in order” and the pl.2 is the “sixth ‘melodist’ ”). But you gave us, a piece of information about another Heirmologion (a MS not earlier than the 11th century Lavra Γ 9) in Grottaferrata… My issue wasn’t the Heirmologia of Italy (I hope that you will not consider this as an “eagerness to drop” the Italian evidence). My issue was the numbering of modes that is included in the small poems (epigrams, is another term) in some Heirmologia. Interesting is, though, what Troelsgård (MMB, IX, 2011, p. 13) writes about these small poems of these Heirmologia: “Some Heirmológia also include didactic material, such as Laura Γ 9 (11th cent.) and Grottaferrata E.γ. ΙΙ (AD 1281), in which a series of verses describes the particular ēthos and aesthetic qualities associated with each mode.”

A Lack? (4)

“Quoting from Wolfram / Hannick's edition of the dialogue treatises, they did also mention a reference to Alypian notation and its letters as a reference or marker for frets (you mentioned the Greek term kavallion).”

I extended the size of my excerpt from Gerda Wolfram-Christian Hannick’s Kommentar just for this reason, i.e., to exist the Alypios reference of them. BTW, the oldest phase’s best reading of this word, in my view, is kavália not only because is so recorded in the earliest best dated text (in I-Rvat: Gr. 191) but, additionally, because it is there so written, not simply by a copyist, but by the hand of a highly educated personality (i.e., consciously and reasonably), Ioannēs Pediasimos. Plousiadēnos is also such a (but much later) personality. Anyhow, what I wrote is found in the above posts and I have nothing more to write, for the moment, on Papadikai (it is important that also the term Psaltikē Technē exists in later expositions; we met it, in that previous post, in BNF Sup. gr. 1302), Pseudo-Ioannēs Damaskēnos text(s), and the problems of its 1997 edition and apparatus criticus. The same applies on kavália as frets and bridges.

Excursus. I hope, Oliver, that you will not write here more pieces of your general knowledge on earlier or later Armenian and Georgian chant, or possibly on the cris de tous les animaux and their relation to ancient music or to give more general information on OdO/CaO Heirmologia, the “Balkan crisis” etc. etc. (don’t take this as a discouragement to write here, you’re always welcome). There is not any need to add information that will confuse and discourage especially Latin chant people to continue reading. This is the reason that even though the Palatini Graeci have been available online for a few months, I included, in the main text of this blog, only the relative to ancient Greek music theory MSS of them and not the irrelevant here BAV, Pal. gr. 243. As for the Armenian chant, I’ll propose, something easy for you: to include in your Armenian and Georgian music and MSS posts the oldest Tałaran (Book of Odes), BNF Arménien 79, Consultation. As for Armenian Hymnals there are some more online like, the Utopia, armarium codicum bibliophilorum, Cod. 4, Hymnaire arménien, detailed description (here), the Chicago library (Goodspeed Col.) Ms 275 (Astuacatur Hymnal), the 2438 of the Jerusalem Armenian Patriarchate, the BNF Arménien 65, consultation and 75, consultation. And there are more … The online Georgian MSS e.g., of BNF (Nos 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 30) are not notated but the 3 (consultation) and 30 (consultation) are frequently cited in the liturgical studies. I am sure Oliver, that you’ve met them many times in your readings. As for the Greek MSS of Megistē Lavra MSS and fragments (as far as the online LOC ones), in relation to your latest 25 December Discussion, Nativity Surprise: Old Byzantine chant books of the Great Lavra (Holy Mount Athos) there are also: Γ 12, Δ 68, and Ι 100. Finally, as you offered a myriad of presents to the readers of MM, you can also create a place for the online MSS with Greek ekphonetic notation (beginning e.g. from the BNF Grec 9 Codex Ephræmi Syri rescriptus, consultation); there are a lot of them…

But for me, a constant admirer of Armenian artists, their skills and esthetic capabilities, the Utopia, armarium codicum bibliophilorum, Cod. 3, detailed description (here) (in equally high resolution, even, with St. Gall 359 and Einsiedeln 121), is a superb example of a beautiful MS. It is one of the most fine and delicate musical codices I’ve ever seen. Moreover, for the days we run, for those who have had the patience (and passion) to read, up to this point this long post I would like to wish them, from this blog, to have strength or

Έρρωσθε τοις εντευξομένοις

Image 121 of Greek Manuscripts 213. Evangelion.
Oliver Gerlach December 27, 2019 1:18

I do not understand, why certain colleagues believe that I am an advocate of an unchanging tradition of Orthodox, Jewish or Muslim chant, because if they did really read my publications more carefully, they would have understood that writing down every detail is something which I characterised as a strict or hard transmission. This is the case for most of the Latin scribes and history teaches us that written transmission can even be destructive, not just for oral transmission, but for musical transmission as a whole. Next to hard transmission there are different forms based on a more “dynamic transmission” as it was called by Iannis Zannos.

My point was another one, if I do not agree with certain commonplaces which were published about music theory, it is simply that I have no confidence that Western musicology has the right point of view and methodological approach to understand Ancient Greek harmonics or even its own history which is not the point of view of any modal tradition, because they still preserved unsimplified forms of monody. It is not an individual aspect (even if you do insist so much to treat others like an individual which is dedinitely nice and polite to do so), there is a collective aspect as well, since it is part of European history that they have moved so far away from Oriental Europeans (an ignorance which has also political dimensions, just think of the Balkan crisis), but also moved far away from a profound understanding of European music and its history (whatever some might regard as their own or as Occidental is only concerned about a small part of Europe and it is not even true that such a geographic way of dividing Europe does work). Between a so-called “Western” European and an “Eastern” European there are so many cultural differences, that they do even attract each other by being so different. I personally think it is more important to understand these differences than to be polite for the price that one stops to question these commonplaces.

The more dynamic form of transmission is not less changing, it causes even more changes, even local differences, since oral transmission has been always local and dynamic transmission also does not interfere so much with these local differences and cultural diversity. But just because one needs to know very much to perceive and to understand these differences, it does not mean that these changes and differences do not exist. Together with this understanding, there is also a certain responsibility! But ignorance is never responsible, it is always fatal and the real cause of cruelty and intolerance.

of 4

This reply was deleted.

Blogue

Medieval Greek Chant Theoretical Streams as Scholia on the Harmonica of Claudios Ptolemaios: The Online Sources

Comments

Partnership