{"title":"Chrysanthine theoretical thought and notation system-The relation between Orality and Textuality","authors":"Nikos Andrikos","doi":"10.12681/EML.28006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Two centuries after the release of Chrysanthos’ Εισαγωγή εις το Θεωρητικόν και Πρακτικόν της Εκκλησιαστικής Μουσικής, this treatise remains one of the most important sources of theoretical thought in the field of Greek Orthodox Ecclesiastical Music. Moreover, it is widely known that the theoretical essays of Chrysanthos played a catalytic role regarding the structure of the modal system of Octaechia, the formulation of the new Parasemantiki notation, as well as contemporary performance practices. Indeed, Chrysanthos’ contribution to the reformation of the notation system as well as the way he attributed the theoretical content of Ecclesiastical Music, influenced the entire theoretical thought that was produced, at least until the last decades of the 19th century[1]. Therefore, despite individual disagreements that were expressed within the psaltic milieu of the 19th century[2], almost all of the theoreticians who succeeded Chrysanthos based their thought on his fundamental principles. Thus, it is worth mentioning that in treatises that followed the Reform of 1814, repetitions are frequently detected, even of Chrysanthos’ points that could be considered as scientifically problematic[3].[1] See Νίκος Ανδρίκος, Η Εκκλησιαστική μουσική της Σμύρνης (1800-1922), (2015), 124.[2] About this issue, see Αντώνιος Χατζόπουλος, Η εκκλησιαστική μουσική παιδεία στην εκκλησία της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως κατά το 19ο και 20ό αιώνα, (2000); Αχιλλεύς Χαλδαιάκης, “Η διδασκαλία της Ψαλτικής Τέχνης: Παρελθόν, παρόν και μέλλον”, Βυζαντινομουσικολογικά, Τόμος Α΄, Θεωρία, (2014), 50-52.[3] Among others, the most indicative example was the repetition of Chrysanthos’ misguided calculation-measurement of the basic scale’s size. This issue became the reason of a wide discourse between important theoreticians of the 19th century through the daily and periodical press and led to the convocation of the Music Committee of 1881. See Ανδρίκος, 135-145. ","PeriodicalId":127692,"journal":{"name":"Epistēmēs Metron Logos","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-22","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.28006","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
Two centuries after the release of Chrysanthos’ Εισαγωγή εις το Θεωρητικόν και Πρακτικόν της Εκκλησιαστικής Μουσικής, this treatise remains one of the most important sources of theoretical thought in the field of Greek Orthodox Ecclesiastical Music. Moreover, it is widely known that the theoretical essays of Chrysanthos played a catalytic role regarding the structure of the modal system of Octaechia, the formulation of the new Parasemantiki notation, as well as contemporary performance practices. Indeed, Chrysanthos’ contribution to the reformation of the notation system as well as the way he attributed the theoretical content of Ecclesiastical Music, influenced the entire theoretical thought that was produced, at least until the last decades of the 19th century[1]. Therefore, despite individual disagreements that were expressed within the psaltic milieu of the 19th century[2], almost all of the theoreticians who succeeded Chrysanthos based their thought on his fundamental principles. Thus, it is worth mentioning that in treatises that followed the Reform of 1814, repetitions are frequently detected, even of Chrysanthos’ points that could be considered as scientifically problematic[3].[1] See Νίκος Ανδρίκος, Η Εκκλησιαστική μουσική της Σμύρνης (1800-1922), (2015), 124.[2] About this issue, see Αντώνιος Χατζόπουλος, Η εκκλησιαστική μουσική παιδεία στην εκκλησία της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως κατά το 19ο και 20ό αιώνα, (2000); Αχιλλεύς Χαλδαιάκης, “Η διδασκαλία της Ψαλτικής Τέχνης: Παρελθόν, παρόν και μέλλον”, Βυζαντινομουσικολογικά, Τόμος Α΄, Θεωρία, (2014), 50-52.[3] Among others, the most indicative example was the repetition of Chrysanthos’ misguided calculation-measurement of the basic scale’s size. This issue became the reason of a wide discourse between important theoreticians of the 19th century through the daily and periodical press and led to the convocation of the Music Committee of 1881. See Ανδρίκος, 135-145.
在Chrysanthos的著作Εισαγωγή εις το Θεωρητικόν και Πρακτικόν της Εκκλησιαστικής Μουσικής发表两个世纪后,这篇论文仍然是希腊东正教教会音乐领域最重要的理论思想来源之一。此外,众所周知,Chrysanthos的理论文章对Octaechia的模态系统结构,新Parasemantiki符号的制定以及当代的演奏实践都起到了催化作用。事实上,基桑托斯对乐谱系统改革的贡献,以及他对教会音乐理论内容的贡献,影响了整个理论思想的产生,至少直到19世纪最后几十年。因此,尽管在19世纪的诗歌环境中表达了个人的分歧,但几乎所有继承菊花的理论家都将他们的思想建立在他的基本原则之上。因此,值得一提的是,在1814年改革之后的论文中,经常发现重复,甚至是菊花的观点可能被认为是科学问题[3]. b[1]看到ΝίκοςΑνδρίκος,ΗΕκκλησιαστικήμουσικήτηςΣμύρνης(1800 - 1922),(2015),124。[2]关于这个问题,请参阅ΑντώνιοςΧατζόπουλος,ΗεκκλησιαστικήμουσικήπαιδείαστηνεκκλησίατηςΚωνσταντινουπόλεωςκατάτ19οοκα20όιαιώνα,(2000);ΑχιλλεύςΧαλδαιάκης,“ΗδιδασκαλίατηςΨαλτικήςΤέχνης:Παρελθόν,παρόνκαιμέλλον”,Βυζαντινομουσικολογικά,ΤόμοςΑ΄,Θεωρία,(2014),百分比较。[3]其中,最具代表性的例子是重复了Chrysanthos的错误计算——测量基本尺度的大小。这个问题成为19世纪重要理论家之间通过日刊媒体广泛讨论的原因,并导致1881年音乐委员会的召开。参见Ανδρίκος, 135-145。