“Ottoman corruptions of

post-Byzantine chant!”

About the long history of exchange

between oktoechos and makam music
and about a certain ideological
discourse to talk about it

The ideological discourse

about the “fatal influence” of the Ottoman Empire
The provocation did not come from Balkan countries motivated by
the common historiographic concept of the “Turkish yoke” (Turko -
kratia), it came from “occidental musicologists” who did work out
another concept of medieval chant of the Eastern church. It was not
unlike an existing concept for the Western church, often misunderstood
as “the Gregorian chant”. H. J. W. Tillyard found it necessary to
denounce just the use of the enharmonic and chromatic genus as an
“Ottoman corruption”, an opinion which can be regarded as disproved
according to recent research. 1 Today, such a point of view reflects

1 I refer here to my own discussion of Oliver Strunk’s presentation of the so-called

Byzantine tonal system within my doctoral thesis, but also to al-Kindi’s oktoechos
reception during the 9th century. Eckehard Neubauer characterised it as an early
knowledge transfer which could not rely yet on the Arabic, Persian and Syriac
translation of hellenic treatises. E. NEUBAUER, Die acht “Wege” der arabischen
Musiklehre und der Oktoechos – Ibn Misğah, al-Kindī und der syrisch-byzantinische
oktōēchos, Zeitschrift für Geschichte der arabisch-islamischen Wissenschaften 9

1
somehow the irony of history, since certain paragraphs of the
Hagiopolites treatise left no doubt that composers and hymnographers at
the Mone Hagios Sabbas, Cosmas and John in particular, who both
learnt from Andrew of Crete, favoured the mesos echoi, when they
composed the rather complex idiomela of the tropologion.
Ἤχους δὲ [λέγουσιν] ἐν τούτῳ ὀκτὼ ψάλλεσθαι. ἔστι δὲ
τοῦτο ἀπ[οβλητέον καὶ] ψευδές· ὁ γὰρ πλάγιος δευτέρου
ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστο[ν µέσος] δεύτερος ψάλλεται, ὡς τὸ
«Νίκην ἔχων Χριστὲ» [καὶ ὡς τὸ «Σ]ὲ τὸν ἐπὶ ὑδάτων» καὶ
ἄλλα ὅσα πα[ρὰ τοῦ κυροῦ Κοσµᾶ] καὶ τοῦ κυροῦ
Ἰωάννου τοῦ Δαµασκ[ηνοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς µουσικῆς]
ἐξ[ε]τέθησαν – ὅσα δὲ [ἐποιήθυσαν ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρ]οῦ
[Ἰ]ωσὴφ [καὶ] ἄλλ[ων] τ[ινῶν, ε]ἰ δο[κιµάσεις αὐτὰ µετὰ
τῆς µουσικῆς ψάλλειν, οὐκ ἰσάζουσι διὰ τὸ µὴ ἐκτεθῆναι
ὑπ’ αὐτῆς – ὁµοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ πλάγιος τετάρτου ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ
πλεῖστον µέσος τέταρτος ψάλλεται, ὡς] ἐπὶ τὸ «Σταυρὸν
χαράξας Μωσῆς» καὶ ἕτερα οὐκ ὀλίγα. ἔστιν οὖκ ἐκ
τούτων γνῶναι, ὅτι οὐκ ὀκτὼ µόνοι ψάλλονται ἀλλὰ δέκα.

For the songs in this book eight Echoi are said to be

necessary. But this is not true and should be rejected. In
fact the Plagios of Deuteros is mostly sung as Mesos
Deuteros—e.g. «Νίκην ἔχων Χριστὲ», the «Σὲ ἐπὶ τῶν
ὑδάτων» and other pieces written by Master Cosmas and
Master John of Damascus “from the Mousike”. (If,
however, you try to sing the compositions of Master Joseph
and others “with the Mousike”, they will not fit, having not
been composed “according to it”). Similarly the Plagios of
Tetartos is mostly sung as Mesos Tetartos like over
«Σταυρὸν χαράξας Μωσῆς» and many others. For these
cases we can see that ten Echoi are used (for the repertory
(1994), 373–414. O. GERLACH, Im Labyrinth des Oktoichos: über die Rekonstruktion
einer mittelalterlichen Improvisationspraxis in der Musik der Ost- & Westkirche ,
Berlin 2010, 109-318.

2
 of this book) and not eight, only. 2

The author of the Hagiopolites is quite clear about it, that he was
well acquainted with later compositions of the reformers at the Stoudios
Monastery and that Theodore the Stoudite and his brother Joseph did
favour the diatonic melos of the plagioi (plagal echoi). But what was the
precise meaning of those echoi called “mesoi”?
φθοραὶ δὲ ὠνοµασθήσαν, ὅτι ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἤχων
πᾶρχονται, τελειοῦνται δὲ εἰς ἑτέρων ἤχων φθογγὰς αἱ
θέσεις αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ ποτελέσµατα.

They were called Phthorai (i.e. destroyers), because they

begin from their own Echoi, but the thesis of their cadences
and formulas are on notes (phthongoi) from other Echoi. 3

The only problem which concerned the author using this definition of
phthora, was the question, how these two phthorai were related to the
eight echoi which organised the hymn book tropologion and the eight-
week cycles of the calendar. The solution was to look for those modal
degrees (phthongoi) by which each phthora had finally to be resolved
during a concluding cadence, although the melos of such a mesos was
independent from the melos of the diatonic echoi. Thus, the chromatic
phthora nenano as “mesos devteros” was always resolved on the
phthongos of plagios devteros (“the plagal second mode”), although its
melos started on the triphonon (three steps above) on the protos
phthongos (for instance on the pitch a which had to be resolved on E).
On the other hand, the enharmonic phthora nana as “mesos tetartos”
was always resolved on the phthongos of plagios tetartos, but its own
melos always started on the tritos phthongos (again the triphonon

2 J. RAASTED (ed.), The Hagiopolites: A Byzantine Treatise on Musical Theory,

Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-âge Grec et Latin 45 (1983), 10-11—§2.
http://cimagl.saxo.ku.dk/download/45/45Raasted1-99.pdf.
3 J. RAASTED, Hagiopolites, 42-43—§34.

3
starting, for instance, on F and concluding on C). Since phthora meant
“corruptor”, these own echoi which were independent from the system
of eight diatonic echoi, destroyed the diatonic genus (τὸ γένος
διατονικὸν). Nevertheless, their mele were favoured by composers of
the Sabbaite school like John and Cosmas and it became characterised
by the expression “created according to the Mousike”.
Was this supposed to be an influence of Arab music?
The prefaces of Arabic divans were rather explicit about the origin,
that Arab composers (either Ibn Misğah or his alumnus Ibn Muhriz) had
created an autochthonous musical tradition based on a synthesis of the
best of Byzantine (Damascene) and Persian music. Like the author of
the Hagiopolites also Arab theorists mention certain Arab-Islamic
composers who did avoid exotic modes, while others used them. If one
tends to regard it as a coexistence, it definitely seems misdated, if not
misleading, to suspect the Ottomans that they did corrupt Byzantine
music by the use of non-diatonic modes; especially if one bares in mind
that genus as well as changes of the genus ( metavolai kata genos) were
a category of music theory that Arabs did know from the translation of
the Ancient harmonics. 4 The “corruption” was already integrated as an
explicit category (phthora) for the purpose to include the Sabbaite
school of Jerusalem, one of the most important centres of hymnography,
where two phthorai were particularly appreciated. Even those reformers
had to accept it who did refuse the “sixteen echoi of the Asma” (with
four mesoi and two additional phthorai). But they could not abandon
two phthorai, because otherwise, they had to exclude the school of
Mone Hagios Sabbas and Damascus which preferred them to certain
diatonic echoi; even if such a purist renunciation to use these phthorai
4 Al-Kindi admired Byzantine musicians because their oktoechos implicated that
every sound was a mode by itself, and his Arabic terminology obviously derived
from his approach to translate. The temporary shift of the whole tone system and the
possibility of transposition (metavole kata tonon) can only be deduced from later
treatises since al-Farabi, who did know about it from translations of hellenic
treatises and who verified them on the keyboard of the ‘Ud (already chosen by Al-
Kindi). L. MANIK, Das arabische Tonsystem im Mittelalter, Leiden 1969.

4
might have existed among Joseph and his contemporaries. Such an
attitude risked the reputation not to compose melodies “according to the
mousike”, and this meant during the 9th century that such a reformer
opposed against the school around John of Damascus, after he had been
rehabilitated in 787—the synod which de-canonised the one of 754,
during which John had been anathematised posthumously. 5
In response to Tillyard Gregorios Stathes clarified his opposed point
of view during a lecture, which he held at Oxford in 1970:
Since, however, we are in Oxford, which is the centre of
research in Byzantine musical notation and interpretation in
Western Europe, I would like to give you a general view, as
synoptic as possible, of the most important stages of the
development of Byzantine musical notation. [...] In the
course of this overview we can be shown that Byzantine
Music is neither Western European nor Turkish, as many
wrongly think, but purely Greek Byzantine. I shall not
insist on persuading you that this is so, that is very difficult,
but only on presenting the question as it stands. [...]

The other series of MMB publications consists of

transcriptions into the pentagram of the most important
Byzantine melodies. We Greek traditionalists do not agree
with these transcriptions because they are based on the
fifteen signs of quantity—intervals only—which we
believe do not form the entire melody, but only the frame
of what is called the melos. Apart from this, the three
genera of the eight modes—i.e., the diatonic, enharmonic
and chromatic—and the different intervals of Byzantine
Music are lost in these transcriptions. We consistently insist

5 Arabic and Greek treatises did likewise use the term muziqī in order to distinguish
the autochthonous theory from the Ancient Greek harmonics. A hardly surprising
detail was that the Acts of 754 excommunicated John under his Syriac surname al-
Mansur.

5
 on their existence and have much evidence for their
existence since the inception of the chants. Therefore,
without these elements and with the Western European
musical language expressed in these transcriptions,
Byzantine Music is unrecognizable to us and sounds very
western. These melodies, interpreted in this way, have
nothing to do with Byzantine Music for us. [...]

Many people, especially Western Europeans, when they

listen to a melody which is clearly not Western and sounds
strange to their ears, say, ‘Oh, this music is oriental,’ and
they do not make any real discernment as to how it is
Turkish, Arabic, Armenian or Persian. Sometimes they
comment on Byzantine chant, saying, ‘Oh, it sounds like
Turkish music!’ This is not so. All these different kinds of
music have many scales and intervals in common, but we
must know that Turkish music was not a written music; a
Turkish musical notation does not exist. 6

What concerns the question as it stood, it should have been answered

by now, since no musicologist did dare to continue Tillyard’s
transcripta series since more than 45 years. Nowadays, editorial
questions are rather concerned about fonts and their utf-standards than
about certain imprecisions caused by a transcription into staff-notation
(the use accidentals proposed by Tillyard had never been used in a
sufficient precise way that one could risk a re-transcription into the
original neumes). 7

6 Published in the internet-journal Psaltiki, dedicated to psaltic art:

http://www.psaltiki.org/journal/1.1/stathes_bcm/bcm.html
7 H. J. W. T ILLYARD, Handbook of the Middle Byzantine Musical Notation,
Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae, Subsidia 1, Kopenhagen 1935. Six years ago a
new handbook was published: C. TROELSGÅRD, Byzantine Neumes : A New
Introduction to the Middle Byzantine Musical Notation, Monumenta Musicae
Byzantinae, Subsidia 9, Copenhagen 2011.

6
 Whatever was supposed to be “a Turkish musical notation”, notating
music has always been a job done by strangers or at least outsiders who
had been admired or supported during the Ottoman period, sometimes
even imitated. Ali Ufki notated as music teacher of the Serail the court
music into the mensural staff notation of his time, but this procedure
could not do any harm and did not change the oral tradition. Soon
afterwards the Phanariot Dimitrie Cantemir designed an own notation
system which he had to present to the sultan. His example was followed
by others who continued to adapt notation systems they were familiar
with to certain features of the oral transmission, so that they could be
written down. From this point of view one might distinguish a Greek
Byzantine approach (“external music”) from an Armenian one
(Hamparsum notation), a Western (Rauf Yekta Bey) or an Ottoman Arab
one (Cantemir’s letter system actually derived from al-Kindi). Gregorios
Stathes was somehow right that all these approaches were not Turkish
enough, that they could prevent a certain fossilisation of musical
creativity, neither could prevent the New Method, because it did not
care about Manuel Chrysaphes’ warning that only ignorants do notate
the melos, prevent a similar fossilisation within the traditions of
Orthodox monody. Nevertheless, one should not forget that it is still
expected of a Protopsaltes, that he knows so well the framework of the
cherouvikon cycle, that he is still able to fulfill it by an own contribution
to the melos.

A hermetic exchange
within Ottoman notables
Listening to a recording of Demosthenes Paikopoulos, how he
realised the echos tritos cherouvikon according to Gregorios
Protopaltes, I remarked with great interest a quotation of makam music.
I used this and similar examples from time to time to learn about the
different ways to distinguish makam from oktoechos music. The result
was that the whole issue is so sophisticated that neither a Greek
audience in Thessaloniki, a Slovakian in Bratislava, a Bulgarian in Sofia

7
nor a Turkish one in Istanbul was able to analyse these example
according to the modal framework they know best, nor were they able to
recognise the quotation. Only in March 2016, I met a Greek expert of
makam music who knew the oktoechos likewise, and he remarked a
transition to makam sabâ, but the question was difficult, how this could
be arranged within the papadic melos of echos tritos.

Fener
It must be said about the biography of Demosthenes Paikopoulos,
that he, born in 1929, was brought up in the Polis and started the usual
career already ten years old, when he served the Patriarchate as a
kanonarchis (that he did it in that young age without any remarkable
experience was not so odd as one might expect, it was rather common).
Already four years old he had assisted his father Konstantinos at Fener,
and he continued with various employments or obligations in different
Greek churches of the metropole, since he was seventeen. He started the
usual curriculum as second domestikos of the Patriarchate in 1958, but
he changed after four years to another church at Arnavutköy until he had
to share (two years later) with many Greek compatriots the common
destiny. In 1964, he was deported during crisis of Cyprus. He continued
at different churches of Athens, first at Piraeus and finally at the church
of Hagios Spyridonas at the suburb of Aegaleo. Nowadays, he must be
regarded as one of the most important and finest chanters of the
patriarchal school, which he already experienced as a young boy since
the 1930s. He is one of the last living protagonists of an era which has
passed by many decades ago.
One must definitely agree with Mr Stathes, that only a few listeners
are left with such a privileged background as Demosthenes Paikopoulos
could enjoy. On the other hand, despite of his criticism he could not
avoid one trap of Tillyard’s purism, since he obliged Greek
traditionalists to keep the Greek Byzantine heritage “clean” of any
makam influence. Thus, he confronted us with the problem of re-
invented traditions. There is no blood and no life in it, after the chanters

8
have left behind any profound understanding of modality. So many
decades after Stathes’ lecture one might conciliably object, that we got
meanwhile an idea, how many work is needed to regain such a lost
knowledge. It also can hardly be denied, that the living experience of
Orthodox chanters had played a crucial role in this process, as far as the
revival of Western plainchant is concerned. If one is ready to admit it
frankly is a rather private issue which does not need to be discussed
here. But it is obvious that those chanters with the background of Fener
might have laughed at the Philistine need to keep the Byzantine Greek
heritage clean from any influence from outside. It needs experience to
be part of this very particular or hermetic exchange, and one must not
only have visited the synagogues and the tekkeler of different dervish
brotherhoods, but also have a fundamental memory for modal music
which will enable someone to recognise certain quotations. Mentioning
it, we return to an important category of creativity, which had always
existed beyond the religious and ethnic borders: musical inspiration!
Without no tradition will ever survive…

The frets of the Persian ṭanbūr as a universal tone system

If there has ever been an “Ottoman corruption”, it was hardly the
change of genus. It might have existed between transformations of the
Greek Byzantine and of the Arabo-Persian reception of Ancient
harmonics, which also survived as living tradition rooting back in parts
to the Byzantine tradition of Damascus. From this point of view one
might regard a corruption which can be traced back to the Ottoman
period, in a certain break with the papadic tradition which is evident in
Chrysanthos’ Theoretikon mega: it was the introduction of a new kind of
solfeggio based on seven syllables (thus, a heptaphonia in the literal
sense) which replaced the tetraphonic parallage of the Papadike. The
disadvantage of this innovation was, that much more transpositions
became necessary than they were used within Middle Byzantine
notation. The motivation was, that the use of the heptaphonic tone
system was closer to the level of melos which became written out the

9
first time in history. This transformation had another advantage which
can hardly be underestimated: thus, the integration of mele from other
contexts which had already started many centuries ago, became possible
due to a change between the oral and written transmission. Great signs
could be omitted, but there meaning had to be understood out of an oral
tradition. Paradoxically, the presence of the systema teleion within the
autochthonous Arabic music theory which can be traced back to Al-
Kindi, was obviously originally based on a reception of Byzantine
music, and became later approved by Persian and Arabic translations of
harmonics.
A ṭanbūr, the Persian long necked lute, did once replace the ‘ud to
represent the tone system and its possible intervals. As such it was
drawn by Konstantinos Vyzantios and part of the sketch was printed by
Panagiotes Keltzanides. His book tried to introduce into the Arabo-
Persian modes known as makamlar by two cycles of seyirler coming
from the oktoechos. 8 Tables at the margin represented the different
approximation to the intervals as they had been given by well-known
proportions. They were also mentioned by Chrysanthos, and they had a
certain relevance for all Ottoman musicians, even if they choose
different numbers to represent them. In history the Byzantine diatonic
division can be traced back to al-Farabi, who memorised the same
proportions by the “ringfinger fret of Zalzal” (a famous ‘ud player who
lived in Baghdad before al-Farabi). On the keyboard of the ṭanb ūr, the
same fret was known as “perde segah” and recognised as βου or
“phthongos of echos legetos” by Chrysanthos, a kind of diatonic mesos
tetartos. Within the system of eight papadic echoi which were supposed
to be diatonic (unless one of the two phthorai came into use), it was
once the phthongos of the (plagios) devteros. Like the New Method the
favoured diatonic division was based on three different intervals which
were close to each other. It was known as “soft diatonic genus”.
8 In Ottoman and in Turkish «seyir» meant “path”. It was an exemplaric illustration of
melodic rules, which did represent in an oral and flexible transmission each makam.
By the use of seyirler musicians could learn a makam and were also enabled to
recognise it.

10
 Fig. 1: ṭanbūr with fret scheme by Konstantinos Vyzantios

The consent, how the frets of the ṭanbūr had been represented within
Byzantine notation, has been confirmed by study of Kyriakos
Kalalaitzides, an English translation of his dictoral thesis. The author
studied neumed manuscript sources of makam music between the 15th

11
and the 19th centuries. 9 Surprisingly his comparison proved a great
uniformity, how a certain fret ( perde) was identified with a phthongos
related to the oktoechos, whenever makam music had been transcribed
into Middle Byzantine and later modern neumes. 10 The following table
shows, how the sequence of intervals 9 + 7 + 12 were represented by
tetrachord symbols α᾽-δ᾽ within the diatonic genus. Between them also
alternative intervals do appear as they were known from the keyboard of
the ṭanbūr—either on the left or on the right side used for the ascending
and descending direction.

solfeggio tetrachord perde (fret) transliteration

Δη πλδ᾽ yegâh ΓΕΓΚΙΑΧ

ΚΕ α᾽ aşiran ΑΣΙΡΑΝ

9 The sources prove, that Kyrillos Marmarinos’ transcription of seyirler of 70

makamlar (about 1750) are not only the earliest source for seyirler; it also
established a kind of norm which was more or less obeyed by later transcriptors.
Earlier sources only offer a few examples of transcription (usually ethnic
compositions collected in kratemataria like “persika” or “atzemika” which derived
from the Ottoman term “acem”). Often it is hard to reconstruct the transcribed mode.
See a table of makamlar for all frets: K. KALAITZIDIS, Post-Byzantine music
manuscripts as a source for Oriental secular music (15th to early 19th century),
Würzburg 2012, 332-339.
10 The Ottoman term for fret was «perde» and derived from Persian «parde».
According to the Old Persian system it was the ancient term for mode (pl. advār),
which was no longer needed, after the concept of «dastgâh» had been established.
Thus, the new meaning referred to the fret on a keyboard of a plucked instrument.
Whatever was used to memorise the elements of a tone system. For the
understanding of Ottoman makamlar the difference is crucial, whether its name does
refer to the mode of a certain makam or simply to the fret (perde) which was called
after the makam. A similar ambiguity existed within the practice of Greek church
music, a far as medial signatures were concerned. Usually they had been used in the
notated book sticherarion, where the rather complex compositions of idiomela were
notated. Its melos could change between different modes. In rare cases they can be
also found in books called oktoechos or heirmologion, where medial signatures did
simply indicate the phthongos of an open cadence, not a change to another echos.

12
solfeggio tetrachord perde (fret) transliteration

ζω β᾽ arak/irak ΑΡΑΚ

ζω δίεση geveşt ΓΚΕΒΕΣΤ

νη γ᾽/δ᾽ rast ΡΑΣΤ

πα α᾽ dügâh ΝΤΟΥΓΚΙΑΧ

βου ὕφεση nihavend kürdi ΝΙΧΑΒΕΝΤ ΚΙΟΥΡΤΙ

βου β᾽ segâh ΣΕΓΚΙΑΧ

βου δίεση buselik ΜΠΟΥΖΕΛΙΚ

γα γ᾽ çargâh ΤΖΑΡΓΚΙΑΧ

δι ὕφεση sebâ ΤΣΕΜΠΑ

δι δ neva ΝΕΒΑ

κε ὕφεση beyati ΜΠΕΓΙΑΤΙ

κε α᾽ hüseyni ΧΟΥΣΕΙΝΙ

ζω᾽ ὕφεση acem ΑΤΖΕΜ

ζω᾽ β᾽ eviç ΕΒΙΤΖ

νη᾽ γ᾽ gerdaniye ΓΚΕΡΔΑΝΙΕ

πα᾽ ὕφεση şehnaz ΣΕΧΝΑΖ

13
 solfeggio tetrachord perde (fret) transliteration

πα᾽ δ᾽/α᾽ muhayyer ΜΟΥΧΑΓΙΕΡ

βου᾽ β᾽ tiz segâh ΤΙΖ ΣΕΓΚΙΑΧ

γα᾽ γ᾽ tiz çargâh ΤΙΖ ΤΖΑΡΓΚΙΑΧ

δι᾽ δ᾽ tiz neva ΤΙΖ ΝΕΒΑ

κε᾽ α᾽ tiz hüseyni ΤΙΣ ΧΟΥΣΕΙΝΙ

The present scheme by Konstantinos integrated all frets, as they were

required by oktoechos compositions, whether they did belong to
enharmonic triphonia or soft diatonic heptaphonia. But it could do even
more, even untervals as they were needed for other traditions of the
Orient, whether it was Kurdish, Persian music, or simply those many
traditions of the Mediterranean known as makam music.

Analysis of the cherouvikon in echos tritos

Whoever listens to the recording of Paikopoulos’ interpretation of
echos tritos melos which follows Gregorios the Protoposaltes’ model for
the short (weekly) cherouvikon step by step, will be surprised at the
time mark of 4'48". 11 Who is familiar with with Mevlevi compositions,
in particular with Buhurizade Mustafa Itrî’s composition Na’t-ı Mevlana
in makam rast, will recognise it, since it usually precedes always a
Mevlevi ceremony in the republic of Turkey, where this ceremony is
usually allowed on Mevlana’s birthday. 12 Kani Karaca sings the
11 Extract from Demosthenes Paikopoulos’ realisation of the echos tritos cherouvikon:
http://ensembleison.de/ton/Paikopoulos.mp3.
to compare with Sadettin Hepers’ embellishment here recorded with his alumnus
Hafiz Kani Karaca: http://ensembleison.de/ton/Karaca.mp3.
12 The Ottoman text derived from a Persian Ghazal, which is (originally) addressed to
the prophet Muhammad. Die Persian poem is attributed to Jelāl ad-Dīn ar-Rūmī and

14
exclamation «Hâk dost, dost, dost, Sultânım» as he learnt it from his
teacher Sadettin Heper. It precedes the verses «Serv-i bustân-ı risâlet
nevbahâr-ı ma’rifet». 13 Despite of the tradition, that each singer once
performed this exclamation in his own way, one might understand those
by Sadettin Heper as a kind of fossilised improvisation which are better
known than any other version. It is hardly a surprise, that Paikopoulos
did know it so well, since it is often perceived as the climax due to the
higher ambitus. Rather interesting is the question, what was the musical
inspiration behind it, to quote this exclamation over some words taken
from the traditional cherouvikon text τριάδι (“trinity”), which replaced
«Sultânım» (“sweet darling”) of Heper’s setting.
Ir raises the rather complicated musical question: how can there be a
change to makam sabâ, either within the melos of echos tritos or within
makam rast?
First, I would like to illustrate the background of Gregorios’
composition and its papadic melos of echos tritos which is actually
about the music expected within the context of church music, without
leaving its context and the oktoechos melopœia related to it, at least for
someone familiar with psaltic art. The papadic melos of echos tritos is
in the enharmonic genus and connected with the νανὰ enechema whose
ambitus is usually between two connected tetrachords. Since the
characteristic tone system is organised in triphonia, every tetrachord is
connected with the others. Somehow the melos is descending, since it
started in echos tritos in order to be resolved a fourth lower in echos

is composed in six double verses (Mathnawi), which were probably completed since
Itrî (gest. 1712) who set the Ottoman translation into music, by exclamations, which
do emphasise the periods of cyclic rhythm. Within the Mevlevi dance suites
(ayinler) they were needed to fill these rhythmic periods (usûl) with respect to the
shorter verses of the poem. The exact function in Na’t-ı Mevlana is not clear,
because it seems purely vocal, but the music of these exclamations can vary with
each performance.
13 An English translation of the Persian verses by Ibrahim Gamard can be found at
Dar-al-Masnavi. The translation transcribes as well the Persian as the Ottoman
version with the well-known additions: http://www.dar-al-masnavi.org/na%27t.html

15
plagios tetartos. In 1458, Manuel Chrysaphes even insisted that this was
the only way of resolution of phthora nana, thus, any other way would
have to follow it. After Kyrillos Marmarinos as alumnus of Panagiotes
Halacoğlu transcribed the seyirler of seventy makamlar into Byzantine
round notation, makam rast was transcribed as a kind of plagios tetartos
with its modal signature (martyria), so that this convention also would
apply for Itrî’s composition.
Concerning Gregorios the Protopsaltes’ cherouvikon, just two lines
of the printed edition are enough to understand the passage in question:

Fig. 2: Extract from Gregorios the Protopsaltes’ echos tritos cherouvikon

It opens with an enharmonic tritos cadence one tetrachord higher.

Thus, the final cadence on tritos phthongos (γ᾽ F) and the later resolution
on the plagios tetartos phthongos (πλ δ᾽ C) appears about one tetrachord
higher (γ᾽ b flat and πλ δ᾽ F). After the tritos cadence on b flat, there is a
leap to the upper fifth which makes an octave to the phthongos πλ δ᾽ F,
but within the triphonic tone system it is on the second degree of the
third connected tetrachord, which is based on e flat. The open cadence
which follows, is not on base tone F, but one degree higher on G. If the
tritos phthongos (γ᾽) switches back to F, then this degree becomes the
tetartos phthongos (δ’ on G), which was by the convention established
by Kyrillos Marmarinos the fret which was known as perde neva among
Ottoman musicians.
Exactly this leap about a fifth was the moment, where Paikopoulos
inserted his quotation of Heper’s embellishment with «Sultânım» in
makam sabâ.

16
 Fig. 3: Extract of Na’t-ı Mevlana (embellishment by Sadettin Heper)

If one looks at it from the point of view of oktoechos melopœia,

makam sabâ establishes on fret çargah (tritos phthongos on F) in
ascending direction a soft chromatic tetrachord which is organised in
tetraphonia, if one continues on the upper tetrachord between c and f. It
means that it is expected that a chanter who follows Gregorios’ model
keeps going within the triphonic and enharmonic system of phthora
nana, while Paikopoulos makes a change on two different levels: into
the chromatic genus (metavole kata genos) and from the triphonic to the
tetraphonic tone system (metavole kata systema).
He communicates these changes as follows: like at καὶ τῇ ζωοποιῷ
the melos at the word τριά[δι] imitates the echema for nana followed by
the usual final cadence belonging to its enharmonic genus in order to
establish a tritos cadence on b flat, but repeating it a third time he
already changes to a chromatic intonation on the very same pitch (like b
flat followed by c flat) which is simply perceived as a genus change.
The following leap about a fifth within makam sabâ treats b flat and the

17
upper fifth f as aequivalent modal degree at the foot of a soft chromatic
tetrachord. As already mentioned, this means the change from triphonia
to tetraphonia.
If one takes into account the transposition ( metavole kata tonon)
about a fourth higher (as an aspect of the triphonic system), the
untransposed form of makam sabâ was usually expected on fret dügah
(πα D) and ascends until fret sebâ (δι ὕφεση G flat), here transposed as
νη᾽ ὕφεση (c flat). It prepares the intonation of the upper tetrachord
organised in fifth aequivalence.
According to the perception of a musician who is familiar with
makamlar, the cadence is much easier to understand. It is simply a
transition to makam sabâ, and everything which follows confirms this
makam. There is a pentachord between ζω᾽ ὕφεση and γα᾽ which
corresponds to the frets çargah and gerdaniye—with a hicaz (chromatic)
tetrachord between the frets çargah and acem, and above between
gerdaniye and tiz çargah.

Analysis of Na’t-ı Mevlana in makam rast

But how must be understood this transition within Itrî’s composition
in makam rast?
Here is not the place for an analysis of Itrî’s whole composition and
inasmuch additions of the Hafizes were needed to create transitions
between its various parts and which were the makamlar to build such
bridges. It is sufficient to understand, that Mevlevi composers and
Phanariotes met each other at eye level within Paikopoulos’ version of
the tritos cherouvikon, the celebration of a liturgical genre, and that such
modal transitions had been a subject of reciprocal interest.
At the beginning with the exclamation «Hak dost!» surrounding the
first double verse, there is an exposition of makam rast. The makam will
not return before the end of the third double verse which precedes the
quoted exclamation (after a change into the makam isfahân during

18
another exclamation). The seyir of makam sabâ (with a conclusion on
the repeated word «dost») appears within the quoted exclamation
preceding the fourth double verse and corresponds to the extract sung by
Paikopoulos, while he repeats the syllables τριά- within the
cherouvikon. He uses this quotation as a preparation of the leap about a
fifth, and one the reasons is that also the quoted extract does not finish
makam sabâ according to its seyir which is expected to finish on perde
dügah (πα), but in fact finishes on perde segah (βου). Paikopoulos
finishes in fact on perde çargah (γα), after a short descent to fret dügah
(πα). Only afterwards he jumps again to the upper fifth ( perde gerdaniye
νη᾽, in fact with respect to the transposition about a fourth: γα᾽) to return
to the modal context of Gregorios’ tritos cherouvikon. The latter is to
pass through the octave (on γα, the basis and finalis), but to make a
cadence on the second modal degree (δι). With respect to the triphonia
of the melos of phthora nana, this phthongos can be perceived as
tetartos (δ᾽) or as protos (α᾽) likewise. Within the transposed context of
makam sabâ it would correspond fret dügah which is the protos
phthongos. Hence, unlike Heper’s embellishment which touches makam
sabâ, but avoids a concluding transition to this makam by an emphasis
on fret segah, the cadence on δι prescribed by Gregorios’ model can be
perceived in the context of makam sabâ as conclusive, if it was
perceived as a protos cadence. This ambiguity within the perception is
in fact an effect of the enharmonic triphonic tone system and would not
fail to impress a Hafiz.
One might ask, if such a reference to Itrî and to the current
dominance of Heper’s school was motivated by the presence of a
dervish or just by the cultural context of a Phanariot in Constantinople,
who lost it after his deportation to Greece, when politicians did violently
divide, what had already grown together?

The Phanariot Gregorios the Protopsaltes at the Patriarchate

Anyway one can simply understand as well this turn to makam sabâ
as a reference to the composer of the cherouvikon himself, since

19
Gregorios liked experiments to integrate the particular melos of makam
sabâ within a number of echoi. 14 It is also known that Gregorios was
particularly interested to get a more profound knowledge of makamlar.
He even learnt Turkish, so that he could attend lessons on the instrument
ṭanbūr by the famous Mevlevi composer Hamamîzade Ismail Dede
Efendi. Also his personal approach to notate makam music and to add
plenty of notes has been documented by autographs. 15 His leavings also
include two manuscripts (dossier 60 and 133) written by the hand of
Petros Peloponnesios which he might once have intended to publish
within a printed edition of an Anthology Phanariot songs. 16
This evidence proves, that experts of Ottoman music who studied
Byzantine notation (Greek music palaeography), have access to very
crucial sources, in particular if they are interested in knowledge about
performance practice during the 18th century. Not every Greek who
transcribed makam music in Greek neumes, was skilled to such a
profound degree. Concerning the composition of makam music
Kyriakos Kalaitzidis found, that many Phanariotes were quite limited
concerning the use of cyclic rhythm (usûlümler), while others who were
more experienced by numerous own compositions, especially Gregorios
the Protopsaltes and Petros Peloponnesios, never escaped any detail or
any change in rhythm and tempo.
This does not implicate, that Gregorios Stathes was wrong, while he
14 O. GERLACH, “The Heavy Mode (ēchos varys) on the Fret Arak” – Orthodox Chant in
Istanbul and the Various Influences during the Ottoman Empire, Porphyra 22
(2014), 82–95. http://www.porphyra.it/porphyra-xxii/.
15 Unfortunately, just eight folios in Gregorios’ leavings have been preserved: Athens,
National and Kapodistrian University, Department of music studies, Konstantinos
Psachos Archive, Gregorios Protopsaltes Archive, Dossier 2, quaternion 59a:
http://pergamos-old.lib.uoa.gr/dl/navigation?pid=uoadl:109426.
16 The loose collection of Gregorios’ leavings consists of 160 folios, mainly with
Phanariot songs (8 composed by himself, 97 by Petros Peloponnesios, 3 by Iakovos
Protopsaltis etc., 43 by other composers whose names had not been written). The
dossier 60 and 133 had been mistaken as an autograph by Gregorios himself, until
Kyriakos Kalaitzidis did identify Petros Peloponnesios’ hand. K. KALAITZIDIS, Post-
Byzantine music manuscripts, 44-50.

20
insisted on differences as they did and do exist between Greek,
Armenian, Persian or Turkish music (one might mention here many
other traditions such as Sephardic or Kurdish music). Musicians well
experienced in a kind of crossover exchange were quite aware of the
competitive aspects. One could only profit from it, as long as a musician
did strictly follow the rules of the own art without getting too much
involved in those present in the competing traditions. Otherwise a
musician always risked to loose attraction for other musicians who were
involved in such a competition, since they always felt attracted by the
differences.
The exchange also had the longterm effect to establish new musical
genres. Just that fact that the Ottoman mecmua developed out of the
Arabo-Islamic divan tradition which was continued at the court as well
as at sufi lodges, the evidence of Greek and Hebrew mecmue leaves no
doubt, that close to religious institutions and especially in religious
circles one was quite willing to adopt this tradition for own purposes—
not only concerning music, when the use of makamlar und usûlümler
became a matter of discussion among composers. Phanariot songs were
mainly performed during the festal ordination of the Orthodox clergy,
their texts were not as secular as they appeared on the first sight—as a
kind of conventional or even banal love lyrics. Most will have
understood a second or hidden meaning, either as Aleviler, sufis, as
piyyutim, or coming from the background of certain Orthodox mystic
traditions such as hesychasm which had always been open to other
religious traditions of the Orient.

The exegetic notation

as universal notation system of the Phanariotes
The development of exegetic notation within the school of
Panagiotes Halacoğlu had an irreversible longterm effect. It even
influenced over many decades conservative traditionalists like
Konstantinos Vyzantios who refused categorically the modern notation
of the New Method, although their use of great signs was rather limited

21
and focussed on quantitative signs as it was mentioned by Georgios
Papadopoulos.17 It proves that the simplified way of using notation has
become indispensable.
Chrysanthos’ observation offers a completely different view on the
New Method.18 He does not share the negative view which he testified,
nevertheless, which clearly refuses Daniel’s innovative theses as
ignorant aberrations from the tradition. If he did, he would have to
refuse his very own school as a student of Petros Vyzantios who was
once introduced at the church of the Patriarchate by Petros
Peloponnesios. Instead he pointed at the hyphos school regarding
Daniel’s and Ioannes’ innovations in the spirit of their teacher
Panagiotes Halacoğlu to whom he traced back the hyphos school, also
with respect to the transcription of instrumental music, based on
Kyrillos Marmarinos’ transcriptions of makam seyirler. The hint at the
genre heirmos kalophonikos can only be understood that such syntheses
within the oktoechos melopœia of psaltic art must already have existed,
although Petros Bereketis is not mentioned explicitly. 19

17 Konstantinos Terzopoulos analysed Konstantinos’ use of Middle Byzantine notation

more in detail and observed, that he used in comparison with Panagiotes Halaco ğlu,
Ioannes Trapezountios, Daniel Tyrnavos and Petros Peloponnesios 33 signs out of
45. A comparison with Manuel Chrysaphes, Panagiotes the New Chrysaphes,
Balasios Hiereos, Konstantinos and Chourmouzios’ of the baptismal hymn (Anti-
trishagion) was published. K. TERZOPOULOS, Observations on the Exegematic
Notation through the Prism of the MS Exegesis of the Protopsaltes of the Great
Church, Konstantinos Byzantios: An Example, Papers Read at the 12th Meeting of
the IMS Study Group Cantus Planus Lillafüred/Hungary, 2004. Aug. 23-28 ,
Budapest 2006, 123–150.
18 Have a look at the quotation taken from Chrysanthos’ Mega Theoretikon to describe
an exchange between Daniel the Protopsaltes and Zacharias Chanende.
O. GERLACH, Petros Peloponnesios — About Authorship in Ottoman Music and the
Heritage of Byzantine Music. Porphyra 25 (2016), 145–184; 151.
http://www.porphyra.it/issue-25-porphyra-xxv-byzantium-and-islam/.
19 In §. 62, where Chrysanthos named Petros as contemporary of Panagiotes, also
Konstantinos Terzopoulos quoted Chrysanthos, when he mentioned, that he served
simultaneously at the church Hagios Konstantinos at the Hypsomathia district. This
is not possible, as long as Petros’ death year is believed for 1825. Nevertheless,

22
 With Petros Peloponnesios Chrysanthos did allude to the present
common “stichomania”. It had been encouraged within the milieu of
Phanariotes by Panagiotes’ school and its concept to use Greek neumes
to transcribe makam music. The model was the Arab divan tradition
well reflected in the Ottoman mecmue, which did also exist in Greek
language.20
In practice the exegetic use of Middle Byzantine notation became
necessary, because not all theses of the melos were any longer based on
great signs, as they had been taught by methods like Mega Ison and by
the book mathematarion. This new way of to use notation changed the
relation between oral and written transmission. Certain combinations of
signs replaced the great signs, which meant that they had become part of
an oral tradition. A reader was supposed to be familiar with it. Hence,
not only conventions of oktoechos melopœia were part of it, but the one
of makamlar as well. In a first step, the makamlar and their unique
intonation as source of inspiration for oktoechos compositions were
mainly used to create innovative transitions within an echos change, but
the particular melos of a certain makam, as it was taught by seyirler, was
not yet required. The distinction between a «melos exoterikon» and a
«melos esoterikon» served as an orientation within oral transmission
between different different traditions. 21 Thus, neume notation became a
universal medium of written transmission which included Ottoman
music as a whole, whether a musical composition was within or beyond
the oktoechos system. The transmission became not simplified, even if
Chrysanthos pointed with Bereketes’ second name (bereket could be translated from
Turkish as “numerous”) at his unlimited creativity concerning the kalophonic
performance of heirmoi. Only Petros Peloponnesios who studied Petros Bereketis’
opus, was obviously appreciated as .
20 J. CHATZIPANAGIOTI -SANGMEISTER, Old Tunes, new Tones: (Re-)Defining the “Phanariot
Verses” of the Greek Enlightenment, The Historical Review 10 (2013), 161–187.
21 I chose as example for an orientation within makam music Petros Peloponnesios’
transcription of the terkîb “called Behram” which moved from makam neva to
makam beyati. It was likely a realisation of a transition out of the oral tradition of the
18th century—rather than a composition of the 15th century. O. GERLACH, Petros
Peloponnesios, 166-172.

23
the number of signs was continuously reduced.
The competence of reading neumes was therefore never reflected by
the reduction of notational signs nor by the explicit transcription of
details of a certain performance. The reduction of complexity was rather
an illusion on the surface, if one simply looked at the notation system
out of the context. It was just the tip of the iceberg without taking any
notice of competences which were taught by a personal exchange with
an experienced musician, the only key to understand, what was written
down in notation.
Oriental music and forms of notation which were traditionally
involved were always based on a dynamic concept of acting. What
could be really learnt by a study of exegetic notation used throughout
the 18th century was to resist such a temptation, since a concrete and
definite realisation still seemed to be possible; rather should it be
understood as one possible realisation among many others.
The question present since 1970 as it was raised by Gregorios
Stathes during his Oxford lecture, how a definite transnotation can be
achieved as a base for a philological comparison, has been already
answered, since the confidence in staff notation as a universal medium
of transmission is definitely lost. 22 The obvious conclusion is to avoid
such an interpretation, since even a transcription of neumes by the
systematic use of accidental or agogic signs have never been as clear
like a transcription into adequate text fonts which correspond to the
historical signs. Such a transcription, even if it succeeds to avoid any
transnotation, has still enough ambiguities, even after it got rid of the
semiotic deadweight of a completely different notation system. Thus,
variants between different sources can be easier collected in an
apparatus of a critical edition, but as such it does not transcribe the
definite level of the performance as a melos realisation.

22 R. M. JÄGER, Neue Wege bei der Erforschung der Musikgeschichte des östlichen
Mittelmeerraums. Weltweit vor Ort - das Magazin der Max Weber Stiftung 2015/2
(2015), 48–49. http://www.maxweberstiftung.de/aktuelles/magazin.html

24
 The New Method offered realisations of an experienced archon
protopsaltes, but as such they were not obligatory or even intended as
such. Since one dealt with psaltic art, different realisations were always
possible, but never a complete collection of all possible realisations.
Techne (ἡ ψαλτικὴ τέχνη) was defined, similar to the Latin concept of
ars, according to Aristotle: by the pair δύναµις (dynamis) and θέσις
(thesis). Dynamis meant the potential of all possible realisations, while
thesis became rather concrete by the selection of one possibility as the
result of a certain realisation in this very moment.
Despite of it there is no reason to become desperate, even if such a
sensation is familiar to most readers of Middle Byzantine notation.
Chrysanthos mentioned, that not all methods could rely on the
convention of the great signs, because not all mele were based on a
traditional, but kalophonic method of doing the thesis, but rather on the
innovative method to transcribe makam music. Concerning a para-
liturgical genre like the heirmos kalophonikos, one must admit it became
a liturgical genre during the 20th century, when these heirmoi replaced
sometimes the koinonikon.23
A further step is to do the same work on sources which “transnotate”
exegetic notation according to the New Method. In the best case one can
say who created a certain version which was printed. The next question
would be, inasmuch could modern either Chrysanthine or Lesvian
neumes serve the Phanariotes’ need of a universal transcription medium
for Ottoman music which was obviously rather a motivation for the
notational reform than the commonly assumed need of a simplification?
A historical approach which studies a composition in the notation
chosen by the composer, will be surprised that there is a huge difference
from the printed transcription according to the New Method, which
present a well-known and dominant composer like Petros Peloponnesios
23 G. KARANOS, The Kalophonic Heirmos (16th–21st Centuries): A Musical Genre’s
Transformation. Επιστηµονική επιθεωρηζή του µεταοτυχιακού προγραµµατός
«Σπουδές στήν ορθοδοξή Θεολογία». Ελληνικό ανοίκτο πανεπιστηµίο Σχολή
ανθρωπιστικών σπούδων. Patras 2012, 181–198.

25
through realisations of great teachers, especially Gregorios the
Protopsaltes and Chourmouzios Chartophylakos. 24
It seems appropriate to regard them as one possible realisation
among many others, but a more profound study of both versions and the
different notation reveal striking differences which help to perceive the
individual contribution of the transnotator in a new light—with respect
of various aspects which did motivate these differences (the creation of
a new melopœia, which re-defines the oktoechos for each genre, not
only by an own tempo, for instance). Many orthodox chanters just read
the name of the composer, because it is usually the one written in the
printed book, but do not loose too many thoughts about the contribution
of the other musician which transcribed it into a notation, which is
familiar to them, although it is evident, that they sing Petros’
composition in a realisation by Gregorios, by Chourmouzios, or by
somebody else. Some of these realisations might be even regarded as re-
compositions which were either created through the medium of
Neobyzantine notation or within a oral transmission as in the case of
Iakovos the Protopsaltes and later of Iakovos Nafpliotes, or even
through the medium of an even more simplified exegetic notation as in
the case of Konstantinos Vyzantios.
Not less strinking like those differences between the 18th and 19th
century are earlier transformations as the difference between Petros’
transcription of a contemporary performance of Cantemir’s music and
our understanding of Cantemirs own written transmission into the
medium of his own notation, which is basically our approach to
understand a former tradition of the past. 25
Genauso eklatant, wie diese Unterschiede zwischen dem 18. und
dem 19. Jahrhundert, sind auch die älteren Unterschiede zwischen
Petros’ Transkription einer Aufführung von Cantemirs Musik und eine
Transnotation von Cantemirs eigener Notation, die zu verstehen
versucht, wie der Autor selbst seine Komposition überlieferte.
24 O. GERLACH, Petros Peloponnesios, 174-178.
25 K. KALAITZIDIS, Post-Byzantine music manuscripts, 301-306.

26
 As far as the transcription of makamlar was concerned, there have
been different ways to notate intervals which were not known according
to the conventions of the oktoechos. Even if one focus on the medium of
Neobyzantine notation, they were at least two. Panagiotes Kiltzanides
preferred the use of special phthorai, which indicated a particular
division of tetrachord or of a pentachord. 26 The method chosen by
Chrysanthos was the accidental use of phthorai as an alteration sign,
which was similar to the use of alterations in Western staff notation, but
not part of the papadic tradition. Such a phthora had to indicate an
alternative interval, whenever it was needed, and had to specify, if the
phthongos in question has to be intoned lower or higher and also how
much lower or higher. In this case it had always to be notated over the
step to the phthongos, where an alternative intonation was required. 27

Conclusion
In comparison with 1970 we have arrived during the last years at a
point, where the gap between Orthodox monody and the Byzantine
heritage could have been filled by recent studies of the Ottoman past.
Nevertheless, the living tradition of the so-called Byzantine chant does
not present itself as congruent or even “pure” (whatever this attribute is
supposed to refer to). It rather appears complex, heterogenous and
sometimes even full of contradictions, which in my perception simply
proves, that the current diversity between different schools has not lost
its vitality. For this very reason the open exchange between Greek and
Armenian chanters with Sufi brotherhoods and synagogal brotherhoods
like the Maftirim during the Ottoman period has become a popular
subject of study. But the study of these exchanges also challenges
common preconceptions, because they have become obstacles, even if
they can be explained and understood from the background of recent

26 P. KILTZANIDIS, Μεθοδική διδασκαλία θεωρητική τὲ καὶ πρακτική πρὸς ἐκµάθησιν καὶ

διάδοσιν τοῦ γνησίου ἐξωτερικοῦ µέλους τῆς καθ᾿ ἡµᾶς Ἑλληνικῆς Μουσικῆς κατ᾿
ἀντιπαράθεσιν πρὸς τὴν Ἀραβοπερσικὴν, Konstantinopel 1881, 55-164.
27 CHRYSANTHOS, Θεωρητικὸν µεγὰ τῆς Μουσικῆς, Triest 1832, 119-121, § 271-273.

27
history.28
It forces musicologists skilled in Greek music palaeography and
ethnomusicologists to abandon certain prejudices and an ideological
jargon which has become anachronistic. The historical and sociological
studies of the Ottoman empire has made a progress which can no longer
be ignored by musicologists. 29
Terms like “post-Byzantine” and likewise the opposition secular vs.
sacred as a misleading translation of µουσική ἐξωτερική (on which
“sacred” end one might implicate even a µ ουσική ἐσωτερική) have
become obsolete. The pretext that a reverence to the traumata of oriental
Greeks require such a consideration, turn more and more out to be a
concession in favour of a Western ahistorical approach to history which
seems to be unexperienced with the challenge of a continuous tradition
of religious music which can be traced back over centuries. Such
deficits are obviously not the problem of Greeks who have been grown
up in Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jerusalem or Egypt; they rather celebrate a sad
and unmerited triumph of those politicians, who divided violently and
out of ignorance by the turn to the 20th century, what has grown
together in a long and complex history.
European musicologists are well advised to improve their knowledge
that it might grow over more than one religion and its diverse traditions,
just in order to achieve finally a rudimentary understanding of what was

28 E.g. Merih Erol’s profound study of Greek-Orthodox communities of the Ottoman

empire and of the Turkish republic. M. EROL, Greek Orthodox Music in Ottoman
Istanbul: Nation and Community in the Era of Reform, Bloomington 2015.
29 It is no longer possible to ignore the contradiction between Phanariotes and Neo-
Phanariotes, as they were recently discussed by Dimitri Stamatopoulos. D.
STAMATOPOULOS, Bulgarian Patriarchs and Bulgarian Neophanariotes: Continuities and
Discontinuities in the Ecumenical Patriarchate During the Age of Revolution,
(Mis)Understanding in the Balkans. Essays in Honour of Raymod Detrez, Gent
2013, 45–57. Ibidem, Between Middle Classes and Grand Bourgeoisie: Greek-
Bulgarian Confrontation and Political Hegemony in Thessaloniki from the Bulgarian
Schism (1872) to the Slaughter of the Consuls (1876), Balkan Nationalism(s) and
the Ottoman Empire, Istanbul 2015, vol. 1, 101-141.

28
assumed to be the European music history. 30 The advantage of such a
new point of view could be, that it might open many new horizons
growing towards neighbouring continents, which have been so far
deliberately excluded by an outdated historiography and its
claustrophobic concept of the “Occident”.
The puristic concept of a Byzantine tradition, which has to be kept
clean from contaminating “foreign” influences, is not capable to study
reciprocal exchanges as they had without any doubt existed over more
than thousand years. Such a purism also paralyses the creative forces of
a tradition, which it does neither understand nor does it have any serious
interest in its continuation. The abandoned transcripta series of the
Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae has already become a tombstone of
historicising approach, because it failed to cope with the complexity and
diversity of the many living traditions of Orthodox music. The truth is
that such an approach did never care about them. The combination of
participating fieldwork, philological studies (including rarely used
notation systems), and experimental reconstructions of liturgical and
para-liturgical traditions of the past is still a great challenge. It could
support a more profound understanding of current traditions, which
would paradoxically create new opportunties for musical creativity.

30 A focus reduced on Latin traditions might be plausible for a student of catholic

theology, but rather absurd in a historical discipline like musicology. Thus, the
collaboration with ecclesiastic institutions has degenerated to an ideological
problem, although such an interdisciplinary approach could have contributed to a
more tolerant and ecumenical understanding of the own history.

29