Dear Dejan,
I believe I have the article somewhere, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to fish it out for you any time soon. If I recall (it's been quite a long time since I've read it) there are four or five weak 'proofs' put forward, trying to argue for the use of chromatic and enharmonic intervals as being later (I believe he uses the term) 'oriental' borrowings or influences on post-Byzantine modes.
This is something Tillyard expresses in many of his articles; take this quote as an example:
Chromatic Passages
Anyone who has listened to Modern Greek Church music must have been struck by the frequency of its chromatic passages; but in Middle Byzantine music we never find a whole hymn in the chromatic species, but only a short passage here and there. Further, the introduction of the chromatic sign seems usually, if not always, to be due to a later hand than the thirteenth century and may be regarded, in the main (1), as a fifteenth century development. Until the reform of Chrysanthus in 1821, Greek Church Music had only one properly chromatic sign, called Nenano (nenano [in Greek]) [sign], which might be used (so far as can be seen) in any mode and on any part of the scale, where the augmented tone was desired. This sign has survived in the modern system
The effect of the sign only lasted to the end of the versicle.
In the Late Byzantine system we often find, not only Mode I Plagal, but also II Plagal using the Chromatic species
Furthermore it is possible that the Late Byzantine notation where it used the Chromatic modulation-sign, may have recorded an older, though unwritten, practice of some singers, who had come under Oriental influence.(H. J. W. Tillyard, HANDBOOK OF THE MIDDLE BYZANTINE MUSICAL NOTATION (Copenhague: Levin & Munksgaard, 1935), pp. 35-6.)
Dejan, this is something you can find in Wellesz articles and many others. There was a clear 'line' held by all MMB people that Byzantine Music was a purely diatonic music. If I recall correctly, Tillyard begins his article that you mention above with the premise that both the enharmonic and chromatic genera witnessed to in ancient Greek music theory had long ceased to exist before Byzantine music makes its appearance. Chrysanthos is usually blamed (along with the other two Teachers of the New Method, Gregorios Protopsaltes and Chourmuzios Chartophylax) for introducing such intervals into Greek Church music, always, through 'oriental' influence; the line usually goes: they were forced to by their Ottoman lords.
The big weakness (other than the fact that the premise is not founded on any pure data, but simply speculation) is that if the introduction of chromatic (and enharmonic) intervals was such a late development, how is it that (1) there are no records of any protest and (2) when we have Konstantinos Byzantios chanting from the right analogion with the old notation and his lambadarios Stephanos chanting from the new notation on the left analogion, how is it that there is no difference in performance expressed, in fact, specific witnesses exist explicitly stating that "no difference in performance was detected"!?
As far as the most Greek Byzantine musicologists are concerned, there's no issue. Chromaticism and enharmonic intervals were always on the scene and did not 'disappear'. The only person I know of in the 'western camp' (if such a thing exists) who dared stand up for chromaticism in Byzantine music from the beginning was J. Raasted:
"Chromaticism in Medieval Byzantine Chant" CIMAGL 15 (1986) 15-36
Prof. Stathis has often told us of his joy when he heard Raasted speak on this topic in Wien at the Egon Wellesz Symposium (1985). The consequences of accepting such a premise (that chromaticism existed in Medieval Byzantine chant), however, are quite far-reaching for those 'scholars' who do transcriptions from Byzantine music manuscripts using the guidelines established by the MMB founders.
That's about all I have time for just now. If I can be of any other assistance, don't hesitate to contact me privately, too.
20 August 2002
Tuesday, August 20, 2002
Tillyard's article
Dear Dejan,
I believe I have the article somewhere, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to fish it out for you any time soon. If I recall (it's been quite a long time since I've read it) there are four or five weak 'proofs' put forward, trying to argue for the use of chromatic and enharmonic intervals as being later (I believe he uses the term) 'oriental' borrowings or influences on post-Byzantine modes.
This is something Tillyard expresses in many of his articles; take this quote as an example:
Chromatic Passages
Anyone who has listened to Modern Greek Church music must have been struck by the frequency of its chromatic passages; but in Middle Byzantine music we never find a whole hymn in the chromatic species, but only a short passage here and there. Further, the introduction of the chromatic sign seems usually, if not always, to be due to a later hand than the thirteenth century and may be regarded, in the main (1), as a fifteenth century development. Until the reform of Chrysanthus in 1821, Greek Church Music had only one properly chromatic sign, called Nenano (nenano [in Greek]) [sign], which might be used (so far as can be seen) in any mode and on any part of the scale, where the augmented tone was desired. This sign has survived in the modern system
The effect of the sign only lasted to the end of the versicle.
In the Late Byzantine system we often find, not only Mode I Plagal, but also II Plagal using the Chromatic species
Furthermore it is possible that the Late Byzantine notation where it used the Chromatic modulation-sign, may have recorded an older, though unwritten, practice of some singers, who had come under Oriental influence.(H. J. W. Tillyard, HANDBOOK OF THE MIDDLE BYZANTINE MUSICAL NOTATION (Copenhague: Levin & Munksgaard, 1935), pp. 35-6.)
Dejan, this is something you can find in Wellesz articles and many others. There was a clear 'line' held by all MMB people that Byzantine Music was a purely diatonic music. If I recall correctly, Tillyard begins his article that you mention above with the premise that both the enharmonic and chromatic genera witnessed to in ancient Greek music theory had long ceased to exist before Byzantine music makes its appearance. Chrysanthos is usually blamed (along with the other two Teachers of the New Method, Gregorios Protopsaltes and Chourmuzios Chartophylax) for introducing such intervals into Greek Church music, always, through 'oriental' influence; the line usually goes: they were forced to by their Ottoman lords.
The big weakness (other than the fact that the premise is not founded on any pure data, but simply speculation) is that if the introduction of chromatic (and enharmonic) intervals was such a late development, how is it that (1) there are no records of any protest and (2) when we have Konstantinos Byzantios chanting from the right analogion with the old notation and his lambadarios Stephanos chanting from the new notation on the left analogion, how is it that there is no difference in performance expressed, in fact, specific witnesses exist explicitly stating that "no difference in performance was detected"!?
As far as the most Greek Byzantine musicologists are concerned, there's no issue. Chromaticism and enharmonic intervals were always on the scene and did not 'disappear'. The only person I know of in the 'western camp' (if such a thing exists) who dared stand up for chromaticism in Byzantine music from the beginning was J. Raasted:
"Chromaticism in Medieval Byzantine Chant" CIMAGL 15 (1986) 15-36
Prof. Stathis has often told us of his joy when he heard Raasted speak on this topic in Wien at the Egon Wellesz Symposium (1985). The consequences of accepting such a premise (that chromaticism existed in Medieval Byzantine chant), however, are quite far-reaching for those 'scholars' who do transcriptions from Byzantine music manuscripts using the guidelines established by the MMB founders.
That's about all I have time for just now. If I can be of any other assistance, don't hesitate to contact me privately, too.
I believe I have the article somewhere, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to fish it out for you any time soon. If I recall (it's been quite a long time since I've read it) there are four or five weak 'proofs' put forward, trying to argue for the use of chromatic and enharmonic intervals as being later (I believe he uses the term) 'oriental' borrowings or influences on post-Byzantine modes.
This is something Tillyard expresses in many of his articles; take this quote as an example:
Chromatic Passages
Anyone who has listened to Modern Greek Church music must have been struck by the frequency of its chromatic passages; but in Middle Byzantine music we never find a whole hymn in the chromatic species, but only a short passage here and there. Further, the introduction of the chromatic sign seems usually, if not always, to be due to a later hand than the thirteenth century and may be regarded, in the main (1), as a fifteenth century development. Until the reform of Chrysanthus in 1821, Greek Church Music had only one properly chromatic sign, called Nenano (nenano [in Greek]) [sign], which might be used (so far as can be seen) in any mode and on any part of the scale, where the augmented tone was desired. This sign has survived in the modern system
The effect of the sign only lasted to the end of the versicle.
In the Late Byzantine system we often find, not only Mode I Plagal, but also II Plagal using the Chromatic species
Furthermore it is possible that the Late Byzantine notation where it used the Chromatic modulation-sign, may have recorded an older, though unwritten, practice of some singers, who had come under Oriental influence.(H. J. W. Tillyard, HANDBOOK OF THE MIDDLE BYZANTINE MUSICAL NOTATION (Copenhague: Levin & Munksgaard, 1935), pp. 35-6.)
Dejan, this is something you can find in Wellesz articles and many others. There was a clear 'line' held by all MMB people that Byzantine Music was a purely diatonic music. If I recall correctly, Tillyard begins his article that you mention above with the premise that both the enharmonic and chromatic genera witnessed to in ancient Greek music theory had long ceased to exist before Byzantine music makes its appearance. Chrysanthos is usually blamed (along with the other two Teachers of the New Method, Gregorios Protopsaltes and Chourmuzios Chartophylax) for introducing such intervals into Greek Church music, always, through 'oriental' influence; the line usually goes: they were forced to by their Ottoman lords.
The big weakness (other than the fact that the premise is not founded on any pure data, but simply speculation) is that if the introduction of chromatic (and enharmonic) intervals was such a late development, how is it that (1) there are no records of any protest and (2) when we have Konstantinos Byzantios chanting from the right analogion with the old notation and his lambadarios Stephanos chanting from the new notation on the left analogion, how is it that there is no difference in performance expressed, in fact, specific witnesses exist explicitly stating that "no difference in performance was detected"!?
As far as the most Greek Byzantine musicologists are concerned, there's no issue. Chromaticism and enharmonic intervals were always on the scene and did not 'disappear'. The only person I know of in the 'western camp' (if such a thing exists) who dared stand up for chromaticism in Byzantine music from the beginning was J. Raasted:
"Chromaticism in Medieval Byzantine Chant" CIMAGL 15 (1986) 15-36
Prof. Stathis has often told us of his joy when he heard Raasted speak on this topic in Wien at the Egon Wellesz Symposium (1985). The consequences of accepting such a premise (that chromaticism existed in Medieval Byzantine chant), however, are quite far-reaching for those 'scholars' who do transcriptions from Byzantine music manuscripts using the guidelines established by the MMB founders.
That's about all I have time for just now. If I can be of any other assistance, don't hesitate to contact me privately, too.
Saturday, August 17, 2002
Deacon's vespers
A summary of Georgios Regas' Typikon (1908) and his Chapter X.1. 'On when the deacon should vest'.
(1) the deacon vests for feasts with an entrance in the vespers and a great doxology in the orthros, as well as the feast of the annunciation, presanctified liturgies and the holy Passion. he may also vest for any divine liturgy throughout the year.
(2) at the vespers of a vigil he vests during the stichologia of the 'Blessed is the man', if it is not said, then during the Introductory psalm or the stichologia of the psalter; he remains vested till the dismissal.
(3) if there is no vigil he vests before the initial blessing of the vespers, during the reading of the introductory psalm or during the reading of the kathisma; he remains vested till the dismissal.
(4) at the orthros, whether there is a vigil or not, if there is a gospel he vests during the anabathmoi chanted before it and remains vested till the beginning of the first hour; if there is no gospel then he vests during the 8th ode and remains vested till the 1st hour. the same is done for the holy Passion.
(5) for each liturgy or presanctified he vests before the beginning in order to perform the proskomide with the priest and remains vested until the dismissal.
(6) at the vespers without an entrance and orthros without a great doxology (except for the holy Passion, Annunciation and celebrated saints in the Great Fast) as well as the complines and hours only the priest vests.
(7) by exception the deacon vests at the orthros of Great Saturday during the chanting of the Theos Kyrios.
(8) in orthros and vespers of the week of new creation the deacon vests before the enarxis of necessity.
In Chapter I.15: without a priest [translation]
When the daily services are performed in parecclesion, or hermitages, or monastic cells, or personally in a home and there is no priest, then none of the priest's parts are said, neither litany, nor gospel, nor exclamation, nor blessing or dismissal. But in the beginning of the service, instead of the Blessed is our God, the Through the prayers of our holy fathers is said; the same as for the May God be gracious unto us, and at the end of the service instead of the dismissal we say, Glory, Both now, Lord have mercy (thrice) and the Through the prayers of our holy fathers. And nothing more, for all excess is from the evil one.
(1) the deacon vests for feasts with an entrance in the vespers and a great doxology in the orthros, as well as the feast of the annunciation, presanctified liturgies and the holy Passion. he may also vest for any divine liturgy throughout the year.
(2) at the vespers of a vigil he vests during the stichologia of the 'Blessed is the man', if it is not said, then during the Introductory psalm or the stichologia of the psalter; he remains vested till the dismissal.
(3) if there is no vigil he vests before the initial blessing of the vespers, during the reading of the introductory psalm or during the reading of the kathisma; he remains vested till the dismissal.
(4) at the orthros, whether there is a vigil or not, if there is a gospel he vests during the anabathmoi chanted before it and remains vested till the beginning of the first hour; if there is no gospel then he vests during the 8th ode and remains vested till the 1st hour. the same is done for the holy Passion.
(5) for each liturgy or presanctified he vests before the beginning in order to perform the proskomide with the priest and remains vested until the dismissal.
(6) at the vespers without an entrance and orthros without a great doxology (except for the holy Passion, Annunciation and celebrated saints in the Great Fast) as well as the complines and hours only the priest vests.
(7) by exception the deacon vests at the orthros of Great Saturday during the chanting of the Theos Kyrios.
(8) in orthros and vespers of the week of new creation the deacon vests before the enarxis of necessity.
In Chapter I.15: without a priest [translation]
When the daily services are performed in parecclesion, or hermitages, or monastic cells, or personally in a home and there is no priest, then none of the priest's parts are said, neither litany, nor gospel, nor exclamation, nor blessing or dismissal. But in the beginning of the service, instead of the Blessed is our God, the Through the prayers of our holy fathers is said; the same as for the May God be gracious unto us, and at the end of the service instead of the dismissal we say, Glory, Both now, Lord have mercy (thrice) and the Through the prayers of our holy fathers. And nothing more, for all excess is from the evil one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
