02scia.tmc-2010 nicolae gheorghita

8/10/2019 02scia.tmc-2010 Nicolae Gheorghita

1/18

9

OBSERVATIONS ON THE TECHNIQUE OF TRANSCRIPTION(H) INTO THE NEW METHOD OF ANALYTICAL

MUSIC NOTATION OF THE SUNDAY KOINONIKON

OF THE 18THCENTURY

NICOLAE GHEORGHI

AbstractThe phenomenon of exegesis () of Byzantine music and of transcribing the old musical settings

into the New Method of analytical music notation since the beginning of the 19th

century is one of theextremely disputed subjects amongst musicologists. A true apple of discord, perhaps the practice oftranslating or interpreting the Byzantine music semiographic system is the best example to describe thetotally irreducible mentality which has characterized and is still characterizing part of the researchers inthe field with regards to this point. The discussions started from the difficulties in understanding thestenographic and mnemo-technical features of this notation and from the fact that both the oral traditionand the written one accredit the idea that the motivic formulas (theseis) in the old Byzantine musicnotation were semiographic units that focused on the melosor the real, truthful melody.As it is well known, the construction system of the Byzantine melos and, implicitly, of the Sundaykoinonikon, is one in which the basic unit is the thesis(the motivic formula) and the succession oftheseis. Thus, I chose to study the exegesis technique for the Sunday koinonikon in the 18 thcenturyon basis of the formulaic character of this music and its relation with the psalm text. This analysismethod is known as regressive collations ( ), i.e. starting from thereceived tradition and going back, step by step, until reaching the medieval sources.The current study presents the conclusions regarding the translation (interpretation) technique in the

New Semiography of the eleven most important formulas ( theseis) existent in the Sunday koinonikaduring the 18th century, beginning with the 42 Sunday creations of Daniel Protopsaltes (8 koinonika),Petros Lampadarios Peloponnesios (26 koinonika) and Petros Byzantios (8 koinonika), in theinterpretations offered by the fathers of the New Semiography in the beginning of the 19 thcentury: Gregorios Protopsaltes (17781821) and Chourmouzios Chartophylax (17701840).

Keywords: Church music, Byzantine chant, Sunday koinonikon, New semiography, Old system,exegesis () of Byzantine music, motivic formulas (theseis).

1. INTRODUCTION

The phenomenon of exegesis() of Byzantine music and of transcribing the old musical settings intothe New Method of analytical music notation since the beginning of the 19 th century is one of the extremelydisputed subjects amongst musicologists. A true apple of discord, perhaps the practice of translating orinterpreting the Byzantine music semiographic system is the best example to describe the totally irreduciblementality which has characterized and is still characterizing part of the researchers in the field with regards to this

point.1

1See, especially, the famous comment of H. J. W. T ILLYARD(The Stenographic Theory of Byzantine Music, in:Laudate2,4 (1924), 216225, and Laudate 3, 9 (1925), 2832; IDEM, The Stenographic Theory of Byzantine Music, in: ByzantinischeZeitschrift25 (1925), 333338 to the book of K. PSACHOS, , Athens (1917). See alsoH.J.W.TILLYARD, The Modes in Byzantine Music, in: Annual of the British School of Athens 22 (19161917 and 19171918),147; IDEM, Handbook of the Middle Byzantine Notation, Monumenta Musicae Byzantiae, Subsidia 1. Copenhagen (1935),

STUDII I CERCET. IST. ART., Teatru, Muzic, Cinematografie, serie nou, T. 4 (48), P. 926, BUCURETI, 2010


2/18


3/18


4/18


5/18


6/18


7/18


8/18


9/18


10/18

18

FORMULA VI: THESIS WITHARGOSYNTHETON/GORGOSYNTHETON

The analysis of the Sunday koinonikon repertoire in the 18 th century proves that the two formulas areexclusively part of the text melody. The most surprising conclusion is that, despite belonging to the papadicidiom and having all the arguments to develop ample melodic lines, the two formulas are totally ignored bythe Three Teachers.

Thetheseisin which the signs argosyntheton/gorgosynthetonare involved, are the following:1.oligon apostrophos oligon apostrophos with argosyntheton/gorgosyntheton (Table 6: Formula

VI). Exceptionally, this formula can also be encountered in sequential context, and its melody can berecognised in both semiographies;

2.

descendent fourth oxeia with/without gorgon elaphron with klasma argosyntheton (Table 6:Formula VI).


11/18


12/18


13/18


14/18

22


15/18


16/18

24

FORMULA XI: THESIS WITHPSEPHISTON PARAKALESMA

The last melodic figure studied in the Sunday koinonikon repertoire in the 18 thcentury stays devoted to part

I, being encountered only in modes III, I plagal, barys and IV plagal. The most important conclusion afterstudying the few examples in whichpsephiston parakalesma is involved, especially in barys and IV plagal,shows that it is not a cheironomic sign which is determining in developing an ample melos, but in our case

rather the cadence context. This last formula can be seen in Table 11: Formula XI.


17/18

25

3.2. CONCLUSIONS 2

Following the investigation of the construction mechanism of the Sunday koinonika repertoire in the 18thcentury, the conclusions regarding the constitutive elements of the monodic language are absolutelyremarkable. The formula or the combination between the thesis and the cheironomic sign that dominates thethesisbecomes the fundamental unit of constructing the Byzantine melos, and is able to concentrate whole

phrases as well as to change the physiognomy depending on four parameters which are as follows:

1. The step of the infraoctaviant (diphony, triphony, tetraphony, pentaphony) or octaviant mode

structure:This instance proves that the thesis is free to move, in most cases, inside a tetrachord or pentachord of theoctoechal system. The transposition of the melodic fragment or formula is made either through lex trochos or

by what the Byzantine call or mutation/modulation. This is the reason why certain theseis arecommon to more than one mode. Also some of these theseis are characteristic to certain modes and others toother modes. Some of them have cadence character (see for example thesis with kylisma), others arecharacteristic for beginnings (thesis with parakletike), whereas others have the function of a ligament.

Nevertheless, all of them depend on the step the cadence is reached on and on its function in the modalhierarchy of that particular mode. The above statement is strengthened by the fact that each stage of thetetrachord structure can potentially be thefinalisfor one of the eight basic modes.10

2. Belonging to one of the three genera: diatonic, chromatic or enharmonic:This situation can be easily followed in the well-known cadence formula of kylisma, in which its melody ismodified depending on the cheironomic sign in the diatonic or chromatic genre. The conclusions we get fromthe comparative study are also consolidated by the testimony of Chrysantos of Madytos:

, , ,

, .

, , ,

, , , .11 Even if his example refers to the cheironomic sign which ischaracteristic of the Old Sticherarion, the paradigm is extremely relevant for the understanding of thestenographic mechanism of the Byzantine music semiography: ,

,

, , , , . ,

, .

, .12

3. The idiom (or the melodic type )in which the thesisappears: heirmologic, ticheraric

or papadic:As can be noticed in our study, there are certain theseis for which the interpretation disappears when theformula is taken over from papadic to heirmologic repertory (e.g. the formula parakletike). As this

phenomenon is constant, it indicates that each idiom has a set of characteristic formulas, which can be foundonly rarely in the other melodic types. This vocabulary can metamorphose not only from one melodic typeto another (heirmologic sticheraric papadic), but also from a stylistic period to another, inside the same type(see the huge difference between The Old Sticherarion and The New Sticherarion [in the 18thcentury]).

10CHR.ofMADYTOS, , Triest (1832), 408: , , , , , . For more examples, see K. PHILOXENOS, -,Constantinople (1868), p. 44; and S. KARAS, , Athens (1933).

11MADYTOS, , 408.12MADYTOS, , 408.


18/18

02scia.tmc-2010 nicolae gheorghita

Documents