Chrysanthine theoretical thought and notation system-The relation between Orality and Textuality

Nikos Andrikos
{"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.    
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
菊花的理论思想与符号体系——“言”与“文”的关系
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。
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