The deconstruction of Byzantine mode-organization and the new Chrysanthine ‘order’

John G. Plemmenos
{"title":"The deconstruction of Byzantine mode-organization and the new Chrysanthine ‘order’","authors":"John G. Plemmenos","doi":"10.12681/EML.27644","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper was written to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the publication of musical treatise by Archbishop Chrysanthos of Madytos (c.1770-1846), the first work towards a ‘scientific’ treatment of Greek ecclesiastical music (1821)[1]. Chrysanthos attempted to reorganize the modal and rhythmic theory of this music, and reform the musical notation that has remained to this day. The paper deals with an aspect of Chrysanthine modal system that has not received due attention so far: the abandonment of the traditional authentic-plagal order and its substitution by a new one that does not make sense if placed outside its cultural context and historical antecedents. Chrysanthos’ main point of reference seems to be the Ottoman makam system that had already penetrated post-Byzantine chant but was now given a new momentum[2]. Before that, Greek composers used the Byzantine modal division into four authentic (kurioi) and four plagal (plagioi), positioned a fifth apart from each other. The authentic modes were mostly ascending in terms of melodic movement, whereas the plagal were descending (though one has first to ascend in order to get down!). Otherwise, every authentic-plagal pair shared the same melodic scale (usually an octave), which they traversed according to certain melodic motifs (some common to all, others unique to every mode).[1] Chrysanthos, Εισαγωγή εις το θεωρητικόν και πρακτικόν της Εκκλησιαστικής Μουσικής / συνταχθείσα προς χρήσιν των σπουδαζόντων αυτήν κατά την νέαν μέθοδον παρά Χρυσάνθου του εκ Μαδύτων, Διδασκάλου του Θεωρητικού της Μουσικής (Paris: Rigny, 1821).[2] In this paper, the Turkish terms have been rendered into their original script except for makam (mode) and usul (rhythm), the Anglicized plural form of which (makams and usuls) has been preferred instead of the longer makamler and usuler. The Greek names have been transliterated into Latin according to British Standard for transliteration of Cyrillic and Greek characters (BS), 1958.","PeriodicalId":127692,"journal":{"name":"Epistēmēs Metron Logos","volume":"78 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epistēmēs Metron Logos","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12681/EML.27644","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper was written to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the publication of musical treatise by Archbishop Chrysanthos of Madytos (c.1770-1846), the first work towards a ‘scientific’ treatment of Greek ecclesiastical music (1821)[1]. Chrysanthos attempted to reorganize the modal and rhythmic theory of this music, and reform the musical notation that has remained to this day. The paper deals with an aspect of Chrysanthine modal system that has not received due attention so far: the abandonment of the traditional authentic-plagal order and its substitution by a new one that does not make sense if placed outside its cultural context and historical antecedents. Chrysanthos’ main point of reference seems to be the Ottoman makam system that had already penetrated post-Byzantine chant but was now given a new momentum[2]. Before that, Greek composers used the Byzantine modal division into four authentic (kurioi) and four plagal (plagioi), positioned a fifth apart from each other. The authentic modes were mostly ascending in terms of melodic movement, whereas the plagal were descending (though one has first to ascend in order to get down!). Otherwise, every authentic-plagal pair shared the same melodic scale (usually an octave), which they traversed according to certain melodic motifs (some common to all, others unique to every mode).[1] Chrysanthos, Εισαγωγή εις το θεωρητικόν και πρακτικόν της Εκκλησιαστικής Μουσικής / συνταχθείσα προς χρήσιν των σπουδαζόντων αυτήν κατά την νέαν μέθοδον παρά Χρυσάνθου του εκ Μαδύτων, Διδασκάλου του Θεωρητικού της Μουσικής (Paris: Rigny, 1821).[2] In this paper, the Turkish terms have been rendered into their original script except for makam (mode) and usul (rhythm), the Anglicized plural form of which (makams and usuls) has been preferred instead of the longer makamler and usuler. The Greek names have been transliterated into Latin according to British Standard for transliteration of Cyrillic and Greek characters (BS), 1958.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
拜占庭式组织模式的解构与新菊花“秩序”
这篇论文是为了纪念Madytos大主教Chrysanthos (c.1770-1846)的音乐专著出版200周年而写的,这是对希腊教会音乐(1821)进行“科学”处理的第一部作品[1]。菊花试图重新组织这种音乐的调式和节奏理论,并改革至今仍然存在的乐谱。本文探讨了《菊花》情态体系中一个迄今尚未得到应有重视的方面:传统的真伪情态秩序被抛弃,取而代之的是一种新的情态秩序,这种新的秩序如果脱离其文化背景和历史背景就没有意义。Chrysanthos的主要参考点似乎是奥斯曼的makam系统,它已经渗透到后拜占庭的吟唱中,但现在被赋予了新的动力[2]。在此之前,希腊作曲家使用拜占庭式调式分为四个原声(kurioi)和四个假声(plagioi),彼此相距五分之一。真正的调式在旋律运动方面大多是上升的,而哀歌则是下降的(尽管一个人必须先上升才能下降!)否则,每一对真正的乐手都有相同的旋律音阶(通常是一个八度),他们根据某些旋律母旨(有些是所有人共有的,有些是每个调式独有的)来穿越。[1]Chrysanthos,ΕισαγωγήειςτοθεωρητικόνκαιπρακτικόντηςΕκκλησιαστικήςΜουσικής/συνταχθείσαπροςχρήσιντωνσπουδαζόντωναυτήνκατάτηννέανμέθοδονπαράΧρυσάνθουτουεκΜαδύτων,ΔιδασκάλουτουΘεωρητικούτηςΜουσικής(巴黎:Rigny, 1821)。[2]在本文中,除makam (mode)和usul (rhythm)外,土耳其语术语已被翻译成原文,其英语化的复数形式(makams和usuls)已取代了较长的makamler和usuler。根据英国西里尔和希腊字符音译标准(BS), 1958年,希腊名字已被音译成拉丁语。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editors with multiple retractions, but who serve on journal editorial boards: Case studies Gestational Surrogate’s Autonomy Towards a surveillant reality in tennis When academic papers’ stated emails do not match authors’ affiliations: A new budding crisis in paper mill-ridden academic publishing? Ontological causality as the demarcation criterion of scientific & philosophical fields: things and objects vs. criteria vs. processes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1