9126141069?profile=original

In the present blog I’ll try to avoid terminologies and elements of Greek chant that, for one with no intimacy with the subject -a Gregorianist for example – can be perceived as foreign, difficult and laborious to deal with; mainly something exotic that should be left to those devoted to (Latin and / or Greek) music theory. I am aware that it could appear as more “neutral” and “unbiased” if I chose to simply list the online sources, but I prefer to go into more detail, adding some comments in the end about modern vocabularies. Addressing Latin chant specialists about online sources of Musica Enchiriadis is, after all, more straight-forward than informing them about Greek chant theory stuff. Last but not least, those who still believe that “it’s all Greek” to them can enjoy the diagrams and the schemes of the MSS; some of them are really beautiful.

 

A small introduction

 

The earliest Byzantine MSS of ancient Greek music theory (below I give the links of about 130 online MSS from 11th century onwards) appear to us –believe it or not- only after the 11th century. The D-Heu: Cod. Pal. gr. 281 (Mathiesen, 1988 No 14 [=Math. 14]) is written on 14 January of 1040 (or 6548 W.E.). The other MSS of 11th and 12th centuries are I-Vnm: Gr. app. cl. VI/3 (coll. 1347) (Math. 270, Vitrac 2019 [=Vitrac] p. 142, Acerbi-Gioffreda 2019, p. 655), I-Vnm: Gr. 307 (coll. 1027) (Math. 261, Vitrac p. 142) and later I-Rvat: Gr. 2338 (Math. 234, Acerbi-Gioffreda 2019 Va [13th century], p. 661) with I-Vnm: Gr. app. cl. VI/10 (coll. 1300) (Math. 273, Düring 79 M, additionally the 14th century hand of Grēgoras has been identified [Bianconi 2005, p. 413 No 12, Acerbi 2016, p. 186, No 10, e.g. he added the numbers and titles of chapters of book I of Ptolemaios’s Harmonica, see also Vitrac, p. 66 and p. 142]). But for us it is important to know the relation of them (and of the later ones) to medieval music.

Indeed, some of the, for example, 13th and 14th century Greek manuscripts that contain the treatises of ancient musicographers (who go back to 4th century B.C.), are full of medieval scholia and paratextual diagrams (mainly on Claudios Ptolemaios’s Harmonica [2nd century A.D.]) about Greek chant theory; a good deal of them (especially those connecting ēchoi to the names Dōrios, Phrygios etc.) never published. But first, let us begin with a useful note which shall underline the importance of these relatively late sources about the modern prospects of medieval chant in general.

A pattern? The earlier the sources the later the socio-cultural entity

 

We do not have in our disposal – in contrast to Latin chant- any text of chant theory in Greek (excluding few ekphonetic signs lists) from the 1st millennium. But in the neumes table of M. Lavra Γ 67, f. 159r (10th / beginning 11th century) there is the following - not rudimentary- chant theory sentence: the voices are seven, but the ēchoi four, three mesoi, two phthorai and four plagioi, voice 1st, voice 2nd, voice 3rd, voice 4th, voice 5th, voice 6th, voice 7th, that is the “fin(e)-al” (τελεία, more economically in French: “fin-al,” a medieval Latin speaking scholar would tended to translate it with the meaning of perfect, David Cohen, “‘The imperfect Seeks Its Perfection’: Harmonic Progression, Directed Motion, and Aristotelian Physics,’’ Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 23, No. 2 [Autumn, 2001], p. 155 with n. 58 and 62). The, now conventionally named, Hagiopolitēs is a 14th century manuscript; we do not know how the 1st millennium appearance(s) of this treatise was. The first question is what happened and, given the cultural importance of medieval Jerusalem and New Rome, an earlier material didn’t reach us. As most people of M.M. know, the same question applies to the scarcity of indigenous sources from Old Rome before the Carolingian times [1*], not to mention theoretical treatises or even something like “primitive” considerations of – let us accept the linear phraseology for the moment – a not “full-fledged” Octoēchos. Rome was -and still continues frequently to be- thrown inferentially, together with any kind of material that “we” do not feel comfortable / understand, into the convenient box with the label “pre-theoretical period” (of exactly what and concerning whom?). The problematic on such speculations acquires even more importance if one thinks that we have MSS of Boethius’s De Institutione Musica already from 9th century – thanks to the preferences of the new Carolingian realm - and that the first Greek text of the Harmonica of Claudios Ptolemaios (who is quoted by Boethius) is appeared only in an above-mentioned 12th century MS (the MS Math. 273). Indeed, the sources that reached us [2*] didn’t appear in the past ex nihilo and / since, among others, they are the residues of many of historico-ideological sieves (like the issue of the existence of an Old Tropologion in Greek).

 

[1*] I am not referring here, of course, to the later notated sources of the so-called Old Roman chant.

[2*] Of disparate nature; as for the much better studied mathematical material see now, Vitrac, 2019, and for music already in Barbera’s edition of the Euclidean Division of the Canon (1991), especially pp. 104-111, see also p. 205 and n. 6 of my contribution to the 13th meeting of Cantus Planus (2006, here).

 

How music historiographies could be a projection to the past of modern conceptual frameworks

 

Let us now return to our subject. Surprisingly enough some of the above mentioned scholia / diagrams reflect, among others, Hagiopolitan music theory topics by quoting - and thus connecting them to - certain chapters of the Harmonica. One can assume that such an important material would attract the attention of the scholars of Byzantine chant of the 20th century, but this wasn’t the case and the aforesaid material remained a terra incognita. Why this happened is mainly the work of the ethnomusicologist of the future (here I give only some samples), but it is so amusing that Jorgen Raasted in his, “Quis Quid Ubi Quibus Auxilis… Notes on the transmission of the Hagiopolites,” Scriptorium 42-1 (1988), p.91 (Persée), passed just next to this Hagiopolitan material of Vat. gr. 192 since he referred to this MS but had not had the chance to consult it!

One can find such kind of information sporadically not in studies of Greek chant but in the book Ancient Greek Music Theory, by Thomas J. Mathiesen, RISM (BXI), 1988. In the bibliography (and mainly in the description of some MSS) Mathiesen gives information that there are interlineated and marginal scholia (extensively or not) mainly to the Harmonica of Ptolemaios and in some cases he understands that they have relation to Greek chant theory. Interestingly, he uses an atypical wording about the modern classification of Byzantine music theory in two classes (indeed, medieval reality appears to be more complex if one consults the MSS of ancient Greek music theory): “There are at least two major classes of Byzantine music theory, one dealing primarily with practical problems of musical notation and liturgical chant (the papadikai), and the other representing an archaicizing attempt to preserve ancient Greek music theory and philosophy and to apply it to Byzantine music theory” (emphasis mine). As a matter of fact the phrasing is not inaccurate if one recalls that even the earliest papadikai of the 14th century, report also a certain correlation of Dōrios Phrygios etc. with (i.e. apply them to) the numbering of the ēchoi in which, for example, the Lydios / Hypolydios is correlated to 2nd / pl.2nd ēchos respectively. Moreover, the papadikai system was also a product of intellectual (and “archaicizing”) effort (not only about the above mentioned correlation) [3*]. But for the above Mathiesen’s (1988) passage and his wider rationale and decisions see pp. xxx-xxxi (and about his hopes - some of them relative to our subject here - on p. xxxv-xxxvi). In my opinion, the high degree of isolation of these two frameworks in modern academia 1) on ancient Greek music and 2) on Greek (and other Eastern and Oriental) chant is the main reason that all this material remained unpublished, not catalogued and uncommented. A fitting analogy would be the scholia on Martianus Capella and Boethius having the same treatment. Adding to that is the seemingly established approach (based on our reconstructions) that Byzantine chant theory (whatever relation “had” this theory to actual practice) and ancient Greek music theory (whatever relation “had” this theory to actual practice) are treated as more separate entities in accordance to the degree of interaction they really had (especially after the documentation of the MSS of the 13th or 14th centuries we will see below). So this little presentation of online MSS is concerned with this “gray area” [4*] between the somewhat well-defined boarders of these two modern disciplines beginning the discussion with a primary selection of some online MSS just to realize the Byzantine chant status of affairs (or, the “accepted facts”) during the 20th century (and the first fifth of the 21st). The D. Touliatos-Banker, “Check List of Byzantine Musical Manuscripts in the Vatican Library,” Manuscripta. A Journal for Manuscript research 31 (1987) has to be seen under this paragraph’s prospect.

 

[3*] The exceptional use of a Hagiopolitan correlation in a papadikē would just demonstrate that a) in performance practice the results would be not of so much difference (at least, for us) and b) that all that theoretical effort and different streams was something important (for them), not only in terms of periphery-center.

[4*] As André Barbera, J.A.M.S., 43 2, 1990, p. 363 named it in his review of Mathiesen (1988) referring also to the importance of Vat. gr. 191 and connecting it, after A. Turyn of course, mainly to Maximos Planoudēs

 

N.B. A somehow exhaustive list of MSS, persons and scholia, given the problems of Düring’s edition of the Harmonica of Ptolemaios, could be possible only after a real critical edition of this text (Mathiesen, 1988, p. xxxiv and 2000, p. 432) and the inclusion of further paleographical studies (especially after the identification of the inks via spectral imaging) of the relative MSS. But the progress already made in the last few decades is of remarkable importance and any kind of skepticism based on the latest or future technologies (implying that the current state is not “convincing enough”) would be unfair, only alluding on supposed “neutrality” and an absence of “bias” and “ideology” of the wo/man who expresses such skepticism. The field is continuously being studied, with new additions being published; regarding earlier “codicological and palaeographic units” of the MSS we are dealing with, see now F. Acerbi-A. Gioffreda, “Harmonica membra disjecta,” Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies 59 4, Winter 2019 [=Acerbi-Gioffreda 2019] (here), accessed 24 November 2019. And one can also add the Mathiesen’s (1992) “Hermes or Clio…” (here), especially on p. 4 (on Why and How these treatises survived), p. 7 and pp. 14-15 with n. 22.

Below, slowly but surely, I have advanced my older work on the subject by giving a selection of eight MSS that include Greek chant information mainly on two - and occasionally on more - chant related topics i.e., α) on the I.16 of Ptolm. Harm. i.e., concerning the medieval use of equal diatonic genre and β) on the II.10 of Ptolm. Harm. i.e., concerning the correlation of Dōrios Phrygios etc. with the numbering of the ēchoi.

Eight online MSS with Greek chant information

 1.

I-Vat: Gr. 191 (Math. 214 [13th], Dür. 64 W [13th /14th], Acerbi 2016 p. 195, Vitrac [1296-1298] p. 145)

Content and Bibliographic References and at Pinakes (here)

 

According to Ingemar Düring, the editor of Harmonica (1930), it is stemming from the m-class and gives rise to the recension of its own subclass [W]. This is one of the most studied codices in relation to the included astronomical and mathematical material. Importantly, in some scholia the hand (the revisoris manus R of A. Turyn) of the intellectual and deacon Ioannēs Pothos Pediasimos recently has been identified (Pérez Martín, 2010) and he “assembled, and annotated at least between 1296 and 1302/3 the early Palaiologan mathematical encyclopaedia in Vat. gr. 191” (Acerbi 2016, p. 183 No. 3). His hand is also responsible for some crucial chant related scholia, within Harmonica, and a small theoretical text just after it. What, at first glance, we have here is:

α) As far as Ptol. Harm. I.16 (entitled, in Jon Solomon’s tr.: How Many and Which Genera Are More Familiar to the Hearing), on f. 331r, there is not any remarkable marginal or interlinear scholion in connection to equal diatonic.

β) Referencing to II.10 of Harmonica, on f. 340r, there is one extra correlation of the names Dōrios Phrygios etc. with the ordinals (and additionally, here, to the martyriai [modal signatures]) of the ēchoi. This correlation was the most proximate to the more widespread of the Latin chant and is different to the Hagiopolitan and the one of the Bryennios’s stream. I transliterate and provisionally translate in English:

 

Dōrios (is the name of) the 1st ēchos, Phrygios the 2nd, Lydios the 3rd, Mixolydios the 4th, Hypodōrios the plagios of the 1st, Hypophrygios the plagios of the 2nd, Hypolydios the plagios of the 3rd, that is the Varys, Hypomixolydios the plagios of the 4th. Ptolemaios, not properly (?!), says that the ēchoi of them are seven. And other people, speaking nonsense, name them otherwise. (emphasis mine, then follows the same nomenclature and the relative martyriai, I transliterate:)

Picture 1

The pneumata (spirits) are four, hypsilē, chamēlē, kentēma and elaphron, because we are in need of pneuma (both) for ascending and descending.

 

The tension in the wording is indicative of the tension among personalities of the time. Here most probably it is the monk Maximos Planoudēs (his friend Manuēl Bryennios and the historian and deacon George Pachymerēs represent the same ēchoi correlation stream [see them on f.101v of the autograph of Pachymerēs I-Ra: Gr. 38, not included in Math.]) that is implied to “speaking nonsense.” Remind also that –not only- in Hagiopolitēs the “schemes of diapason” are not numbered, as I wrote some years before, here in M.M., in the ancient way from 1 to 7 but from 2 to 8 (the online MSS that contain this form of Anōnymos III passage are: [Math. 87=] F-Pn: Gr. 2458 68r-v, [Math. 89=] F-Pn: Gr. 2460 27v, F-Pn: [Math. 95=] Gr. 2532  82r-v, [Math. 219=] I-Vat: Gr. 221 pp. 388, [Math. 230=] I-Vat: Gr. 1364 f. 134v, [Math. 238=] I-Vat: Barb. gr. 265 p. 458, [Math. 253=] I-Vat: Ross. gr. 977 pp. 178-179 and of course its ρ recension, the Hagiopolitēs MS F-Pn: Gr. 360 f. 229v together with the EG-MSsc: Gr. 1764, f. 94r-v [the very last MS, numbered 299, that Mathiesen decided to include in his Catalogue]). Vincent (p.224) already at 1847 realized that there is an interesting variation here and, reasonably, felt the need of an explanation.

Additionally, we have a totally unknown and unpublished small theoretical chant text on f. 359v, just after the Harmonica, with strong affinity, even in wording, to Pseudo-Damaskēnos [=Ps-D] text. Thus, we can legitimately label it as proto-pseudodamaskēnos and it is also important for the “pre-history” of Ps-D. The earliest testimony of the latter belongs to the 15th century. I provisionally translate the half of the whole text, in order to understand some of its content. It is also interesting regarding modern phraseologies about Latin chant in which we see terms like sign and neume. The relative concordances to Ps-D are given in parentheses as its editors did not use at all this early (as far as the Byzantine chant) text:

 

The principal (κύριοι) tonoi (are) ison, oligon and apostrophos (Ps-D 42-43): oxeia and petastē (are) so-called tonoi because they (are) dominated and diminished (συστέλλονται) (Ps-D 44) by the ison: as tonoi (are) called also the compound (σύνθετα) signs (contra [?] in Ps-D 49), but signs (σημάδια) (are) called when they are placed and written, and tonoi when they are sung (Ps-D 50-51):-

Ēchos and melos are different, because ēchos precedes melos (Ps-D 79-80), and there is not melos without ēchos, but ēchos exists without melos, and the ēchos always begins with the ison, but the melos begins with tonos and pneuma (spirit):

Psalm (is) melody with the use of a musical instrument, but Ōdē (is) the one with the use of mouth and without an instrument (Ps-D 85-88). The tonoi (are) fifteen since the (main) frets / bridges [5*] in Music are fifteen (Ps-D 152-153), and Ptolemaios said all these:-...

 

And then continues with another categorization of the 24 signs.

That means that the above text, one of the oldest best dated complete [6*] treatises of Greek chant, is not found in a papadikē and the like “church” MSS, as most people would expect, but just next to Ptolemaios, in a MS of ancient Greek music theory! This is an example of how “innocent” prospects predispose modern narrative as well as… findings.

Of the other online subclasses of Harmonica’s m-class we have 1) the E i.e., I-Vat: Gr. 186 (Math. 210, Vitrac p. 145, 13th c.), 2) the I-Vat: Pal. gr. 60 (Math. 242, Vitrac p. 165, where we see for α) the “softer of the intense diatonic” together with “equal diatonic” in the same scheme on f. 16r [like BNF gr. 2450, see below] and for β) ēchoi and enēchēmata (the intonation syllables of the ēchoi), on f. 26r in the order of Bryennios / Grēgoras) and 3) the 13th century I-Vat: Pal. gr. 95 (Math. 243, Dür. 73 13th/14th century, Pinakes [here]) of the M subclass.

 

[5*] Καβάλια / kavália (or καβάλλια / kavállia in Hagiopolitēs, as well as κάβαλα / kávala in other sources of Ps-D), in the edition of Ps-D a not good reading is adopted: kavála, see MS Dionysiou 570, 8r; best translation in French: chevalet (=almost a transliteration). In modern Greek something like καβαλάρηδες or better γέφυρες / περντέδες (from Ottoman-Turkish perde).

[6*] Complete, because there was plenty of space - in this initially blank page- for Pediasimos to continue to write if there was more text to add, but he didn’t. This text is not like 1) the (one) question-(one) answer material of the MS RUS-SPsc: Gr. 495, ff. 1v-4v, or 2) collections of en-ēchēmata (in-tonation formulas of the ēchoi) (here) without theoretical text, or 3) neumes material like F-Pn: Gr 260 ff. 253v or even 4) the dated 1289 F-Pn: Gr. 261 ff. 139v-140r that includes headings, and on f. 140v we have the oldest testimony - in the form of a “table”- of the widespread nomenclature of the papadikai. Here is not the place to discuss these –and more- cases (and their one by one labeling).

2.

I-Vat: Gr. 192 (Math. 215 [13th], Dür. 65 V [13th /14th], Vitrac p. 145 [second half of 13th century])

Bibliographic References and at Pinakes (here)

 

This is a “mathematical miscellany” stemming from the m-class that gives rise to the recension of Düring’s subclass labeled V. It seems that this MS is the immediate (not entirely in chronological terms) predecessor of Vat. gr. 191 and unfortunately, it didn’t acquire so much –and not only - paleographical attention like that until now (consider e.g., the above Bibliographic References where some 11 works are sited in relation to the 116 for the Vat. gr. 191). As far as the content there are learned scholia written within and after the Harmonica linking it to the Hagiopolitan theoretical tradition of the Greek chant. But in this case we have one personality that published such an important material of scholia. He was the French polymath Théodore Reinach (1860-1928) in his - more than a century before – “Fragments Musicologiques Inédits,” Revue des Études Grecques, Tome X, No 39, July-September 1897, pp. 313-327 (Persée). Reinach transcribed and commented the theoretical texts / diagrams found - only after - the main texts of the MS Vat. gr. 192, leaving aside the scholia within the Harmonica. I will not elaborate, for the moment, on Reinach’s work. In relation to Greek chant and Ptolemaios we have the α) on f. 201v (and f. 223 [here there is only the name of “softer of the intense diatonic,” on that, see the next MS below] i.e., two times) and the β) on f. 225v (a scheme using whole tones and leimmata and in an name-order that Bryennios’s stream inverts in an absolute manner) respectively. Terms like mesos, phthora, enēchēmata, epēchēmata and apēchēmata and a trochos like scheme on f. 227r are found.

Other online MSS of this subclass [V] of Harmonica are F-Pn: Gr. 2451 (Math. 80) and F-Pn: Gr. 2453 (Math. 82).

3.

F-Pn: Coislin gr. 173 (Math. 103 [15th], Dür. 51 [14th], see Acerbi 2016, p. 151, Vitrac p.154 [first half of 14th]) see also: Notice rédigée par Anne Lapasset, Fevrier 2015 (here) and at Pinakes (here)

 

On f.1 there is a possession note of the Megistē Lavra monastery at Mount Athos / Greece. Christos Terzēs in his edition of Dionysios (Athens, 2010, p. 115*) believes that the hands had not been identified (quoting Mathiesen, 1988) and that the MS is produced in Mount Athos. As far as the Harmonica the text belongs to Düring’s g-class that represents the recension of Nicēphoros Grēgoras (ca. summer 1293/June 1294 - 1358/1361 [after Divna Manolova’s Dissertation, Budapest, 2014, academia.edu]). Indeed, “concerning the musical treatises, I-Vat.: Gr. 198 [Math. 218, Vitrac p. 146] is an apograph of Paris gr. 173” (Acerbi 2016, p.160). Note among Grēgoras’s autograph scholia (Bianconi, 2005, p. 415, No 25), the partly autograph one at the beginning of Harmonica on f. 32r (B. Mondrain, “Maxime Planoude, Nicéphore Grégoras et Ptolémée,” Palaeoslavica 10, 2002, p. 321 n.26).

α) On f.58r as scholion to I.16 of Harmonica. Here Ptolemaios begins accepting that the diatonic genera in general are more familiar to hearing than the enharmonic and the soft chromatic and continues extensively with the equal diatonic genus. Then he presents some other genera and their tunings / positions in musical instruments, and finally, he “can hardly fail to accept” the ditonal diatonic (roughly saying, the one using semitones and whole tones). But, since the “equal diatonic is a logical modification [and “more even / ὁμαλώτερον”] of the intense diatonic” (Mathiesen, 2000, pp. 450-451) the scheme here, together with “equal diatonic,” gives another title - referencing the position (numbers 24 to 18) – to it, this is the “softer of the intense diatonic”; thus uses the same ratios! The naming of the equal diatonic as (and its connection to) softer (μαλακώτερον, see also in Ptolm. Harm. I.12.28ff.) of the intense diatonic, has important consequences for the use of equal diatonic in the theory and the actual musical praxis in medieval times. A variation of this scheme exists also in the next F-Pn: Gr. 2540 (and I shall transliterate that form there).

β) On f. 74v, in relation to II.10, a scheme is given with the correlations of Dōrios Phrygios etc. with the ēchoi, their enēchēmata and the four phthorai. This correlation, at first glance, is the same as the tradition of Bryennios i.e, the prōtos ēchos is placed at the highest position (Hypermixolydios). For the moment, I have not any definitive opinion if it is exactly the same system as the one of Bryennios since we know that Grēgoras’s work consisted of, more or less, a new “adjustment” of the ancient material in order “to save the phenomena.” Here is a transliterated form of that diagram:

 Picture 2

See also the trochos like schemes on ff. 110v-111r.

Other online MSS of this Grēgoras’s recension of Harmonica are: GB-Ob: Bar. gr. 124 (Math. 134), F-Pn: Coislin gr. 336 (Math. 105), and F-Pn: Gr. 2456 (Math. 86) (from [?, Math. p. 226] I-Vat.: Gr. 2365 [Math. 235]), I-Rvat: Pal. gr. 389 (Math. 245), I-Rvat: Pal. gr. 390 (Math. 246).

4.

F-Pn: Gr. 2450 (Math. 79 [14th], Dür. 42 [14th /15th], Acerbi 2016 p. 152, [about 1335], Vitrac p.157 [about 1335]) see also: Notice rédigée par Anne Lapasset, Fevrier 2015 (here) and at Pinakes (here).

 

According to Düring’s Harmonica edition the text of this MS belongs to the gp-subclass that stems from the main Grēgoras’s g-class. Is this a representation of a separate choice (to the degree Düring’s classes are reliable), in relation to the text / content, of (or someone close to) him? His hand is identified in some scholia of the ff. 57r, 59r, 71v, 72v, 73r. (Pérez Martín, 2008). As far as the schemes in relation to Greek chant the α) and the β) of F-Pn: Gr. 173 are found on 32r (in a different form but “better” as for our understanding) and 53r (again in Bryennios’s order) respectively. A transliterated form of that 32r diagram is the following:

Picture 3  

See also the trochos like scheme on 89v.

Other online MSS that belong to the gp recension of Harmonica are I-Vat: Gr. 221 (Math. 219, ēchoi, phthorai and enēchēmata on p. 106), I-Vat: Barb. gr. 265 (Math. 238, ēchoi, phthorai and enēchēmata on p. 138) that we’ve already met and note the transcription of Ismaël Boulliau (in 1656), in F-Pn: Sup. gr. 292 (Math. 111).

5.

F-Pn : Coislin gr. 172 (Math. 102 [15th], Dür. 50 [14th /15th], Vitrac [14th /15th] p.154) see also: Notice rédigée par Anne Lapasset, Mars 2015 (here) and at Pinakes (here).

 

It is somewhat posterior to the aforementioned F-Pn: Coislin gr. 173, but this time its Harmonica, according to Düring, belongs to his f-class stemming from D-Mbs: Cod. gr. 361a (Math. 22 [13th-16th], Dur. 28 [13th-16th], see Vitrac p. 153, Acerbi-Gioffreda 2019 Mo, [2nd half of 13th century] p. 659). Again, is this a representation of one more separate choice, in relation to the text / content, of (or someone close to) Grēgoras? The relative scheme of α) is found on f. 13r (with no reference to “softer of the intense diatonic”). Note the diagrams on ff. 17r-18v on dynamis and thesis phenomena in relation to Ptolem. Harm. II.5-6.

There is another online MS that belongs to f-class the I-Vat: Barb. gr. 257 (Math. 237).

6.

I-Vat: Gr. 187 (Math. 211 [14th], Dür, 61 [14th], Vitrac [14th] p. 145)

Bibliographic References and at Pinakes (here)

 

This is a MS that represents the circle of the monk Barlaam the Calabrian as the I-Vat: Gr. 196 (Math. 217 [14th], Dür, 66 [14th], Vitrac p. 146 [14th]) and F-Pn: Gr. 2452 [Math. 82]). Note the diagrams on ff. 32r, 34v and 35r on thesis and dynamis phenomena in relation to Ptolem. Harm. II.5-6.

7.

I-Vat: Gr. 176 (Math. 208 [14th], Dür. 58 [14th], Vitrac [14th] p. 145)

Bibliographic References, and Pinakes (here).

 

Acerbi (2016, p. 173) notes: “A further recension of Harmonica was redacted by Isaac Argyros, whose fair copy is preserved (but recall that Argyros was used to correct in scribendo) in the autograph Vat. Gr. 176, ff. 101r-159v.” It is the A-subclass of Grēgoras’s g-class but this time “favoring the readings of the f-class” (Mathiesen 2000, p. 431).

The other online MS that belong to the same reduction of Harmonica is the F-Pn: Sup. gr. 449 (Math. 114).

8.

F-Pn: Sup. gr. 1101 (not in Math., A. Gastoué 70 [14th]) See a description (here) and Pinakes (here)

 

The MS contains mainly the early translations of Maximos Planoudēs into Greek of Boethius’s, De Consolatione Philosophiae, Cicero’s, Somnium Scipionis and Macrobius’s Commentary on it and other material. But importantly enough for us, at the last folia, there are music related schemes on 162r, 163v, 164r and 165v. Also another small music related scholion on 137r. On 162r we see the correlation of ēchoi with the Dōrios Phrygios etc. in the order of Bryennios / Grēgoras (ie. prōtos ēchos placed in the position of Hypermixolydios) and a trochos like diagram; compare it with two small schemes in the later F-Pn: Gr. 2339 f.59v. On f. 163v there is a scheme of the 7- and 8-stringed lyres of Hermēs (or Orpheus in other MSS) and Pythagoras respectively. See them in F-Pn: Gr. 2339 f. 60v, and, together with Bryennios’s MSS, on f. 47r of Pachymerēs’s aforementioned autograph I-Ra: Gr. 38).

 

A note on modern classifications and vocabularies

 

Indeed, why 20th century people didn’t “see” all this set of sources of Ptolemaios with their relative to Byzantine chant material and why the studies for chant wasn’t so decisive as the other disciplines (especially for the medieval Greek MSS on mathematics, see Vitrac, 2019, 6.B, p. 48 and 7.B, p. 59)? A possible answer of mine is already known to the list of Μ.Μ.: “we” “see” only what we have pre-theorized to see or more simply, when two people look at the same direction (and set of things) they do not acknowledge (and taxonomize) the same phenomena, although ‘all of them’ are there. Think of the results if they look at different directions….

And some final notes on the grand narrative of the society, the time and our vocabulary remembering Christian Troelsgård’s, “Ancient Musical Theory in Byzantine Enviroments,” Cahiers de l’Institute du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin 56 (1988), (here) in p. 229 where he writes: “On the other hand we find an increasing interest [7*] in copying, exerpting and commenting on the remains of ancient theory [are we sure that there wasn’t an – perhaps even more – “increasing interest” before?]. It is an accepted fact that these activities were centered around two different milieus in Byzantine society, the church [7*] on the one side and the scholarly circles of quadrivial study [7*] on the other. But I think there are some very important points or area of contact and interaction between these milieus.” And also, in the concluding p. 237, he speaks of “… the interaction between the two hemispheres [7*] of the musical culture of Byzantium. They imply that the Byzantines took a far more active and dynamic interest in the ancient musical theory than usually accepted.”

In my view, and after what we saw here, we can speak of an even far more active and dynamic interest in the ancient Greek theory and this, not only because we added the Harmonica, the main sholiated treatise in relation to chant.

But as it becomes obvious, the issue isn’t exactly the potential infinite discussions (past or future) on a degree of interaction of “two” domains. All these medieval theoretical constructions in this kind of sources are related to the everyday ecclesiastical music of the ordinary – differentiating, case by case, on degree of knowledge- faithful people (and psaltes). In contrast with other branches of knowledge, like Geometry or Arithmetic (with problems that sometimes still a modern wo/man, can’t understand), the ecclesiastical music circles or “parties” of people (recorded by the sources [remember the “many people” / πολλοì of Bryennios]), give us an idea about our narrative on the structure of that world. These intellectuals weren’t debating as isolated personalities because, among others, they had a vision about their society as a whole. I ask and explain: in our mind, where do we have to place an intellectual? Over, next to, in parallel or among ordinary people? Especially if we remember the other similar ecclesiastical case of theological debates among highly educated people (we met some of them already above) like Barlaam, Grēgoras, and others, not music related figures, like Grēgorios Palamas etc. who were also supported by their (larger or smaller) circles or “parties.”

Last but not least, referring to the current vocabulary (I will not criticize, for the moment, nation-centered vocabularies here in Greece) used on music related issues of the time: a generalized view of “church” and “scholarly circles of quadrivial study” would be misleading [8*] since a lot of the personalities (belonged to all the theoretical streams) we are dealing of were highly educated clerics, monks etc. And again, we have the same problematic with the “theoretical hemispheres.” In which MSS, who is theorizing, at what music(s) exactly? Are there more than two interacted “spheres” (including their “middle grounds,” a] and b], as I described them in my above given paper, pp. 217-218), thus not “hemispheres,” that we have to use in the narrative of the earlier or later medieval chant?

 

[7*] This is not a comment on what (and when) meant by “increasing interest,” “scholarly circles of quadrivial study,” “church” etc. as I have no intention to interfere in any kind of interpretation of “what the X scholar means,” but I make use of this quotation in order to express my skepticism – separately- on the use of certain terms.                 

[8*] Giving room even to potential polarization and not interaction, in other words, this could be a case of ‘glass half empty and glass half full’ within the same proposition.

MORE SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Acerbi, Fabio. “Funzioni e modalità di transmissione delle notazioni numeriche nella trattatistica mathematica Greca: Due esempi paradigmatici.” Segno e Testo 11 (2013). (academia.edu)

----------------. “Byzantine recensions of Greek mathematical and astronomical texts: A survey.” Estudios Bizantinos 4 (1016). (academia.edu)

Bianconi, Daniele. “La biblioteca di Cora tra Massimo Planude e Niceforo Gregora. Una Questione di mani.” Segno e Testo 3 (2005).

----------------.“La controversia palamitica. Figure, libri e mani.” Segno e Testo 6 (2008). (academia.edu)

Düring, Ingemar (ed). Die Harmonielehre des Klaudios Ptolemaios. Göteborg, 1930.

Gastoué, Amédée. Catalogue des manuscrits de musique Byzantine de la Bibliothèque de Paris et des Bibliothèques publiques de France. Paris, 1907. (Archive.org)

Mathiesen, Thomas. Ancient Greek Music Theory. A catalogue raisonné of manuscripts (RISM, B XI). München, 1988.

---------------. Apollo's Lyre : Greek music and music theory in antiquity and the Middle Ages.Lincoln and London, 2000.

Mondrain, Brigitte. "Les écritures dans les manuscrits byzantins du XIVè siècle." Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici (2008).

Pérez Martín, Inmaculada, “El estilo Hodegos y su proyección en las escrituras constantinopolitanas.” Segno e Testo 6 (2008). (academia.edu)

----------------. “L’ecriture de l’hypatos Jean Pothos Pédiasimos d’après ses scholies aux Elementa d’ Euclide.” Scriptorium 64 (2010). (Persée) and (academia.edu)

Ruelle, Charles-Émile. Études sur l’ancienne musique grecque. Paris, 1875. (BSBdigital)

Turyn, Alexandrer. Codices Graeci Vaticani saeculis XIII et XIV scripti annorumque notis instructi. Citta del Vaticano, 1964.

Vincent, Alexandre Joseph Hidulphe. Notice sur divers manuscrits Grecs relatifs à la musique. Paris, 1847. (Gallica)

Vitrac, Bernard. “Quand? Comment? Pourquoi les textes mathématiques grecs sont-ils parvenus en Occident?” (academia.edu), April 2019, accessed 29 November 2019.

Wolfram, Gerda – Hannick, Christian (eds). Die Erotapokriseis des Pseudo-Johannes Damaskenos zum Kirchengesang. Vienna, 1997.

THE ONLINE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF ANCIENT MUSIC THEORY

The links of the online MSS that has relation to the Harmonica of Claudios Ptolemaios are given above, together with a small description of some of them, since this is the treatise that medieval Greek speaking theorists scholiated the most in connection to chant theory. The other online MSS of ancient Greek musicographers I have located so far are the following (the MSS links that have already given in the above text are just referred to below with no link):

 

AUSTRIA

Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek

A-Wn: Cod. Phil. gr. 64 (Math. 2), A-Wn: Cod. Phil. gr. 176 (Math. 5, Vitrac p.194).

 

GERMANY

Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek

D-Heu: Cod. Pal. gr. 281 (Math. 14), D-Heu: Cod. Pal. gr. 415 (Math. 15).

Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek

D-Leu: Rep. I 2 (Math. 39).

München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek

D-Mbs: Cod. gr. 104 (Math. 17, Vitrac p.179), D-Mbs: Cod. gr. 301 (Math. 21, Vitrac p.180), D-Mbs: Cod. gr. 385 (Math. 23, Vitrac p.180), D-Mbs: Cod. gr. 403 (Math. 24, Vitrac p. 180), D-Mbs: Cod. gr. 418 (Math. 25), D-Mbs: Cod. gr. 487 (Math. 26).

Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek

D-W: Cod. Guelf. 3 Gud. gr. (Math. 29, Vitrac p.195).

 

SPAIN

Madrid, Bibliotheca Nacional

E-Mn: Gr. 4621 (Math. 57, together with C. Laskarēs the codex has a relation to Sultan Cem), E-Mn: Gr. 4625 (Math. 58), E-Mn: Gr. 4678 (Math. 59), E-Mn: Gr. 4690 (Math. 60), E-Mn: Gr. 4692 (Math. 61).

 

FRANCE

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Fonds Grec

F-Pn: Gr. 1671 (Math. 66), F-Pn: Gr. 1672 (Math. 67), F-Pn: Gr. 1806 (Math. 68, Vitrac p.185), F-Pn: Gr. 1819 (Math. 70, Vitrac p.185) F-Pn: Gr. 1820 (Math. 71, Vitrac p.185), F-Pn: Gr. 2013 (Math. 72), F-Pn: Gr. 2014 (Math. 73, Vitrac p.185), F-Pn: Gr. 2379 (Math. 74, Vitrac p.188), F-Pn: Gr. 2381 (Math. 75), F-Pn: Gr. 2397 (Math.-, Vitrac p.188) F-Pn: Gr. 2430 (Math. 77, Vitrac p.188), F-Pn: Gr. 2449 (Math. 78), F-Pn: Gr. 2450 (Math. 79), F-Pn: Gr 2451 (Math. 80, Vitrac p.188), F-Pn: Gr 2452 (Math. 81, Vitrac p.188), F-Pn: Gr 2453 (Math. 82, Vitrac p.188), F-Pn: Gr. 2454 (Math. 83, Vitrac p.188), F-Pn: Gr. 2455 (Math. 84), F-Pn: Gr 2456 (Math. 85, Vitrac p.188), F-Pn: Gr. 2458 (Math. 87), F-Pn: Gr. 2459 (Math. 88, Vitrac p.188), F-Pn: Gr. 2460 (Math. 89, Vitrac p.188), F-Pn: Gr. 2461 (Math. 90, Vitrac p.157), F-Pn: Gr. 2462 (Math. 91), F-Pn: Gr. 2463 (Math. 92), F-Pn: Gr. 2464 (Math. 93), F-Pn: Gr. 2531 (Math. 94, Vitrac p.189), F-Pn: Gr. 2532 (Math. 95), F-Pn: Gr. 2533 (Math. 96), F-Pn: Gr. 2534 (Math. 97), F-Pn: Gr. 2535 (Math. 98, Vitrac p.188), F-Pn: Gr. 2549 (Math. 99), F-Pn: Gr. 2622 (Math. 100), F-Pn: Gr. 3027 (Math. 101, Vitrac p.190).

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Fonds Coislin

F-Pn: Coislin 172 (Math. 102), F-Pn: Coislin 173 (Math. 103), F-Pn: Coislin 174 (Math. 104, Vitrac p.154), F-Pn: Coislin 336 (Math. 105, Vitrac p.185).

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Fonds Supplément Grec

F-Pn: Sup. gr. 20 (Math. 106), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 59 (Math. 107, Vitrac p.190), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 160 (Math. 108), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 195 (Math. 109, Vitrac p.190), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 213 (Math. 110, Vitrac p.190), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 292 (Math. 111, Vitrac p.190), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 335 (Math. 112, Vitrac p.190), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 336 (Math. 113, Vitrac p.190), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 449 (Math. 114, Vitrac p.190), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 450 (Math. 115, Vitrac p.190), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 1101 (Math. -).

 

GREAT BRITAIN

London, British Library

GB-Lbm: Harley gr. 5691 (Math. 128), GB-Lbm: Additional 19353 (Math. 130, Vitrac p.175).

Oxford, Bodleian Library

GB-Ob: Barocci gr. 41 (Math. 133, Vitrac p.182), GB-Ob: Barocci gr. 124 (Math. 134, Vitrac p.182).

Oxford, Magdalen College Library

GB-Omc: Magdalen Col. gr. 12 (Math. 150), GB-Omc: Magdalen Col. gr. 13 (Math. 151, Vitrac p.184).

 

ITALY

Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria

I-Bu: Gr. 2048, v.1 (Math. 154, Vitrac p.162), I-Bu: Gr. 2048, v.2 (Math. 155, Vitrac p.162), I-Bu: Gr. 2048, v.5 (Math. 156, Vitrac p.162), I-Bu: Gr. 2280 (Math. 157, Vitrac p.162), I-Bu: Gr. 2432 (Math. 158, Vitrac p.162), I-Bu: Gr. 2700 (Math. 159).

Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana

I-Fl: Ms Plut.28.11 (Math. 160), I-Fl: Ms Plut.28.12 (Math. 161), I-Fl: Ms Plut.56.1 (Math. 162), I-Fl: Ms Plut.58.29 (Math. 163, Vitrac p. 151), I-Fl: Ms Plut.59.1 (Math. 164), I-Fl: Ms Plut.80.5 (Math. 165), I-Fl: Ms Plut.80.21 (Math. 166), I-Fl: Ms Plut.80.22 (Math. 167), I-Fl: Ms Plut.80.30 (Math. 168), I-Fl: Ms Plut.86.3 (Math. 169).

Napoli, Biblioteca Nazionale

I-Nn: Gr. 261 (f. 53r, Math. 202, Vitrac p. 153).

Roma, Biblioteca Angelica

I-Ra: Gr. 35 (Math. 205), I-Ra: Gr. 101 (Math. 206).

Citta del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana

I-Rvat: Gr. 139 (Math. 207), I-Rvat: Gr. 176 (Math. 208), I-Rvat: Gr. 186 (Math. 210, Vitrac p. 145), I-Rvat: Gr. 187 (Math. 211), I-Rvat: Gr. 191 (Math. 214), I-Rvat: Gr. 192 (Math. 215), I-Rvat: Gr. 196 (Math. 217), I-Rvat: Gr. 198 (Math. 218), I-Rvat: Gr. 221 (Math. 219, Vitrac p.166), I-Rvat: Gr. 1013 (Math. 221), I-Rvat: Gr. 1033 (Math. 222), I-Rvat: Gr. 1048 (Math. 225, Vitrac p.167), I-Rvat: Gr. 1060 (Math. 226), I-Rvat: Gr. 1364 (Math. 230, Vitrac p.167), I-Rvat: Gr. 1374 (Math. 231), I-Rvat: Gr. 2338 (Math. 234), I-Rvat: Gr. 2365 (Math. 235, Vitrac p.168), I-Rvat: Barb. gr. 257 (Math. 237), I-Rvat: Barb. gr. 265 (Math. 238, Vitrac p.164), I-Rvat: Barb. gr. 278 (not in Math.), I-Rvat: Ottob. gr. 372 (Math. 237), I-Rvat: Pal. gr. 53 (Math. 241), I-Rvat: Pal. gr. 60 (Math. 242, Vitrac p.165), I-Rvat: Pal. gr. 95 (Math. 243), I-Rvat: Pal. gr. 303 (Math. 244, Vitrac p.165), I-Rvat: Pal. gr. 389 (Math. 245, Vitrac p.165), I-Rvat: Pal. gr. 390 (Math. 246, Vitrac p.165), I-Rvat: Pal. gr. 392 (Math. 247), I-Rvat: Reg. gr. 80 (Math. 248), I-Vat: Ross. 977 (Math. 253, Vitrac p.165), I-Vat: Ross. 986 (Math. 254), I-Vat: Urb. gr. 78 (Math. 256, Vitrac p.166), I-Vat: Urb. gr. 99 (Math. 257).

Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana

I-Vnm: Gr. app. cl. VI/3 (coll. 1347).

 

SWEDEN

Uppsala, Universitetsbiblioteket

S-Uu: Gr. 45 (Math. 292, Vitrac p.193), S-Uu: Gr. 47 (Math. 293, Vitrac p.193), S-Uu: Gr. 52 (Math. 294, Vitrac p.193).

 

UNITED STATES

New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript

US-NHub: MS 208 (f.30v, Math. 295)

 

EGYPT

Mount Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery

EG-MSsc: Gr. 1764 (Math. 299).

Additionally, a small collection of online MSS of BNF that include medieval music theory (some of them referred to in Vincent [1847]) is given below although I didn’t include, for example, all the Pachymerēs, Pediasimos etc. music related MSS. All these MSS need a fresh look together with the similar MSS of other libraries.

 

F-Pn: Gr. 2338, F-Pn: Gr. 2339, F-Pn: Gr. 2340, F-Pn: Gr. 2341, F-Pn: Gr 2448 see Notice rédigée par Anne Lapasset Mars 2015 (here) and (Pinakes), F-Pn: Gr. 2536, F-Pn: Gr. 2762 see: Notice rédigée par Morgane CARIOU (here) and (Pinakes).

And also: F-Pn: Gr. 1810 see: Notice rédigée par Jocelyn Groisard (novembre 2008) (here), F-Pn: Sup. gr. 51.

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

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

Join Musicologie Médiévale

Comments

  • One more list of new online MSS:

    Nl-Ll: gr. 16 D (Numéro diktyon: 37637, Math. 276, 17th c., Düring [Porphyrios] No 19, 17th c.) See Pinakes (here)

    GB-Ctc: O.5.16 (gr. 1297, Numéro diktyon: 12001, Math. 118, 17th. c., Vitrac p. 163, 17th.) See Pinakes (here)

    The MS exhibits extensive scholia, interlineation, diagrams and marginal collation.

    GB-Ctc: O.5.27 (gr. 1308, Numéro diktyon: 12005, Math. 119, 17th c., Vitrac p. 163, 17th c.) See Pinakes (here)

    GB-Cu: Gg.II.34 (gr. 1464, Numéro diktyon: 12192, Math. 121, 15th c., Vitrac p. 163, 16th c. Library’s’ description:  first half of 16th c.) See Pinakes (here) where ff. 8-16 “Sectio canonis” without reference to the section 3. Thus, one could view the sections of the MS as follows:

    1)Κλεονείδου εἰσαγωγὴ ἁρμονικὴ 1r-8r

    2)Εὐκλείδου Κατατομὴ κανόνος  8r-11v, 16r -16v

    3)[Fragmentum ex Ptolemei musica, sine titulo] 12r-15v.

     

    A few words about a scholion in Πτολεμαίου μουσικά on the occasion of section 3

     Section 3 starts with Jan 412(§4) and ends on 418(§23). On the end of 14v and the beginning of 15r the text of Jan 416 (§17, “a verbatim quote from Cleonides,” Jan 192.12-19) is found and, simultaneously, is paraphrased in the right margin. But here we have something that reinforces Mathiesen’s view that this codex forms the exemplar for F-Pn: gr. 3027. In this small marginal text it is said that the whole tone has 12 mória the semitone 6 dodekatimória, the tritemórios diesis tessara [=4 ], but, the tetartemórios again tessara [=4, with four dots below this word demonstrating that this is wrong and the same hand emends with a Γ above to show that the correct is 3]. The relative margin of F-Pn: gr. 3027 on f.32v has only the Γ. The earliest MS with the Πτολεμαίου Μουσικά together with this small marginal text is the I-Vat: Gr. 2338 f. 22 r where there is not the Γ but the whole word tria [=3]. This is the case also of the I-Nn: gr. 260 (III.C.2, Math. 201, 15th c., f. 43 r, reproduced in color by F. Acerbi- S. Panteri, “Eratosthenes in the exerpta Neapolitana,” p.679). Additionally in note 31 they write: The scholium summarizing part of section 17 [.3-9], penned in red ink in Neapol. III.C.2 and edited in MSG 416.6–9 app., is copied from Vat.gr. 2338, where it was apposed at the end of the fourteenth century by Philotheos of Selymbria (Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit 29896).

    Philotheos, a metropolitan, was most probably student of Gregoras but theologically an opponent of him (and of Barlaam). So this simplified paraphrase of the main text, as scholion, apposed, by an ecclesiastical figure, is written in order to stress and popularize the importance of this paragraph for the 14th c. Byzantine readers. Anyhow, the importance of such Aristoxenian-Cleonidian theorizing in medieval times was global and one has to remember the “same theme” in the earliest anonymous tradition of the commentaries on Martianus Capella, and the exposition on intervals within the common paragraphs of Anonymos III and Hagiopolites that I came across, in a preliminary manner, in the past.

     For the MS tradition and the layers of the Πτολεμαίου μουσικά one can see the above mentioned article. I’ll give now the links of online MSS relative to the two interpolations within the long excerpt from Nichomachos within the Πτολεμαίου Μουσικά, where after the Jan 266 (§1, on the Lyra of the ancients) there are two interpolations. The first is the Canobic Inscription (with coping mistakes) of Claudios Ptolemaios (let’s say, his system of the “harmony of the spheres) and the Koine Hormasia (=”the common tuning” of a stringed instrument played with the both hands, i.e. the text gives the “notes” of the right hand and the “notes” of the left one).

    I’ll give here three online MSS of the Canobic inscription within the astronomical MSS (in the musical ones is found within the Πτολεμαίου Μουσικά). The

    Marcianus gr. Z 313 (=690) (mid-10th c., Numéro diktyon: 69784, see Pinakes here) is not online.

    BNF Gr. 2390 (13th c., Numéro diktyon: 52022, see Pinakes (here) ff. 13v-14v)

    Vat. gr. 184 (13th c., Numéro diktyon: 66815 see Pinakes (here), ff. 23v-24v

    Laur. Plut. 18. 01 (14th c., Numéro diktyon: 16182 see Pinakes (here) ff. 14v-15r

    Finally the Koine Hormasia is found, in the already given in this blog, earliest codex in relation to Ancient Greek Music Theory the

    D-Heu: Cod. Pal. gr. 281 (14 January of 1040, Math. 14, Numéro diktyon: 66013, see Pinakes [here]) f. 173r.

  • New online MSS of Ancient Greek Music Theory and on the No-e-no-e-a-ne intonation syllables

    I will start, of course, from yet another manuscript where Ptolemy's Tónoi, as described in the 10th chapter of his Book II on Harmonics (entitled: Πως αν υγιώς λαμβάνοιτο των τόνων αι υπεροχαί), are connected to the Octoechos by the use of a marginal diagram. This is the

    D-Mbs: Cod. gr. 200  (Numéro diktyon: 44646, Math. 19, 15th c. [ff. 1-173]-16th c. [ff. 174-320], Vitrac p. 179, 15th-16thc., Düring 26, 15th-16th c.). See Pinakes (here)

    The marginal diagram with the 8 echoi is on the left margin of p. 293. The correlation of the echoi with the names of Dorios, Phrygios, Lydios etc. is the one with the affiliation of Pachymeris, Bryennios, Gregoras and Argyros, e.g. the 1st echos is Hypermixolydios and not Hypodorios referred to as the principal name (κύριο όνομα) for 1st echos in the Hagiopolitan systematization, or even Dorios as in the later Papadikai exposition.

    On this occasion some food for thought since these pieces of information (and class of sources) about Byzantine chant never used (and “seen”) in the 20th century and our days from the people working with Greek and Latin chant. Below that diagram, we read also the in-tonation (en-echema/εν-ήχημα) syllables of the echoi: anananes for 1st echos, nanes for the 2nd echos etc. That is to say, not as ananeanes or neanes, as in other Byzantine sources e.g. in the, Sinai 1218 f. 271 (A.D. 1177) or in the Papadike of 1336, Athens 2458 f. 4v (see also Raasted “Intonation Formulas…” pp. 229-31. And here, too, I’ am reminded of the way Raasted was contemplating about the echemata in relation to the “Octoechos systematization”). I’m  trying to think if something “special” is meant/represented with this different orthography of the echematic syllables in the 13th-14th c. Byzantine sources of Ancient Greek Music Theory (= archaizing orthography, something “more official” and/or lost exemplars with older material?*) since such a lettering exists this way both in Harmonics-Hagiopolitan and Harmonics-Gregoras  (in more than one MS of Gregoras recension ) expositions; so there is consciousness here and it is not the case of a coincidence or “wrong.” Weird for some people, perhaps yes in this case, but not wrong.

     

    * One could remember, among others, the A-I-ANEOEANE in Alia Musica and noe-a-i-s in Commemoratio Brevis (for the noeagis, see Bailey’s apparatus on p. 38), where the –i there, consists of a separate syllable. I think if this –a-i- was the case in an earlier (now lost) music theory/practice layers of eastern Roman world where the vowels of the echemata had some function in relation to a kind of abstract “solfege syllables” together, of course, with the “interval (not only whole tones and especially semitones as Raasted proposed, pp. 9 and 66) and direction recognition.” As inspiration for this could be Hucbald’s theorizing (see e.g. the Claude Palisca’s reconstruction on p. 8, figure 2 in “Hucbald, Guido and John on music.” Letters in such a solfege-alike use wasn’t unknown in later antiquity and medieval times but we cannot theorize about –only- one (and linear developed) intonation system or that all the chant people, collectively, in the Middle Ages knew/not knew the meaning(s) of these syllables. It becomes obvious that my orientation is more akin to Terence Bailey than his reviewer Miloš Velimirović who is in accord  with Wellesz’s “scale-avoidance obsession” and  among others, writes (Notes, vol. 32, no 3, 1976, p. 531): “As far as this writer [=Velimirović ] knows, the Byzantine formulae aimed at presenting a melodic design- a melodic line- rather that pointing out the “position of the half-step in the scale” (p.39) [**]  which as a “succession of pitches” was not part of the theoretical definition of a Mode in Byzantium… [then, he informs the reader (and Terence Bailey) that a much deeper investigation of the Byzantine practices is needed.] These comments suffice to point out how difficult it is to make such a comparative study without a much deeper investigation of Byzantine practices [one must ask: Are we encouraged by Velimirović to follow a particular of the possible ways of deeper investigation of Greek chant’s echemata, namely the one “that (not) pointing out the “position of the half-step in the scale?”  Ethnomusicologists (and some of the people of Critical Musicology) of the future have a lot of work to do!] before attempting to compare the two traditions of East and West. … Bailey’s work, which needs further refinements. They are sure to follow in the not-too- distant future.”

    Be that as it may, for the Byzantinist of our times now: if one thinks, in a different treatment, i.e. in ascending manner (or accepting the -No as a focal center with ascending-descending direction) the Palisca’s 1978 reconstruction (even if some would consider his relative text as elliptical or laconic) ne-a-ne-No, placed on the tetrachords B-E, E-a (yes, it is true: E-a), b-e and e-a’ then things could become intriguing.

     

    **This would be the case if the “design” of the echema had the same “design” of the formulas of their following melody (not only its incipit but something like a summary of it); or, if we go a little too far, with the aim of demonstrating the exclusivity of such considerations: one seyir (sorry for the turquerie) for almost every piece or even for a collection of “similar” pieces (whatever this “similar” could mean). The consequence is that the number of echemata must be much larger (and thus, useless) than the lists of enechema-piece incipit (and independent echemata) that exist in the MSS. Or to put it, roughly, in the Latin chant way: that kind of intonation formulas should have, at least, the number of almost all the possible thèmes/formulas (and the combinations of them, if we have to accept that a Greek or Latin chant Mode is first and foremost, a collection of formulas***). Returning to the Greek chant for the number of enechemata, described by Miloš Velimirović , some 50 years ago as “design,” I do not take into consideration, let us accept the term, only for the moment, ““differentia-alike”” cases. And, I could add also successive triphoníes (sorry for the grecquerie this time) and other kinds of “succession of pitches” phenomena. The echemata were not only a “design,” they describe also direction, intervals and “voices,” among others, and this make them useful. But, it is the priority of their intervallic content (and the practical need for positioning within a scale-part/unit even if a practitioner [or semi-practitioner] did not understand music theory stuff and had only learned to “hear” “voices****”) that reduces significantly their number and thus makes them useful for all, the practitioner and the semi-practitioner, the intellectual and the semi-intellectual singer.

    ***The formulaic structure (specifically the dating and the possible localization of the formulas) of Chant is of the outmost importance. But it is also important, especially if we want to look at things more globally, not to create a selective and an a posteriori “unified [Byzantine, Gregorian or other] theory” (of the style: a little bit of this, a little bit of that, we remember this one, we forget that one, this was silly, that isn’t, we “see” this, we don’t “see” that [even in an unintentional conscious way] and…) in order to narrate and “explain” intonation formulas and other kinds of Mode-phenomena as Wellesz did. The influence of Wellesz was very strong on a lot of people like his Greek student Markos Dragoumis who recently passed away.

    ****Here is not the place to discuss medieval Latin chant terms like the Boethian voces or the Enchiriadian terminology of vis, virtus, potestas or even qualitas.

     

    D-Mbs: Cod. gr. 193 (Numéro diktyon: 44639, Math. 18, 14 July 1580, Vitrac p.179, 1580,) Pinakes (here). On p. 48 Mathiesen writes: “In section 3 [the Book III of the Harmonics], at the conclusion of chapter 13, the scribe has noted τέλος των Πτολεμαίου αρμονικών, indicating that the remaining three chapters are derived from a different paradosis.”

    And a few MSS which reflect the circle of Barlaam of Calabria:

    I-Ma: E 76 sup. (Martini-Bassi 292, Numéro diktyon:  42700, Math. 178, 14th-16th c., Düring 22, 15th-16thc.) See Pinakes (here)

    The scholion (Düring, pp. lxxxi-lxxxii), by a later hand, on the addition of the last chapters of the Book III by the most wise (σοφωτάτου) Gregoras is found in the low margin on 103v and Barlaam’s Refutation (Ανασκευή) of them is on 182r-192r (section 8 of Mathiesen)

    I-Ma: R 117 sup. (Martini-Bassi 698, Numéro diktyon: 43201, Math. 182, 16th c.) See Pinakes (here)

    Mathiesen writes: Section 5 [ff. 127r-131v] contains chapters 14-16 of Book III of Ptolemy Harmonics [i.e. the additions of Gregoras], which have been included for reference in the Refutation that follows in section 6. [ff. 132r-133r]

    Nl-Lu: gr Qo  22 (Numéro diktyon: 37873, Math. 283, 1651-52 c., Düring [Porphyrios ed., but see also here] No 20, 17th c.) See Pinakes (here)

    Digitale Bibliothek - Münchener Digitalisierungszentrum
  • One more MS with Synesius’ (Cyrenensis) De Insomniis with Gregoras’ Scholia in Synesii de Insomnis (207v-227v) is online. This is the I-Vat: Pal. gr. 59  (Diktyon Nr. 65792).

    On f. 210r the Octachord Lyre of Pythagoras (Πυθαγόρου Οκτάχορδος Λύρα) is given as a diagram.

    DigiVatLib
  • There are three more digitized MSS from the Bibliothèque Nationale:

    F-Pn: gr 1817 (Math. 69, Vitrac p. 185, in color). Consultation.

    F-Pn: gr 2428 (Math. 76, Vitrac p. 188). Consultation.

    F-Pn: gr 2457 (Math. 86, Vitrac p. 188). Notice rédigée par Anne Lapasset, Novembre 2014 (here).

    Grec 1817
    Grec 1817 -- 1501-1600 -- manuscrits
  • The earliest codex containing the treatise Harmonica, in three books, of Claudios Ptolemaios (mid-second century A.D., Alexandria / al-ʾIskandarīyah, Egypt) is now online:

    I-Vnm: Gr. app. cl. VI/10 (coll. 1300) (Mathiesen RISM BXI, No 273, late 12th c. or early 13th, Düring (ed.) 79 M, 12th c., Vitrac, p. 142, 12th c.). Numéro Diktyon 70516 and see Pinakes here.

    In this blog, I have already noticed that the 14th century hand of Nicēphoros Grēgoras has been identified in this MS (Bianconi 2005, p. 413 No 12. Acerbi 2016, p. 186, No 10 quoting Bianconi 2005, wrote: [Grēgoras added] … numbers and titles of chapters of book I [red ink] of Ptolemy’s Harmonica). And Vitrac, p. 142: Le codex a appartenu à la bibliothèque de la Chora à Constantinople [nowadays Kariye Camii] et a été annoté par Nicéphore Grégoras (BIANCONI, 2005, p. 413) ; il a ensuite été la propriété de F. Barbaro († 1454). Solomon (2000, p. 2, n. 1) writes about this MS: …the twelfth-century M (Venetus Marcianus …) mistook this chapter [I.1] title (“On the Criteria in Harmonics” [Περί των εν αρμονική κριτηρίων]) for the title of the entire treatise (Harmonics [Αρμονικά])…

    On ff. 191r-197v we have the Bellermann’s Anonymous set of treatises (three, according to its latest editor D. Najock, 1975). On f. 195r the “schemata” of diapason are once more given from the second to the eighth and not from the first to the seventh.  

    Multimedia viewer
  • Three more MSS with Porphyrios’ commentary are now online:  E-Mn: Gr 4618 and US-PHu: Ms LJS 97 . There is also one more with Porphyrios and Bryennios (Math. 233, 16th, Vitrac p. 167, 15th) I-Vat: Gr. 1800  .

    We have additionally the I-Vat: Gr. 1772 (Math. 232, 16th) and one more from the Biblioteca Ambrosiana, I-Ma : C 126 inf. (Math. 186, 13th).

    [Opera varia]
    Manuscrito — 1440-1460?
  • A correction to my previous post: The date of Frøyshov’s article is 2016 not 2019.

  • Early Christian Modality, Severus and Aurelian

     

    The way(s) that the liturgical material could be seen, in relation the musical modality is not unique and self-evident (as it is sometimes presented). One could imagine for example a linear evolution beginning with one mode, or even in a more linear way e.g. 1, then 3, then 4, then 7 and finally 8 modes, and then 12, then 16, then 32 etc. Or different combinations like 1 then 4 and then 8. We already noticed Jeffery’s view on how the eightfold modality emerged in Jerusalem from a “simpler” status, as he writes (see my posts here dated 2021.3.14, bold emphasis is mine):

     

    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 …”

     

    Firstly, let us accept for the moment that “recitation tones” were truly the “constitutional starting point” within an absolute intra-cultural linear evolution, from simpler to more complex forms, of Christian modality. Additionally, there is not any reason to suppose that these recitations (if this was the only music related material used by Christians) were always “simple” and “primitive.” Instead, there is also the possibility that these “recitation tones” to be simplified versions of the local, non-Christian, more complex, melodic material. Secondly, Jeffery’s view is not the only possible one; is just a scenario. But let us make things little bit easier: If we accept, for the moment, all these presumptions i.e., α) Jerusalem as the place of origin, or the mother of the eightfold system(s) (I can’t avoid to express it in Greek: Μήτηρ των Οκτωήχων, κατά το  Μήτηρ των Εκκλησιών!), β)  that we have to see this eightfold system in a intrinsically Christian prospect and γ) that the product of this prospect could (or, it is “rationally acceptable” to) be described with stages, then recently (2019) we read one more view; this is the way Stig Simeon R. Frøyshov summarized his “hypothetical reconstruction in his article “The Resurrection office of First Millennium…” (part II, here), p. 140 (bold emphasis and square brackets are mine):

     

    “…The following hypothetical reconstruction of three stages is proposed:

    In a pre-octotonal period, probably until the fifth century, these psalms may have been fixed, as they have always been in the Armenian tradition. Particularities of mode 3 in the case of several RO [= Resurrection Office] elements suggest that the mode 3 set of the second and third-stage RO was a very early, if not the pristine one [= only one mode, he writes in his footnote 91= “From this we may probably infer that mode 3 was originally the privileged mode of this group of three stanzas, perhaps even a single pre-octotonal mode. We also note that there is a much stronger presence of the three stanzas in the authentic modes, suggesting that they originated in an early period in which no plagal modes were employed in this case.”]. Ps 43 was probably the fixed first psalm; the prayer after it seems to figure in SIN 47.

    A second, early-octotonal stage, in which there were four (authentic) modes of three psalms, repeated to yield eight, seems to have appeared in the fifth century. Ps 145 was probably the fixed last psalm in all modes except the third.

    The third, fully-octotonal stage, with four authentic and four plagal modes, existed by the sixth century, as attested in the Ancient Iadgari hymnal (given that its sixth-century dating is correct), and presumably included the eight Sunday Morning Gospel series. …”

    In Frøyshov’s terms we reached to the 6th century; remember the time of Severus of Antioch. One has to see firstly the subject in a more general way before specializing. Is it possible to still speak only of recitation tones in 6th c. or we are, this time, talking about “real” “melodic modes”? And, how and when Jerusalemite proto-theorist Christians moved on from the one to the other by composing, even simple, Christian melodies? In parallel, these early melodies were based only on melodic patterns/model melodies/formulaic melodies (e.g. of the automelic-prosomoiac kind) without the existence of a modal system? Are we sure that in the very beginning of Christian music there was only recitation and then, linearly, we have hymns? Or we have independently, at the same time, recitation tones together with formulaic melodies without “a system”?  How all these (or some of them) prospects of problematic “could work/run” the same time? We have to realize that some modern views we see are not based exactly on clear and well-defined cohesive scenarios as history is not moving forward in “wishful” linear ways. For those who believe on those kinds of scenarios, even partly, a new harmonizing endeavor, the least, is needed. Anyhow, Frøyshov’s hypothetical conclusions are even more linear and complicated than the “reasonably simple” of prof. Jeffery. Additionally, we have not here a “high” reflection of liturgical material to more specific music theory related topics like recitation tones or even tetrachords (like Jeffery); especially since such kind of information is not attested.

    There are, also, a lot to be said about the kind of prospects, from primitive to full-fledged phenomena but it is also important to have a look on how these pieces of knowledge are reworked. Cases where Froysov’s work (on this early material) is not used, would demonstrate better how “self-evident” pieces of selected knowledge are used as common wisdom [1*] leading to similarly linear reworking(s) of the existing linear narratives.

     

    It is also interesting the way Liam Patrick Hynes-Tawa, in her recent thesis How the Phrygian Final Lost Its Finality (2020, academia.edu), describes “as history moves forward” the “concept of reciting tone” as something that “will help” (this is the wording) “to keep their strand discrete”; but it is better the whole exact excerpt to be given. On p. 27 (and within the chapter § 1.2 entitled On the Naming of Modes) we read, among others (bold emphasis in the original, underlining is mine):

     

    … By this point, these Greek “modal” names have lost just about every characteristic that we now associate with the word “mode.”

    It is thus perhaps no coincidence that it is right around this same time that we encounter a second source of modal naming and categorization, that being the Octoechos, the system of eight tones that originated in Byzantine liturgy. Barbara Haggh-Huglo has suggested that these “tones” referred initially only to reciting tones on which psalms were intoned, and did not indicate octave species, finals, or even formulaic melodies.[here footnote 49 is given] These are all associations that the numbered tones of chant would eventually pick up over the course of their long histories in both the Western and Eastern Churches, but placing their roots in the concept of the reciting tone will help to keep their strand discrete as history moves forward. The third and latest source of modal naming is that which is based around the concept of the four finales. Under this system of naming, which …

     

    The text of her footnote 49 reads:

     

    49 Barbara Haggh-Huglo, personal communication (August 2018) in anticipation of her monograph in progress, Aurelian, Charlemagne, and the Eight Tones. She kindly explained to me that “intonations and the melodies following them and linking up with the antiphons or other chants were something different (differentiae, noeane etc.),” rather than being originally associated with the eight numbered tones.

     

    At least one has to wonder about how it all started from the, initially, late –but then with a gradual shifting backwards, in time – pre-theoretical period

     

    Anyhow, French people, already in mid-19th c. used, in an apophthegmatic way, to say: Qui part d’une erreur n’arrive jamais à la vérité.

     

     

    [1*] Or, based on (or naming it as) a “practice based approach”? But in such an early case, we have not available musical material even in order to make selections. Remember also what I wrote on Wellesz’ “actual Byzantine practice” in the end of my post here (dated 2021.3.5), although in that case we have, even, notated material.

     

    NB. It is not my purpose here to associate this extract to any kind of appraisal/critique of prof. Barbara Hagg-Huglo’s views on the subject or even of her forthcoming book. After all, I prefer to hold in my hands the aforementioned monograph (written by her hand), looking forward, in particular, to her examination of topics of the Musica Disciplina considered to this day with expressions that have the meanings of “enigmatic,” “weird,” “inexplicable,” “wrong,” etc.

    The Resurrection Office of First Millennium Jerusalem Liturgy and its Adoption in Close Peripheries…
    The Resurrection Office of First Millennium Jerusalem Liturgy and its Adoption in Close Peripheries. Part II: The Gospel Reading and the Post-Gospel…
  • Heinrich Husmann and ancient Greek music in relation to chant

     

    The compromising nature (as a construction) of an Introduction to X book does not sometimes permits the readers to realize how colorful the X domain is. But let us give an example.

     

    Interesting is the way Heinrich Husmann used ancient Greek material in relation to Byzantine chant. In the end of his “Die oktomodalen Stichera und die Entwicklung des byzantinischen oktoëchos,” Archiv für Musikwissenschaft 27.4, 1970, after having established his view on the intervallic relations of Byzantine modes (based on notated material) he, then, demonstrated their relation in accordance to his own views about the ancient Greek music theory (beginning with the Gregorian use of Dorios etc. and reaching even to Aeolios). Then, he referred to some of Byzantine streams (Hagiopolites, Pachymeres, Papadikai). At least, he didn’t refer to the descriptions of one of those expositions as “the common” or “the Byzantine” or even “the classic”. Anyhow, in this important work (as well as the one on bi- or trimodal stichera, and the other on the Psaltischen Stils) on modulation/transposition phenomena, he felt the need to use along with the Byzantine ordinals these ethnic names as well as the concept of scale. Furthermore, on the first page 304 he wrote in a critical manner: Man kann die oktomodalen Stichera wie Tardo als besonders kunstvolle Kompositionen schätzen und wie Strunk ein auf anderem Wege gewonnenes oktoëchales System an ihnen erläutern; in einer Lage wie der heutigen aber, in der wir an jedem bisher entwickelten tonalen System zweifeln, gewinnen die oktomodalen Stichera eine andere, fundamentale Bedeutung:… Then on p. 323 he wrote: Dieselbe Oktavtransposition stellt auch die Verbindung zur antiken griechischen Musiktheorie her. Anyhow, within such a theorizing (i.e. first the notated MSS then his “views” on Gregorian and ancient Greek music theory and the intermediate, and not decisive, use of Greek chant theoretical treatises) he tried, at least, to conclude to a theorizing in some accordance with these Greek chant theoretical sources. He didn’t make any serious effort to understand them intrinsically (the ethnomusicologist of the future will be more sure about this), as conscious and consistent themselves sources (e.g. Pachymeres; Husmann does not refers here to Bryennius and, of course, he didn’t know at all the eight relative to chant ancient Greek music theory sources appeared in this blog) as well as that those sources represent different streams of the Greek chant and that the information they transmit is important for a more complete “system(s) reconstruction.” This is apparent when he explains his rationale in his later, 1971, “Modalitätsprobleme des psaltischen Stils” p. 45, he writes: … entwickelt dann die Oberquintlage der Plagaltöne und versucht, den Anschluß an das antike Skalensystem herzustellen. Daß letzteres nur Hypothese bleiben kann, ist bei dem Fehlen der Quellen selbstverständlich; daß aber ein Zusammenhang des byzantinischen mit dem antiken System bestehen muß, ist ebenso selbstverständlich. In the very end of this article he refers, in a linear and romanticizing manner to a direct relation of the ancient Greek music theory to the medieval Greek chant. Then concludes the article by connecting the modern Armenian chant with Vorderen Orient  and the Kontakia of Romanos: “Damit ist das psaltische byzantinische Tonsystem tatsächlich die Weiterfuhrung des Systems der antiken griechischen Transpositionsskalen. Diese stammten ihrerseits wieder aus dem Vorderen Orient, in dem auch die Wurzeln der armenischen  liturgischen Music, die den 1. Ton als Dur-Modus bis heute bewahrt hat, liegen, und aus dem auch Romanos und seine Kontakien kamen.”  Anyhow, although H. Husmann is still cited frequently about his, then, cutting-edge research, these aspects of his work (scales, especially for transposition/modulation phenomena, or tribal names as the way he interprets them, mainly as tools) are kept, nowadays, very much in the background of the modern preferences. He is rarely (if not at all) referred about these ideas/tools of him because the scale concept, within the modern exeptionalism of Chant-modes, is something “not very much accepted” as well as that the existence of the ethnic names (and their theoretical consequences) of ancient Greek theory in the chant sources is deemed, in the same - but inverted- romanticizing way of Husmann: as something among –using a similar to Wellesz’ decreasing process (see the end of my March 5, 2021 post on Mesarites in this blog) - “the otherwise quite short pieces of teachings” or more or less, as I could characterize it, of “decorative” value!

  • Important MS updates, John Chrysostomites, more on LMMA etc.

     

    The I-Vat: Urb. gr. 77 (Math. 255 [16th], Vitrac p. 166, [17th]) is now online. (See  Bibliographic references.) The Harmonica of Ptolemaios begins on f. 45 r, the text belongs to class m. This is one more MS that in its Bellermann Anonymos III the schema-ta (or species) of diapason/octave, 278r, are counted from the second to the eighth not first to seventh (for the other online MSS with the same counting, see the description of the first MS, I-Vat: Gr. 191 in the main text of this blog). 

    As I wrote in the previous post about the secular context of the important word Kavália/Καβάλια; I have to add that it is attested in one more online MS but this time not belonging to one of the text(s) that published, with problems, under the title Die Erotapokriseis des Pseudo-Ioannes Damaskenos zum Kirchengesang (1997) [=PsD]. Thus one can find this term also in the Vat. gr. 872 (see Bibliographic references).

     

    Additionally, the readers of Pseudo-Ioannes Damaskenos’ text should be informed that there is one more online MS, together with the BNF Sup. gr. 1302 (I gave the link in my post dated December 6, 2019) that Gerda Wolfram and Christian Hannick, its editors, did not consulted.

    This is the BNF Sup. Gr. 1349 one of its earliest testimonies (according BNF consultation: Fin du XVIe-début du XVIIe siècle). The text of the PsD in this MS begins on 201r and goes on with its own selection of the parts of the edited text(s).

    One more addition: Once working with some “great signs/σημάδια” and searching information especially about the lygizma I saw that the one in 58.68 of this edition is wrongly reproduced by the editors, at least in relation to their main MS the Dionysiou 570, f. 14 v. line 2.  As far as I checked, there is not any indication, by the editors in the critical apparatus or even in the Kommentar, about a possible variation among the sources.

     

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

     

    I penned, the 5 March post on the supposed “nonsensicality” of Mesarites as an improvement of my relative 2001 paper academia.edu, because I saw a text of F. Acerbi, “Arithmetic and Logistic, Geometry and Metrology, Harmonic Theory, Optics and Mechanics,” in A Companion to Byzantine Science, 2020 academia.edu where he refers to the Mesarites’ relative musical excerpts (that include also ēchos-theorizing, not only Harmonic Theory): Illustrating the courses held in the Patriarchal School, he [Mesarites] describes a Quadrivium… whereas harmonic theory amounts to something that was deemed “almost entirely nonsensical.”  And then he (on footnote 12) cites the “introduction” book of Wellesz, A history of Byzantine music…

    Furthermore, in the same 2020 text Acerbi, p. 133 writes: John Chrysostomites (c.1100) in his “dual” Life of John of Damascus and of Kosmas the Hymnographer; …

    In the relative footnote 119 cites Tannery’ edition of Diophantos, vol.2 p. 36 here where there is an excerpt from one of the Vitae of John of Damascus. People interested in such a fields, with some music related material, could also read about the author John III of Antioch, instead of John VII Hierosolymites (964-966), of the BHG 884 Vita online in Vassa Kontouma, “Jean III d’Antioche (996-1021) et la Vie de Jean Damascène (BHG 884),” Revue des Études Byzantines 68, 2010 Academia.edu as well as the work of Pavlel Troitskiy 2020  here

     

     

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

     

    Declarative assessments and established beliefs about certain topics

     

    But such a kind of declarative judgments we see frequently within the Chant-world.  Indeed, we hear of centonisation, model melodies and formulas as mutual exclusive phenomena to the existence of scale units, tunings or, even, more generally to Mode phenomena. Many times, the chant pieces that include them (together with some of the “automelic-prosomoiac” phenomena) are placed, in such a declarative manner, conventionally, in the foggy and “collective” “pretheoretical period,” (we see also similarly a “pre-octotonal” period, probably until the fifth century, or expressions like “pristine” “primitive” etc.) which, as we already said, is – perhaps in an unconscious intentional way- not carefully defined (e.g., pretheoretical of what and concerning whom?). Thus the problem, especially in Latin chant, is “solved” by sweeping those pieces –apples and oranges- under the carpet. Reiterating an idea, based only in an established communis opinio, does not always prevents from guesswork and in such a case, unconsciously the comfort of the intimacy is engaged and, yes … repetitio matter studiorum! And this is not the only consequence, since such an overinflated theorizing has, as a byproduct, equally important issues such as the attempts (as precisely as it could be) of the more precise dating of the pieces or even whole parts of the repertoire.

     

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

     

    For the lemmata of the multilingual Lexicum Musicum Medii Aevi that I proposed it will be vital, to include, perhaps in an appendix (including the Latin lemmata), the various interpretations/translations -if- given by the researchers over time. Indeed the vocabularies used/proposed by a researcher are in general useful but one reason that I propose such an appendix is that always exist the case of a privileged use of certain researchers, something that will mislead the research, especially when, for example, a less experienced Latin-chant researcher  feels the necessity to work in a more global way. It is much better to make him/her to think independently, i.e. not to judge (or make preferences) superficially in accordance to any special researcher. We have to construct tools in a way that solve more problems that they create. One can observe that such kind of preferential behaviors are related to the writing of several “new introductions,” with the byproduct of the “systematic suppression” (wording is not mine) of other -not necessarily- minority views.

     

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

     

    Introductions to Byzantine chant books and their “outsider” readers

     

    The kind of “Handbook of X” (a really useful kind of book) was worldwide, more in fashion around the turn of the millennium (spontaneously, and thus “naturally,” in terms of “humanness”). Especially for Byzantine chant it is important to realize the potential problems - as will become apparent below- will be caused by the way the rest of the Chant-people work with these “introductions.” In parallel, it seems that - for some reason- , the need to inform “others” in a more wide-raging (and “complete”) overview is something important.  We see, for example, how Christian Troelsgård in his Byzantine Neumes, a New Introduction to the Middle Byzantine Musical Notation (MMB IX, 2011), expands the topic of that book; in the back cover this is confirmed: “In addition, offers an introduction to Byzantine chant in a wider sense, dealing with topics such as…” Furthermore, in other cases we see, sometimes, relatively “critical” stances on Wellesz and other MMB researchers like Tillyard for example. As I discussed similar issues here in MM, I’ll not criticize here in detail, as the state of research is premature, on whether it is more of a rhetoric of a relatively “updated” status (than a matter of in reality a “reproduced” one) with certain –usually, not musical- preferences and if the core –musical- values are remained almost intact (and placed over “relative” to music platforms). With the word “musical” I am not talking about a package where a possible resorting to a “reasoning” referred to the various –new- historically informed musical transcription methods of medieval Byzantine notated sources is taking place. Such kind of medieval music realizations is something that is a matter of the personal, view on “humanness,” cultural frame or individual perspective and the preconventions of every single “transcriber.” This is said (including Latin chant) because sometimes the modern (e.g. in terms of intervallic habit and aesthetics) realizations of medieval music affect decisively the way we “see,” “select” and “reconstruct” the theoretical sources and not the opposite. So let us remain on the evaluations of the written material.

     

    Indeed, any kind of “introduction” always reflects among others, naturally, more or less the “new” “views” and the “beliefs” of its author but the extant of “novelty” is not always clearly distinguishable by “outsiders” who may not even have a complete idea of the degree of (if) rhetorical dimensions involved. Here, additionally, I recall e.g. the old “How to write the Next ‘Grove’ an unexpected application to Newton’s Third Low” article (Journal of Musicology) of Jan LaRue. In our days it is important for the global community of Chant to have an idea that Byzantine things are much more colorful that the “compromising needs” of the various “introductions to Byzantine music” offer. Moreover, it is equally important for the unsuspected reader of such an “introduction” to know where the author exposes an “original” idea of him or if one proposition is a preference of her among other views. So an e.g. Syriac chant researcher (and not only her) is “obliged” to give references to such kind of books only based (and taking the risk), impulsively, on her personal belief about the author. I understand, easy solutions are convenient as well as are the reviews we read sometimes since it is very “catchy” for a Latin chant “outsider” scholar to have a “positive,” but uncritical, opinion of every book written or reviewed about Byzantine chant. All this, is indicative of the “exotisized” status of Greek chant to the minds of the majority of the Chant-world since, sometimes, a “West and the Rest” [1*] stance needs easy and “immediate” solutions. I imagine in the future a Latin chant scholar reading various “introductions” about the “Byzantine issues” s/he is interesting, than to go directly to the sources. If the latter, then the effort, believe me, will not be much more! Anyhow, until the time that the degree of rhetoric of all these issues will be evaluated by ethonomusicologists, sometimes I think it is better for someone to trust in her “independent intuition” (and self-observation of how she thinks/theorize about “relative” issues of Latin chant [2*]) about a particular “Byzantine” topic – although she does not feel safe- than to cite an "introduction" and to think that she got out of the way!

     

    [1*] Some more aspects of this somewhat old –now- label see M. Walker, “Towards a Decolonized Music History Curriculum,” JMHP 10 1 (2020) (here).

     

    [2*] It is, also, important to remember that to find parallels and contrasts between “two” fields is depended on the way and the side/aspect one “see” them (with different results in every case), especially of the topics that what we don’t know is much more of what we really know.

    DigiVatLib
This reply was deleted.

Partnership

and your logo here...

 We need other partners !

 ----------------------------------

Soutenir et adhérer à l'Association Musicologie Médiévale !

Support and join The Musicologie Médiévale Association!

 
for
MM & MMMO