Byzantine music

The monastic reform of the Stoudites and their notated chant books

During the 9th-century reforms of the Stoudios Monastery, the reformers favoured Hagiopolitan composers and customs in their new notated chant books heirmologion and sticherarion, but they also added substantial parts to the tropologion and re-organised the cycle of movable and immovable feasts (especially Lent, the triodion, and its scriptural lessons). The trend is testified by a 9th-century tropologion of the Saint Catherine's Monastery which is dominated by contributions of Jerusalem. Festal stichera, accompanying both the fixed psalms at the beginning and end of Hesperinos and the psalmody of the Orthros (the Ainoi) in the Morning Office, exist for all special days of the year, the Sundays and weekdays of Lent, and for the recurrent cycle of eight weeks in the order of the modes beginning with Easter. Their melodies were originally preserved in the tropologion. During the 10th century two new notated chant books were created at the Stoudios Monastery, which were supposed to replace the tropologion:

1. the sticherarion, consisting of the idiomela in the menaion (the immoveable cycle between September and August), the triodion and the pentekostarion (the moveable cycle around the holy week), and the short version of octoechos (hymns of the Sunday cycle starting with Saturday evening) which sometimes contained a limited number of model troparia (prosomoia). A rather bulky volume called "great octoechos" or "parakletike" with the weekly cycle appeared first in the middle of the tenth century as a book of its own.
2. the heirmologion, which was composed in eight parts for the eight echoi, and further on either according to the canons in liturgical order (KaO) or according to the nine odes of the canon as a subdivision into 9 parts (OdO).

These books were not only provided with musical notation, with respect to the former tropologia they were also considerably more elaborated and varied as a collection of various local traditions. In practice it meant that only a small part of the repertory was really chosen to be sung during the divine services. Nevertheless, the form tropologion was used until the 12th century, and many later books which combined octoechos, sticherarion and heirmologion, rather derive from it (especially the usually unnotated Slavonic osmoglasnik which was often divided in two parts called "pettoglasnik", one for the kyrioi, another for the plagioi echoi).

The old custom can be studied on the basis of the 9th-century tropologion ΜΓ 56+5 from Sinai which was still organised according to the old tropologion beginning with the Christmas and Epiphany cycle (not with 1 September) and without any separation of the movable cycle. The new Studite or post-Studite custom established by the reformers was that each ode consists of an initial troparion, the heirmos, followed by three, four or more troparia from the menaion, which are the exact metrical reproductions of the heirmos (aposticha), thereby allowing the same music to fit all troparia equally well. The combination of Constantinopolitan and Palestine customs must be also understood on the base of the political history.

Especially the first generation around Theodore Studites and Joseph the Confessor, and the second around Joseph the Hymnographer suffered from the first and the second crisis of iconoclasm. The community around Theodore could revive monastic life at the abandoned Stoudios Monastery, but he had to leave Constantinople frequently in order to escape political persecution. During this period, the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Alexandria (especially Sinai) remained centres of the hymnographic reform. Concerning the Old Byzantine notation, Constantinople and the area between Jerusalem and Sinai can be clearly distinguished. The earliest notation used for the books sticherarion and was theta notation, but it was soon replaced by palimpsests with more detailed forms between Coislin (Palestine) and Chartres notation (Constantinople). Although it was correct that the Studites in Constantinople established a new mixed rite, its customs remained different from those of the other Patriarchates which were located outside the Empire.

On the other hand, Constantinople as well as other parts of the Empire like Italy encouraged also privileged women to found female monastic communities and certain hegumeniai also contributed to the hymnographic reform. The basic repertoire of the newly created cycles the immovable menaion, the movable triodion and pentekostarion and the week cycle of parakletike and Orthros cycle of the eleven stichera heothina and their lessons are the result of a redaction of the tropologion which started with the generation of Theodore the Studite and ended during the Macedonian Renaissance under the emperors Leo VI (the stichera heothina are traditionally ascribed to him) and Constantine VII (the exaposteilaria anastasima are ascribed to him).

The cyclic organization of lectionaries

Another project of the Studites' reform was the organisation of the New Testament (Epistle, Gospel) reading cycles, especially its hymns during the period of the triodion (between the pre-Lenten Meatfare Sunday called "Apokreo" and the Holy Week). Older lectionaries had been often completed by the addition of ekphonetic notation and of reading marks which indicate the readers where to start (ἀρχή) and to finish (τέλος) on a certain day. The Studites also created a typikon—a monastic one which regulated the cœnobitic life of the Stoudios Monastery and granted its autonomy in resistance against iconoclast Emperors, but they had also an ambitious liturgical programme. They imported Hagiopolitan customs (of Jerusalem) like the Great Vesper, especially for the movable cycle between Lent and All Saints (triodion and pentekostarion), including a Sunday of Orthodoxy which celebrated the triumph over iconoclasm on the first Sunday of Lent.

Unlike the current Orthodox custom Old Testament readings were particular important during Orthros and Hesperinos in Constantinople since the 5th century, while there was no one during the divine liturgy. The Great Vespers according to Studite and post-Studite custom (reserved for just a few feasts like the Sunday of Orthodoxy) were quite ambitious. The evening psalm 140 (kekragarion) was based on simple psalmody, but followed by florid coda of a soloist (monophonaris). A melismatic prokeimenon was sung by him from the ambo, it was followed by three antiphons (Ps 114–116) sung by the choirs, the third used the trisagion or the usual anti-trisagion as a refrain, and an Old Testament reading concluded the prokeimenon.

The Hagiopolites treatise

The earliest chant manual pretends right at the beginning that John of Damascus was its author. Its first edition was based on a more or less complete version in a 14th-century manuscript, but the treatise was probably created centuries earlier as part of the reform redaction of the tropologia by the end of the 8th century, after Irene's Council of Nikaia had confirmed the octoechos reform of 692 in 787. It fits well to the later focus on Palestine authors in the new chant book heirmologion.

Concerning the octoechos, the Hagiopolitan system is characterised as a system of eight diatonic echoi with two additional phthorai (nenano and nana) which were used by John of Damascus and Cosmas, but not by Joseph the Confessor who obviously preferred the diatonic mele of plagios devteros and plagios tetartos.

It also mentions an alternative system of the Asma (the cathedral rite was called ἀκολουθία ᾀσματική) that consisted of 4 kyrioi echoi, 4 plagioi, 4 mesoi, and 4 phthorai. It seems that until the time, when the Hagiopolites was written, the octoechos reform did not work out for the cathedral rite, because singers at the court and at the Patriarchate still used a tonal system of 16 echoi, which was obviously part of the particular notation of their books: the asmatikon and the kontakarion or psaltikon.

But neither any 9th-century Constantinopolitan chant book nor an introducing treatise that explains the fore-mentioned system of the Asma, have survived. Only a 14th-century manuscript of Kastoria testifies cheironomic signs used in these books, which are transcribed in longer melodic phrases by the notation of the contemporary sticherarion, the middle Byzantine Round notation.

The transformation of the kontakion

The former genre and glory of Romanos' kontakion was not abandoned by the reformers, even contemporary poets in a monastic context continued to compose new liturgical kontakia (mainly for the menaion), it likely preserved a modality different from Hagiopolitan oktoechos hymnography of the sticherarion and the heirmologion.

But only a limited number of melodies or kontakion mele had survived. Some of them were rarely used to compose new kontakia, other kontakia which became the model for eight prosomoia called "kontakia anastasima" according to the oktoechos, had been frequently used. The kontakion ὁ ὑψωθεῖς ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ for the feast of cross exaltation (14 September) was not the one chosen for the prosomoion of the kontakion anastasimon in the same echos, it was actually the kontakion ἐπεφάνης σήμερον for Theophany (6 January). But nevertheless, it represented the second important melos of the echos tetartos which was frequently chosen to compose new kontakia, either for the prooimion (introduction) or for the oikoi (the stanzas of the kontakion called "houses"). Usually these models were not rubrified as "avtomela", but as idiomela which means that the modal structure of a kontakion was more complex, similar to a sticheron idiomelon changing through different echoi.

This new monastic type of kontakarion can be found in the collection of Saint Catherine's Monastery on the peninsula of Sinai (ET-MSsc Ms. Gr. 925–927) and its kontakia had only a reduced number of oikoi. The earliest kontakarion (ET-MSsc Ms. Gr. 925) dating to the 10th century might serve as an example. The manuscript was rubrified Κονδακάριον σῦν Θεῷ by the scribe, the rest is not easy to decipher since the first page was exposed to all kinds of abrasion, but it is obvious that this book is a collection of short kontakia organised according to the new menaion cycle like a sticherarion, beginning with 1 September and the feast of Symeon the Stylite. It has no notation, instead the date is indicated and the genre κονδάκιον is followed by the dedicated Saint and the incipit of the model kontakion (not even with an indication of its echos by a modal signature in this case).

Folio 2 verso shows a kontakion ἐν ἱερεῦσιν εὐσεβῶς διαπρέψας which was composed over the prooimion used for the kontakion for cross exaltation ὁ ὑψωθεῖς ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ. The prooimion is followed by three stanzas called oikoi, but they all share with the prooimion the same refrain called "ephymnion" (ἐφύμνιον) ταὶς σαῖς πρεσβεῖαις which concludes each oikos. But the model for these oikoi was not taken from the same kontakion, but from the other kontakion for Theophany whose first oikos had the incipit τῇ γαλιλαίᾳ τῶν ἐθνῶν.

The Slavic reception

The Slavic reception is crucial for the understanding, how the kontakion has changed under the influence of the Stoudites. During the 9th and 10th centuries new Empires established in the North which were dominated by Slavic populations - Great Moravia and the Kievan Rus' (a federation of East Slavic tribes ruled by Varangians between the Black Sea and Scandinavia). The Byzantines had plans to participate actively in the Christianization of those new Slavic powers, but those intentions failed. The well established and recently Christianized (864) Bulgarian Empire created two new literary centres at Preslav and Ohrid. These empires requested a state religion, legal codexes, the translation of canonic scriptures, but also the translation of an overregional liturgy as it was created by the Stoudios Monastery, Mar Saba and Saint Catherine's Monastery. The Slavic reception confirmed this new trend, but also showed a detailed interest for the cathedral rite of the Hagia Sophia and the pre-Stoudite organisation of the tropologion. Thus, these manuscripts are not only the earliest literary evidence of Slavonic languages which offer a transcription of the local variants of Slavonic languages, but also the earliest sources of the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite with musical notation, although transcribed into a notation of its own, just based on one tone system and on the contemporary layer of 11th-century notation, the roughly diastematic Old Byzantine notation.

The literary schools of the first Bulgarian empire

No Slavonic tropologion written in Glagolitic script by Cyril and Methodius has survived. This lack of evidence does not prove that it had not existed, since certain conflicts with Benedictines and other Slavonic missionaries in Great Moravia and Pannonia were obviously about an Orthodox rite translated into Old Church Slavonic and practised already by Methodius and Clement of Ohrid. Only few early Glagolitic sources have been left. The Kiev Missal proves a West Roman influence in the Old Slavonic liturgy for certain territories of Croatia. A later 11th-century New Testament lectionary known as the Codex Assemanius was created by the Ohrid Literary School. A euchologion (ET-MSsc Ms. Slav. 37) was in part compiled for Great Moravia by Cyril, Clement, Naum and Constantine of Preslav. It was probably copied at Preslav about the same time. The aprakos lectionary proves that the Stoudites typikon was obeyed concerning the organisation of reading cycles. It explains, why Svetlana Kujumdžieva assumed that the "church order" mentioned in Methodius' vita meant the mixed Constantinopolitan Sabbaite rite established by the Stoudites. But a later finding by the same author pointed to another direction. In a recent publication she chose "Iliya's book" (RUS-Mda Fond 381, Ms. 131) as the earliest example of an Old Church Slavonic tropologion (around 1100), it has compositions by Cyril of Jerusalem and agrees about 50% with the earliest tropologion of Sinai (ET-MSsc Ms. NE/MΓ 56+5) and it is likewise organised as a mеnaion (beginning with September like the Stoudites), but it still includes the movable cycle. Hence, its organisation is still close to the tropologion and it has compositions not only ascribed to Cosmas and John, but also Stephen the Sabaite, Theophanes the Branded, the Georgian scribe and hymnographer Basil at Mar Saba and Joseph the Hymnographer. Further on, musical notation has been added on some pages which reveal an exchange between Slavic literary schools and scribes of Sinai or Mar Saba:

• theta ("θ" for "thema" which indicates a melodic figure over certain syllables of the text) or fita notation was used to indicate the melodic structure of an idiomelon/samoglasen in glas 2 "Na yeerdanĭstěi rěcě" (Theophany, f.109r). It was also used on other pages (kanon for hypapante, ff.118v-199r & 123r),
• two forms of znamennaya notation, an earlier one has dots on the right sight of certain signs (the kanon "Obrazę drevle Moisi" in glas 8 for Cross elevation on 14 September, ff.8r-9r), and a more developed form which was obviously needed for a new translation of the text ("another" avtomelon/samopodoben, ино, glas 6 "Odesnuǫ sŭpasa" for Saint Christina of Tyre, 24 July, f.143r).

Kujumdžieva pointed later at a Southern Slavic origin (also based on linguistic arguments since 2015), although feasts of local saints, celebrated on the same day as Christina Boris and Gleb, had been added. If its reception of a pre-Stoudite tropologion was of Southern Slavic origin, there is evidence that this manuscript was copied and adapted for a use in Northern Slavic territories. The adaption to the menaion of the Rus rather proves that notation was only used in a few parts, where a new translation of a certain text required a new melodic composition which was no longer included within the existing system of melodies established by the Stoudites and their followers. But there is a coincidence between the early fragment from the Berlin-collection, where the ἀλλὸ rubric is followed by a modal signature and some early neumes, while the elaborated zamennaya is used for a new sticheron (ино) dedicated to Saint Christina.

Recent systematic editions of the 12th-century notated mineya (like RUS-Mim Ms. Sin. 162 with just about 300 folios for the month December) which included not just samoglasni (idiomela) even podobni (prosomoia) and aposticha with notation (while the kondaks were left without notation), have revealed that the philosophy of the literary schools in Ohrid and Preslav did only require in exceptional cases the use of notation. The reason is that their translation of Greek hymnography were not very literal, but often quite far from the content of the original texts, the main concern of this school was the recomposition or troping of the given system of melodies (with their models known as avtomela and heirmoi) which was left intact. The Novgorod project of re-translation during the 12th century tried to come closer to the meaning of the texts and the notation was needed to control the changes within the system of melodies.

Znamennaya notation in the stichirar and the irmolog

Concerning the Slavic rite celebrated in various parts of the Kievan Rus', there was not only an interest for the organisation of monastic chant and the tropologion and the oktoich or osmoglasnik which included chant of the irmolog, podobni (prosomoia) and their models (samopodobni), but also the samoglasni (idiomela) like in case of Iliya's book.

Since the 12th century, there are also Slavic stichirars which did not only include the samoglasni, but also the podobni provided with znamennaya notation. A comparison of the very first samoglasen наста въходъ лѣтоу ("Enter the entrance of the annual cycle") in glas 1 (ἐπέστη ἡ εἴσοδος τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ echos protos, SAV 1) of the mineya shows, that the znamennaya version is much closer to fita (theta) notation, since the letter "θ =" corresponds to other signs in Coislin and a synthetic way to write a kratema group in Middle Byzantine notation. It was obviously an elaboration of the simpler version written in Coislin:

The Middle Byzantine version allows to recognise the exact steps (intervals) between the neumes. They are here described according to the Papadic practice of solfège called "parallage" (παραλλαγή) which is based on echemata: for ascending steps always kyrioi echoi are indicated, for descending steps always echemata of the plagioi echoi. If the phonic steps of the neumes were recognised according to this method, the resulting solfège was called "metrophonia". The step between the first neumes at the beginning passed through the protos pentachord between kyrios (a as transcription for α') and plagios phthongos (D as transcription of πλα'): a—Da—a—G—a—G—FGa—a—EF—G—a—acbabcba. The Coislin version seems to end (ἐνιαυτοῦ) thus: EF—G—a—Gba (the klasma indicates that the following kolon continues immediately in the music). In znamennaya notation the combination dyo apostrophoi (dve zapĕtiye) and oxeia (strela) at the beginning (наста) is called "strela gromnaya" and obviously derived from the combination "apeso exo" in Coislin notation. According to the customs of Old Byzantine notation, "apeso exo" was not yet written with "spirits" called "chamile" (down) or "hypsile" (up) which did later specify as pnevmata the interval of a fifth (four steps). As usual the Old Church Slavonic translation of the text deals with less syllables than the Greek verse. The neumes only show the basic structure which was memorised as metrophonia by the use of parallage, not the melos of the performance. The melos depended on various methods to sing an idiomelon, either together with a choir or to ask a soloist to create a rather individual version (changes between soloist and choir were at least common for the period of the 14th century, when the Middle Byzantine sticherarion in this example was created). But the comparison clearly reveals the potential (δύναμις) of the rather complex genre idiomelon.

The Kievan Rus' and the earliest manuscripts of the cathedral rite

The background of Antonin's interest in celebrations at the Hagia Sophia of Constantinople, as they had been documented by his description of the ceremony around Christmas and Theophany in 1200, were diplomatic exchanges between Novgorod and Constantinople.

Reception of the cathedral rite

In the Primary Chronicle it is reported, how a legacy of the Rus' was received in Constantinople and how they did talk about their experience in presence of Vladimir the Great in 987, before the Grand Prince Vladimir decided about the Christianization of the Kievan Rus' (Laurentian Codex written at Nizhny Novgorod in 1377):

On the morrow, the Byzantine emperor sent a message to the patriarch to inform him that a Russian delegation had arrived to examine the Greek faith, and directed him to prepare the church Hagia Sophia and the clergy, and to array himself in his sacerdotal robes, so that the Russians might behold the glory of the God of the Greeks. When the patriarch received these commands, he bade the clergy assemble, and they performed the customary rites. They burned incense, and the choirs sang hymns. The emperor accompanied the Russians to the church, and placed them in a wide space, calling their attention to the beauty of the edifice, the chanting, and the offices of the archpriest and the ministry of the deacons, while he explained to them the worship of his God. The Russians were astonished, and in their wonder praised the Greek ceremonial. Then the Emperors Basil and Constantine invited the envoys to their presence, and said, "Go hence to your native country," and thus dismissed them with valuable presents and great honor.

Thus they returned to their own country, and the prince called together his vassals and the elders. Vladimir then announced the return of the envoys who had been sent out, and suggested that their report be heard. He thus commanded them to speak out before his vassals. The envoys reported: "When we journeyed among the Bulgars, we beheld how they worship in their temple, called a mosque, while they stand ungirt. The Bulgarian bows, sits down, looks hither and thither like one possessed, and there is no happiness among them, but instead only sorrow and a dreadful stench. Their religion is not good. Then we went among the Germans, and saw them performing many ceremonies in their temples; but we beheld no glory there. Then we went on to Greece, and the Greeks led us to the edifices where they worship their God, and we knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth. For on earth there is no such splendor or such beauty, and we are at a loss how to describe it. We know only that God dwells there among men, and their service is fairer than the ceremonies of other nations. For we cannot forget that beauty. Every man, after tasting something sweet, is afterward unwilling to accept that which is bitter, and therefore we cannot dwell longer here.

There was obviously also an interest in the representative aspect of those ceremonies at the Hagia Sophia of Constantinople. Today, it is still documented by seven Slavic kondakar's:

1. Tipografsky Ustav: Moscow, State Tretyakov Gallery, Ms. K-5349 (about 1100)
2. Two fragments of a kondakar' (one kondak with notation): Moscow, Russian State Library (RGB), Fond 205 Ms. 107 (12th century)
3. Troitsky-Lavrsky Kondakar': Moscow, Russian State Library (RGB), Fond 304 Ms. 23 (about 1200)
4. Blagoveščensky Kondakar': Saint Petersburg, National Library of Russia (RNB), Ms. Q.п.I.32 (about 1200)
5. Uspensky Kondakar': Moscow, State Historical Museum (GIM), Ms. Usp. 9-п (1207, probably for the Uspensky Sobor)
6. Sinodal'ny Kondakar': Moscow, State Historical Museum (GIM), Ms. Sin. 777 (early 13th century)
7. South-Slavic kondakar' without notation: Moscow, State Historical Museum (GIM), part of the Book of Prologue at the Chludov collection (14th century)

Six of them had been written in scriptoria of Kievan Rus' during the 12th and the 13th centuries, while there is one later kondakar' without notation which was written in the Balkans during the 14th century. The aesthetic of the calligraphy and the notation has so developed over a span of 100 years that it must be regarded as a local tradition, but also one which provided us with the earliest evidence of the cheironomic signs which had only survived in one later Greek manuscript.

In October 1147, the chronicler Odo of Deuil described during the Second Crusade of King Louis VII the cheironomia, but also the presence of eunuchs during the cathedral rite. With respect to the custom of the Missa greca (for the patron of the Royal Abbey of Saint Denis where Odo lived as a monk), he reported that the Byzantine emperor sent his clerics to celebrate the divine liturgy for the Frankish visitors:

Novit hoc imperator; colunt etenim Graeci hoc festum, et clericorum suorum electam multitudinem, dato unicuique cereo magno, variis coloribus et auro depicto regi transmisit, et solemnitatis gloriam ampliavit. Illi quidem a nostris clericis verborum et organi genere dissidebant, sed suavi modulatione placebant. Voces enim mistae, robustior cum gracili, eunucha videlicet cum virili (erant enim eunuchi multi illorum), Francorum animos demulcebant. Gestu etiam corporis decenti et modesto, plausu manuum, et inflexione articulorum, jucunditatem visibus offerebant.Since the emperor realised, that the Greeks celebrate this feast, he sent to the king a selected group of his clergy, each of whom he had equipped with a large taper [votive candle] decorated elaborately with gold and a great variety of colours; and he increased the glory of the ceremony. Those differed from our clerics concerning the words and the order of service, but they pleased us with sweet modulations. You should know that the mixed voices are more stable but with grace, the eunuchs appear with virility (for many of them were eunuchs), and softened the hearts of the Franks. Through a decent and modest gesture of the body, clapping of hands and flexions of the fingers they offered us a vision of gentleness.

— De profectione Ludovici VII in Orientem (PL 185, col.1223A-B)

Kondakarian notation of the asmatikon part

The Kievan Rus' obviously cared about this tradition, but especially about the practice of cheironomia and its particular notation: the so-called "kondakarian notation". A comparison with Easter koinonikon proves two things: the Slavic kondakar' did not correspond to the "pure" form of the Greek kontakarion which was the book of the soloist who had also to recite the larger parts of the kontakia or kondaks. It was rather a mixed form which included also the choir book (asmatikon), since there is no evidence that such an asmatikon had ever been used by clerics of the Rus', while the kondakarian notation integrated the cheironomic signs with simple signs, a Byzantine convention which had only survived in one manuscript (GR-KA Ms. 8), and combined it with Old Slavic znamennaya notation, as it had been developed in the sticheraria and heirmologia of the 12th century and the so-called Tipografsky Ustav.

Although the common knowledge of znamennaya notation is as limited as the one of other Old Byzantine variants such as Coislin and Chartres notation, a comparison with the asmatikon Kastoria 8 is a kind of bridge between the former concept of cheironomiai as the only authentic notation of the cathedral rite and the hand signs used by the choir leaders and the later concept of great signs integrated and transcribed into Middle Byzantine notation, but it is a pure form of the choir book, so that such comparison is only possible for an asmatic chant genre such as the koinonikon.

See for instance the comparison of the Easter koinonikon between the Slavic Blagoveščensky kondakar' which was written about 1200 in the Northern town Novgorod of the Rus', its name derived from its preservation at the collection of the Blagoveščensky monastery at Nizhny Novgorod.

The comparison should not suggest that both versions are identical, but the earlier source documents an earlier reception of the same tradition (since there is a difference about 120 years between both sources it is impossible to judge the differences). The rubric "Glas 4" is most likely an error of the notator and meant "Glas 5", but it is also possible, that the Slavic tone system was already in such an early period organised in triphonia. Thus, it could also mean that анеане, undoubtedly the plagios protos enechema ἀνεανὲ, was supposed to be on a very high pitch (about an octave higher), in that case the tetartos phthongos has not the octave species of tetartos (a tetrachord up and a pentachord down), but the one of plagios protos. The comparison also shows very much likeness between the use of asmatic syllables such as "оу" written as one character such as "ꙋ". Tatiana Shvets in her description of the notational style also mentions the kola (frequent interpunction within the text line) and medial intonations can appear within a word which was sometimes due to the different numbers of syllables within the translated Slavonic text. A comparison of the neumes also show many similarities to Old Byzantine (Coislin, Chartres) signs such as ison (stopica), apostrophos (zapĕtaya), oxeia (strela), vareia (palka), dyo kentemata (točki), diple (statĕya), klasma (čaška), the krusma (κροῦσμα) was actually an abbreviation for a sequence of signs (palka, čaška with statĕya, and točki) and omega "ω" meant a parakalesma, a great sign related to a descending step (see the echema for plagios protos: it is combined with a dyo apostrophoi called "zapĕtaya").

A melismatic polyeleos passing through 8 echoi

Another very modern part of the Blagoveščensky kondakar' was a Polyeleos composition (a post-Stoudites custom, since they imported the Great Vesper from Jerusalem) about the psalm 135 which was divided into eight sections, each one in another glas:

• Glas 1: Ps. 135:1–4 (RUS-SPsc Ms. Q.п.I.32, f.107r).
• Glas 2: Ps. 135:5–8 (RUS-SPsc Ms. Q.п.I.32, f.107v).
• Glas 3: Ps. 135:9–12 (RUS-SPsc Ms. Q.п.I.32, f.108v).
• Glas 4: Ps. 135:13–16 (RUS-SPsc Ms. Q.п.I.32, f.109v).
• Glas 5: Ps. 135:17–20 (RUS-SPsc Ms. Q.п.I.32, f.110r).
• Glas 6: Ps. 135:21–22 (RUS-SPsc Ms. Q.п.I.32, f.110v).
• Glas 7: Ps. 135:23–24 (RUS-SPsc Ms. Q.п.I.32, f.112r).
• Glas 8: Ps. 135:25–26 (RUS-SPsc Ms. Q.п.I.32, f.113r).

The refrain алелꙋгіа · алелꙋгіа · ананѣанѣс · ꙗко въ вҍкы милость ѥго · алелꙋгіа ("Alleluia, alleluia. medial intonation For His love endureth forever. Alleluia.") was only written after a medial intonation for the conclusion of the first section. "Ananeanes" was the medial intonation of echos protos (glas 1). This part was obviously composed without modulating to the glas of the following section. The refrain was likely sung by the right choir after the intonation of its leader: the domestikos, the preceding psalm text probably by a soloist (monophonaris) from the ambo. Interesting is that only the choir sections are entirely provided with cheironomiai. Slavic cantors had been obviously trained in Constantinople to learn the hand signs which corresponded to the great signs in the first row of Kondakarian notation, while the monophonaris parts had them only at the end, so that they were probably indicated by the domestikos or lampadarios in order to get the attention of the choir singers, before singing the medial intonations.

We do not know, whether the whole psalm was sung or each section at another day (during the Easter week, for instance, when the glas changed daily), but the following section do not have a written out refrain as a conclusion, so that the first refrain of each section was likely repeated as conclusion, often with more than one medial intonation which indicated, that there was an alternation between the two choirs. For instance within the section of glas 3 (the modal signature was obviously forgotten by the notator), where the text of the refrain is almost treated like a "nenanismaton": "але-нь-н-на-нъ-ъ-на-а-нъ-ı-ъ-лꙋ-гі-а". The following medial intonations "ипе" (εἴπε "Say!") and "пал" (παλὶν "Again!") obviously did imitate medial intonations of the asmatikon without a true understanding of their meaning, because a παλὶν did usually indicate that something will be repeated from the very beginning. Here one choir did obviously continue another one, often interrupting it within a word.

The end of the cathedral rite in Constantinople

1207, when the Uspensky kondakar' was written, the traditional cathedral rite had no longer survived in Constantinople, because the court and the patriarchate had gone into exile to Nikaia in 1204, after Western crusaders had made it impossible to continue the local tradition. The Greek books of the asmatikon (choir book) and the other one for the monophonaris (the psaltikon which often included the kontakarion) were written outside Constantinople, on the island of Patmos, at Saint Catherine's monastery, on the Holy Mount Athos and in Italy, in a new notation which developed some decades later within the books sticherarion and heirmologion: Middle Byzantine round notation. Thus, also the book kontakarion-psaltikon dedicated to the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite must be regarded as part of its reception history outside Constantinople like the Slavic kondakar'.

The kontakaria and asmatika written in Middle Byzantine round notation

The reason, why the psaltikon was called "kontakarion", was that most parts of a kontakion (except of the refrain) were sung by a soloist from the ambo, and that the collection of the kontakarion had a prominent and dominant place within the book. The classical repertoire, especially the kontakion cycle of the movable feasts mainly attributed to Romanos, included usually about 60 notated kontakia which were obviously reduced to the prooimion and the first oikos and this truncated form is commonly regarded as a reason, why the notated form presented a melismatic elaboration of the kontakion as it was commonly celebrated during the cathedral rite at the Hagia Sophia. As such within the notated kontakarion-psaltikon the cycle of kontakia was combined with a prokeimenon and alleluiarion cycle as a proper chant of the divine liturgy, at least for more important feasts of the movable and immovable cycle. Since the Greek kontakarion has only survived with Middle Byzantine notation which developed outside Constantinople after the decline of the cathedral rite, the notators of these books must have integrated the cheironomiai or great signs still present in the Slavic kondakar's within the musical notation of the new book sticherarion.

The typical composition of a kontakarion-psaltikon (τὸ ψαλτικὸν, τὸ κοντακάριον) was:

• prokeimena
• alleluiaria
• eight hypakoai anastasimai
• kontakarion with the movable cycle integrated in the menaion after hypapante
• eight kontakia anastasima
• appendix: refrains of the alleluiaria in octoechos order, rarely alleluia endings in psalmody, or usually later added kontakia

The choral sections had been collected in a second book for the choir which was called asmatikon (τὸ ᾀσματικὸν). It contained the refrains (dochai) of the prokeimena, troparia, sometimes the ephymnia of the kontakia and the hypakoai, but also ordinary chant of the divine liturgy like the eisodikon, the trisagion, the choir sections of the cherubikon asmatikon, the weekly and annual cycle of koinonika. There were also combined forms as a kind of asmatikon-psaltikon.

In Southern Italy, there were also mixed forms of psaltikon-asmatikon which preceded the Constantinopolitan book "akolouthiai":

• annual cycle of proper chant in menaion order with integrated movable cycle (kontakion with first oikos, allelouiaria, prokeimenon, and koinonikon)
• all refrains of the asmatikon (allelouiarion, psalmodic allelouiaria for polyeleoi, dochai of prokeimena, trisagion, koinonika etc.) in oktoechos order
• appendix with additions

The kontakia collection in the Greek kontakaria-psaltika

Nevertheless, the Greek monastic as well as the Slavic reception within the Kievan Rus' show many coincidences within the repertoire, so that even kontakia created in the North for local customs could be easily recognised by a comparison of Slavonic kondakar's with Greek psaltika-kontakaria. Constantin Floros' edition of the melismatic chant proved that the total repertoire of 750 kontakia (about two thirds composed since the 10th century) was based on a very limited number of classical melodies which served as model for numerous new compositions: he counted 42 prooimia with 14 prototypes which were used as a model for other kontakia, but not rubrified as avtomela, but as idiomela (28 of them remained more or less unique), and 13 oikoi which were separately used for the recitation of oikoi. The most frequently used models also generated a prosomoion-cycle of eight kontakia anastasima. The repertoire of these melodies (not so much their elaborated form) was obviously older and was transcribed by echemata in Middle Byzantine notation which were partly completely different from those used in the sticherarion. While the Hagiopolites mentioned 16 echoi of the cathedral rite (four kyrioi, four plagioi, four mesoi and four phthorai), the kontakia-idiomela alone represent at least 14 echoi (four kyrioi in devteros and tritos represented as mesos forms, four plagioi, three additional mesoi and three phthorai).

The integrative role of Middle Byzantine notation becomes visible that a lot of echemata were used which were not known from the sticherarion. Also the role of the two phthorai known as the chromatic νενανῶ and the enharmonic νανὰ was completely different from the one within the Hagiopolitan Octoechos, phthora nana clearly dominated (even in devteros echoi), while phthora nenano was rarely used. Nothing is known about the exact division of the tetrachord, because no treatise concerned with the tradition the cathedral rite of Constantinople has survived, but the Coislin sign of xeron klasma (ξηρὸν κλάσμα) appeared on different pitch classes (phthongoi) than within the stichera idiomela of the sticherarion.

The Slavic kondakar's did only use very few oikoi pointing at certain models, but the text of the first oikos was only written in the earliest manuscript known as Tipografsky Ustav, but never provided with notation. If there was an oral tradition, it probably did not survive until the 13th century, because the oikoi are simply missing in the kondakar's of that period.

One example for an kondak-prosomoion whose music can be only reconstructed by a comparison with model of the kontakion as it has been notated into Middle Byzantine round notation, is Аще и убьѥна быста which was composed for the feast for Boris and Gleb (24 July) over the kondak-idiomelon Аще и въ гробъ for Easter in echos plagios tetartos:

The two Middle Byzantine versions in the kontakarion-psaltikon of Paris and the one of Sinai are not identical. The first kolon ends on different phthongoi: either on plagios tetartos (C, if the melos starts there) or one step lower on the phthongos echos varys, the plagios tritos called "grave echos" (a kind of B flat). It is definitely exaggerated to pretend that one has "deciphered" Kondakarian notation, which is hardly true for any manuscript of this period. But even considering the difference of about at least 80 years which lie between the Old Byzantine version of Slavic scribes in Novgorod (second row of the kondakar's) and the Middle Byzantine notation used by the monastic scribes of the later Greek manuscripts, it seems obvious that all three manuscripts in comparison did mean one and the same cultural heritage associated with the cathedral rite of the Hagia Sophia: the melismatic elaboration of the truncated kontakion. Both Slavonic kondaks follow strictly the melismatic structure in the music and the frequent segmentation by kola (which does not exist in the Middle Byzantine version), interrupting the conclusion of the first text unit by an own kolon using with the asmatic syllable "ꙋ".

Concerning the two martyre princes of the Kievan Rus' Boris and Gleb, there are two kondak-prosomoia dedicated to them in the Blagoveščensky Kondakar' on the folios 52r–53v: the second is the prosomoion over the kondak-idiomelon for Easter in glas 8, the first the prosomoion Въси дьньсь made over the kondak-idiomelon for Christmas Дева дньсь (Ἡ παρθένος σήμερον) in glas 3. Unlike the Christmas kontakion in glas 3, the Easter kontakion was not chosen as model for the kontakion anastasimon of glas 8 (plagios tetartos). It had two other important rivals: the kontakion-idiomelon Ὡς ἀπαρχάς τῆς φύσεως (ꙗко начатъкы родоу) for All Saints, although an enaphonon (protos phthongos) which begins on the lower fourth (plagios devteros), and the prooimion Τῇ ὑπερμάχῳ στρατιγῷ (Възбраньноумоу воѥводѣ побѣдьнаꙗ) of the Akathistos hymn in echos plagios tetartos (which only appears in Greek kontakaria-psaltika).

Even among the notated sources there was a distinction between the short and the long psaltikon style which was based on the musical setting of the kontakia, established by Christian Thodberg and by Jørgen Raasted. The latter chose Romanos' Christmas kontakion Ἡ παρθένος σήμερον to demonstrate the difference and his conclusion was that the known Slavic kondakar's did rather belong to the long psaltikon style.

The era of psaltic art and the new mixed rite of Constantinople

There was a discussion promoted by Christian Troelsgård that Middle Byzantine notation should not be distinguished from Late Byzantine notation. The argument was that the establishment of a mixed rite after the return of the court and the patriarchate from the exile in Nikaia in 1261, had nothing really innovative with respect the sign repertoire of Middle Byzantine notation. The innovation was probably already done outside Constantinople, in those monastic scriptoria whose scribes cared about the lost cathedral rite and did integrate different forms of Old Byzantine notation (those of the sticherarion and heirmologion like theta notation, Coislin and Chartres type as well as those of the Byzantine asmatikon and kontakarion which were based on cheironomies). The argument was mainly based on the astonishing continuity that a new a type of treatise revealed by its continuous presence from the 13th to the 19th centuries: the Papadike. In a critical edition of this huge corpus, Troelsgård together with Maria Alexandru discovered many different functions that this treatise type could have. It was originally an introduction for a revised type of sticherarion, but it also introduced many other books like mathemataria (literally "a book of exercises" like a sticherarion kalophonikon or a book with heirmoi kalophonikoi, stichera kalophonika, anagrammatismoi and kratemata), akolouthiai (from "taxis ton akolouthion" which meant "order of services", a book which combined the choir book "asmatikon", the book of the soloist "kontakarion", and with the rubrics the instructions of the typikon) and the Ottoman anthologies of the Papadike which tried to continue the tradition of the notated book akolouthiai (usually introduced by a Papadike, a kekragarion/anastasimatarion, an anthology for Orthros, and an anthology for the divine liturgies).

With the end of creative poetical composition, Byzantine chant entered its final period, devoted largely to the production of more elaborate musical settings of the traditional repertoire: either embellishments of the earlier simpler melodies (palaia "old"), or original music in highly ornamental style (called "kalophonic"). This was the work of the so-called Maïstores, "masters", of whom the most celebrated was St. John Koukouzeles (14th century) as a famous innovator in the development of chant. The multiplication of new settings and elaborations of the traditional repertoire continued in the centuries following the fall of Constantinople.

The revision of the chant books

One part of this process was the redaction and limitation of the present repertoire given by the notated chant books of the sticherarion (menaion, triodion, pentekostarion, and oktoechos) and the heirmologion during the 14th century. Philologists called this repertoire the "standard abridged version" and counted alone 750 stichera for the menaion-part, and 3300 odes of the heirmologion.

Chronological research of the books sticherarion and heirmologion did not only reveal an evolution of notation systems which were just invented for these chant books, they can be also studied with respect to the repertoire of heirmoi and of stichera idiomela. The earliest evolution of sticherarion and heirmologion notation was the explanation of the theta (Slav. fita), oxeia or diple which were simply set under a syllable, where a melisma was expected. These explanations were either written with Coislin (scriptoria of monasteries under administration of the Patriarchates Jerusalem and Alexandria) or with Chartres notation (scriptoria in Constantinople or on Mount Athos). Both notations went through different stages. Since the evolution of the Coislin system also aimed a reduction of signs in order to define the interval value by less signs in order to avoid a confusion with an earlier habit to use them, it was favoured in comparison with the more complex and stenographic Chartres notation by later scribes during the late 12th century. The standard round notation (also known as Middle Byzantine notation) combined signs of both Old Byzantine notation systems during the 13th century. Concerning the repertoire of unique compositions (stichera idiomela) and models of canon poetry (heirmoi), scribes increased their number between the 12th and 13th century. The Middle Byzantine redaction of the 14th century reduced this number within a standard repertoire and tried to unify the many variants, sometimes offering only a second variant notated in red ink. Since the 12th century also prosomoia (texts composed over well-known avtomela) had been increasingly written down with notation, so that a former local oral tradition to apply psalmody to the evening (Ps 140) and the Laud psalm (Ps 148) became finally visible in these books.

Heirmologion

The characteristic of these books is that their collection were over-regional. The probably oldest fully notated chant book is the heirmologion of the Great Lavra on Mount Athos (GR-AOml Ms. β 32) which has been written about the turn to the 11th century. With 312 folios it has much more canons than later redactions notated in Middle Byzantine notation. It was notated in archaic Chartres notation and was organised in canon order. Each canon within an echos section was numbered through and has detailed ascriptions concerning the feast and the author who was believed to have composed poetry and music of the heirmos:

In exceptional cases, some of these canons were marked as prosomoia and written out with notation. In comparison, later heirmologia just notated the heirmoi with the text they were remembered (referred by an incipit), while the akrosticha composed over the model of the heirmos had been written in the text book menaion. Already the famous heirmologion of Paris, Ms. 220 of the fonds Coislin which gave the name to "Coislin notation" and written about 100 years later, seems to collect almost half the number of heirmoi. But within many heirmoi there are one or even two alternative versions (ἄλλος "another one") inserted directly after certain odes, not just with different neumes, but also with different texts. It seems that several former heirmoi of the same author or written for the same occasion had been summarised under one heirmos and some of the odes of the canon could be replaced by others. But the heirmoi for one and the same feast offered the option to singers to choose between different schools (the Sabaite represented by Andrew, Cosmas and John "the monk" and his nephew Stephen, the Constantinopolitan represented by Patriarch Germanos, and the one of Jerusalem by George of Nicomedia and Elias), different echoi, and even different heirmoi of the same author.

Apart from this canonisation which can be observed in the process of redaction between the 12th and 14th centuries, one should also note that the table above compares two different redactions between the 11th and 12th centuries: the one of Constantinople and Athos (Chartres notation) and another one at the scriptoria of Jerusalem (especially the Patriarchate and the Monastery of Saint Sabbas) and Sinai within the Patriarchate of Alexandria written in Coislin notation. Within the medium of Middle Byzantine notation which combined signs stemming from both Old Byzantine notation systems, there was a later process of unification during the 14th century, which combined both redactions, a process which was preceded by the dominance of Coislin notation by the end of the 12th century, when the more complex Chartres notation came out of use, even at Constantinopolitan scriptoria.

Sticherarion

Kalophonia

The synthesis between harmonikai and papadikai

Ottoman era

Chant between Raidestinos, Chrysaphes the Younger, Germanos of New Patras and Balasios

Petros Bereketes and the school of the Phanariotes

To a certain degree there may be found remnants of Byzantine or early (Greek-speaking, Orthodox Christian) near eastern music in the music of the Ottoman Court. Examples such as that of the composer and theorist Prince Cantemir of Romania learning music from the Greek musician Angelos, indicate the continuing participation of Greek speaking people in court culture. The influences of ancient Greek basin and the Greek Christian chants in the Byzantine music as origin, are confirmed. Music of Turkey was influenced by Byzantine music, too (mainly in the years 1640–1712). Ottoman music is a synthesis, carrying the culture of Greek and Armenian Christian chant. It emerged as the result of a sharing process between the many civilizations that met together in the Orient, considering the breadth and length of duration of these empires and the great number of ethnicities and major or minor cultures that they encompassed or came in touch with at each stage of their development.

The Putna school of the Bukovina

Phanariotes at the new music school of the patriarchate

The Orthodox reformulation according to the New Method

Chrysanthos of Madytos (c. 1770–1846), Gregory the Protopsaltes (c. 1778 – c. 1821), and Chourmouzios the Archivist were responsible for a reform of the notation of Greek ecclesiastical music. Essentially, this work consisted of a simplification of the Byzantine Musical Symbols that, by the early 19th century, had become so complex and technical that only highly skilled chanters were able to interpret them correctly. The work of the three reformers is a landmark in the history of Greek Church music, since it introduced the system of neo-Byzantine music upon which are based the present-day chants of the Greek Orthodox Church. Unfortunately, their work has since been misinterpreted often, and much of the oral tradition has been lost.

Konstantinos Byzantios' renunciation of the New Method

The old school of the patriarchate

The modern school of the patriarchate

Ison

The Ison (music) is a drone note, or a slow-moving lower vocal part, used in Byzantine chant and some related musical traditions to accompany the melody. It is assumed that the ison was first introduced in Byzantine practice in the 16th century.

Teretismata and nenanismata

The practice of Terirem is vocal improvisation with nonsense syllables. It can contain syllables like "te ri rem" or "te ne na", sometimes enriched with some theological words. It is a custom for a choir, or an orthodox psalmist to start the chanting by finding the musical tone by singing at the very beginning a "ne-ne".

The Simon Karas school at Athens

Simon Karas (1905–1999) began an effort to assemble as much material as possible in order to restore the apparently lost tradition. His work was continued by his students Lycourgos Angelopoulos and Ioannis Arvanitis who both had a quite independent and different approach to the tradition.

Lycourgos Angelopoulos and the Greek-Byzantine choir

Lycourgos Angelopoulos died on 18 May 2014, but during his life-time he always perceived himself more as a student than a teacher, despite the great number of his students and followers and the great success he enjoyed as a teacher. He published some essays where he explained the role that his teacher Simon Karas had for his work. He studied the introduction of the New Method under the aspect which were the Middle Byzantine neumes that had been abandoned by Chrysanthos, when he introduced the New Method. In particular, he discussed the role of Petros Ephesios, the editor of the first print editions who still used the qualitative sign of "oxeia" which had been soon abandoned. In collaboration with Georgios Konstantinou who wrote a new manual and introduction for his school, Lycourgos Angelopoulos re-introduced certain aphonic signs and re-interpreted them as ornamental signs according to the definitive rhythmic interpretation of the New Method which had transcribed the melos into notation. Thus, he had to provide for the whole repertoire of the living tradition an own handwritten edition which had been printed for all his students. For the proper understanding, the new universal notation according to Chrysanthos could be used to transcribe any kind of Ottoman music, not only the church music composed according to the oktoechos melopœia, but also makam music and rural traditions of the Mediterranean. Thus, the whole ornamental aspect of monophonic music depended now on an oral tradition, but it was no longer represented by the aphonic or great signs which had to be understood from the traditional context rooting back to the Byzantine psaltic art. Therefore, the other fundament of Angelopoulos' school was the participating fieldwork of traditional protopsaltes, those of the archon protopsaltes of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople (and many of them had been forced into exile since the Cyprus crisis of 1964), and Athonite singers, especially those recordings he made of Father Dionysios Firfiris.

Two major styles of interpretation have evolved, the Hagioritic, which is simpler and is mainly followed in monasteries, and the Patriarchal, as exemplified by the style taught at the Great Church of Constantinople, which is more elaborate and is practised in parish churches. Nowadays the Orthodox churches maintain chanting schools in which new cantors are trained. Each diocese employs a protopsaltes ("first cantor"), who directs the diocesan cathedral choir and supervises musical education and performance. The protopsaltes of the Patriarchates are given the title Archon Protopsaltes ("Lord First Cantor"), a title also conferred as an honorific to distinguished cantors and scholars of Byzantine music.

Ioannis Arvanitis

While Angelopoulos' school basically stuck to the transcriptions of Chourmouzios the Archivist who did transcribe as one of the great teachers also the Byzantine repertoire according to the New Method during the beginning of the 19th century, another student of Karas Ioannis Arvanitis developed an autonomous approach which allowed him to study the older sources written in Middle Byzantine notation.

Ioannis Arvanitis published his ideas in several essays and in a doctoral thesis. He founded several ensembles like Aghiopolitis which performed the tradition of the Byzantine cathedral rite based on his own study of medieval kontakaria and asmatika in Italy, or got involved in collaborations with other ensembles whose singers were instructed by him, such as Cappella Romana directed by Alexander Lingas, Ensemble Romeiko directed by Yorgos Bilalis or Vesna Sara Peno who studied with Ioannis Arvanitis, before the she founded an own Ensemble dedicated Saint Kassia and to the Old Church Slavonic repertoire according to the Serbian tradition of the Athonite Hilandar Monastery.