The Oktoechos Hymnography

and the Asmatic Rite of

Constantinople (Early Byzantine
Period)
Oliver Gerlach

August 2018

Table of Contents
1. Canon hymnography and its reception
1.1. The earliest tropologia
1.1.1. The earliest evidence of the cathedral rite of Jerusalem
1.1.2. The Georgian iadgari
1.1.3. The Syrian tropligin
1.1.4. The Armenian šaraknoc’
1.2. The oktoechos reform and the school of Mar Saba
1.2.1. Andrew the Cretan & Germanus I of Constantinople
1.2.2. Ioannes of Damascus and Kosmas of Maiouma
1.2.3. The excommunication of Ioannes Damaskenos and his rehabilitation
1.3. The Stoudites reform and the “Hagiopolitan tropologion”
1.3.1. The Hagiopolites introduction
1.3.2. Contributions by Theodore Stoudites and his brother Joseph
1.3.3. Joseph the Hymnographer and Kassia
1.3.4. Later contributions during the Makedonian Renaissance
1.4. The new chant books sticherarion and heirmologion
1.4.1. Theta notation and other Old Byzantine forms
1.4.2. The standard of Middle Byzantine sticheraria and heirmologia
1.5. The Slavonic reception and the Old Believers
1.5.1. The evolution of znamennaya notation
1.5.2. The Russian reforms of the 17th century and its opposition
1.6. Multipart models of vocal recitation
1.6.1. Slavonic traditions
1.6.2. Georgian church music
2. The rite of the Asma and its reception history
2.1. John Chrysostom and the first Hagia Sophia
2.2. Romanos Melodos and the inauguration of the third Hagia Sophia
2.3. Changes in sacred architecture and the creation of the cherouvikon

1
 2.4. The melismatic style within the asmatikon and the kontakarion
2.4.1. The evidence in comparison with Jerusalem
2.4.2. The evidence in comparison with Rome
2.4.3. The evidence in comparison with Milan
2.4.4. The evidence in comparison with Thessalonica
2.5. The reception of the cathedral rite
2.5.1. Descriptions by pilgrims and diplomats
2.5.2. The Latin evidence of the cathedral rite
2.5.3. The kontakion as a secular and monastic genre
2.5.4. The Old Church Slavonic Kondakar
2.5.5. The monastic copies of asmatikon and kontakarion
2.5.6. The melos system behind the repertoire of kontakia
2.6. Conclusion
3. Recordings
3.1. Reconstructions
3.1.1. Nun convent of the Annunciation in Ormylia (Greece)
3.1.2. 19th-century Hilandar manuscript
3.1.3. Psaltikon Ensemble, dir. Spyridon Antonopoulos
3.1.4. Greek-Byzantine Choir, dir. Lykourgos Angelopoulos
3.1.5. Byzantion, dir. Adrian Sîrbu
3.2. Armenian tradition
3.3. Bulgarian tradition
3.4. Georgian tradition
3.4.1. Research
3.4.2. Georgian Harmony Choir, dir. Nana Peradze
3.4.3. Basiani Ensemble, dir. Giorgi Donadze
3.4.4. Divine Liturgy according to various schools
3.4.5. Oktoechos according various schools
3.4.6. Georgian Orthodox psaltic chant
3.5. Greek tradition
3.6. Macedonian tradition
3.7. Romanian tradition
3.8. Russian and Ukrainian tradition
3.8.1. Ensemble Sirin
3.8.2. Valaam Monastery (Karelia)
3.8.3. Rural Funeral
3.8.4. Old Believers
3.9. Serbian tradition
3.10. Syrian traditions
4. Sources
4.1. Kontakaria / Psaltika
4.2. Slavic kondakars
4.3. Asmatika
4.4. Hagiopolites
4.5. Tropologia (Tropligin, Iadgari, Šaraknoc’)
4.6. Oktoechos, Parakletike, Oktoich
4.7. Sticheraria
4.8. Heirmologia
4.9. Lectionaries
4.10. Psalteria

2
 4.11. Typika, Horologia & Euchologia
5. Studies and editions
5.1. Internet
5.1.1. Constantinople and the Hagia Sophia
5.1.2. Saint Catherine’s Monastery (Mount Sinai)
5.1.3. My source descriptions relevant to the topics here
5.1.4. Oktoechos
5.1.5. Slavic and other local traditions
5.1.6. Georgian chant
5.1.7. Armenian chant
5.2. Palaeographic introductions
5.2.1. History and evolution of notation
5.2.2. Ekphonetic notations
5.2.3. Old Byzantine notations
5.2.4. Middle Byzantine Round notation
5.2.5. Slavic notation
5.2.6. Armenian khaz notation
5.2.7. Georgian neume notation
5.3. Oktoechos hymnography
5.4. Cathedral rite

3
1. Canon hymnography and its reception
The earliest hymnographic sources are Papyri with monastic hymns. Concerning the Byzantine
redaction which was in fact the redaction of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, only fragments of Greek
tropologia had survived, and not earlier than from the 6th century and at that age only in fragments.1
The tropologia are generally regarded as unnotated sources which is not absolutely correct, because
the 6th-century papyrus fragment studied by Troelsgård has already modal signatures, others had
Ancient Greek notation (like GB-Ob P.Oxy.XV 1786, see facsimile and the reconstruction of the
hymn), while others have no modal indications at all.2 Nevertheless, the age of the tropologion does
not say much about the scribe’s use of notation. It might be interpreted that the unnotated tropligin
with its Georgian translation was just used for a better understanding of the Greek hymns and there
was no need for modal signatures.

1.1. The earliest tropologia

In comparison, the Georgian translation and the redaction of the iadgari has been almost completely
preserved with a repertoire dating back to the 5th century, when the Georgian church seems to have
adapted the liturgy of Jerusalem.3 Frøyshov mentioned as evidence a monastery founded by the mid
5th century by Peter the Iberian in Jerusalem which might have started to translate the local liturgy
into Georgian. During the 10th and 11th centuries it replaced the Hagiopolitan gradually to another
Byzantine redaction, under influence of the Stoudites reform and of the Georgian Iveron Monastery
on Mount Athos. On the other hand, Svetlana Kujumdžieva emphasised that its copies cannot be
dated earlier than to the 10th and 11th centuries, mainly due to the stay of Iovane Zosime at Mar
Saba and Sinai.4
It was Alexandra Nikiforova who emphasised the finding of a Greek tropologion within the Sinai
collection (ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. NE/ΜΓ 56+5) which is the earliest complete source dating back to
836.5 Its collection represents the classical repertoire used in Palestine between the 7th and 9th
centuries (the Sabaite school of Andrew of Crete, John and Cosmas), but it still explains the
importance of the Iadgari concerning earlier layers of the tropologion and its various local traditions
between Constantinople, Jerusalem and Sinai, since there is also a cycle of 12 troparia ascribed to
Cyril of Jerusalem (4th century) for Good Friday (most of them are still part of the triodion).

1.1.1. The earliest evidence of the cathedral rite of Jerusalem

The earliest Hagiopolitan sources are the description of the cathedral rite at the Anastasis church by
the pilgrim Egeria (sometimes also mentioned as Eteria or Sylvia) between 381 and 384, an
Armenian lectionary of the early 5th century (translated between 415 and 439), and the Georgian
lectionaries which offer insights into the cathedral rite between the 5th and 8th centuries. While
Frøyshov made a distinction between Jerusalem and Palestine (Mar Saba which he also called
«Sabaite»), Kujumdžieva observes that the monastic tradition of Jerusalem changed under the
influence of new Sabaite hymns created by Andrew of Crete’s school between the 7th and 8th
centuries.
This coincides with Irina Školnik’s interpretation that this school created more complex

1 Troelsgård (2009).
2 See the section “recordings”.
3 Frøyshov (2012, 232)
4 Kujumdžieva (2012, 10 note 13: seven in Sinai, one in Tbilisi).
5 Nikiforova (2013). The findings of 1975 had been the first time described, at least in part, by Panagiotes
Nikolopoulos (1998) and later by Géhin & Frøyshov (2000).

4
compositions known as idiomela.6 Whereas this must be a speculation which cannot be proved by a
study of contemporary notation, Svetlana Kujumdžieva rather focuses on new principles of
organisation which can be found between the Syriac tropligin and the early repertory of the 6th
century (only present through small papyrus fragments), on the one hand, and the 8th-century
arrangement and separation into two feast cycles, a fixed one organised as menaion which started
the year with the first September as “indiction” (not with Christmas season as the tropligin, and a
mobile one known as triodion.7 Her evidence is that these manuscripts had been wrongly classified
as sticheraria, while the scribes rubrified them still “tropologion”. According to her interpretation
the shorter oktoechos with a Sunday cycle was a Hagiopolitan custom, while the parakletike was a
later creation with new hymns which she regards as new contributions by Joseph the
Hymnographer.8

1.1.2. The Georgian iadgari

With respect to Georgia and Armenia, it should be noted that the imperial age with Orthodox
Christianity as state religion, began about 50 years earlier between 325 and 326. According to
Charles Renoux the earliest layer of poetry are certain resurrection hymns which can be dated back
to the 4th century (hymns ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem).9 Stig Frøyshov makes a difference
between three repertoires which were recognised by scribes within the iadgari:10
• Georgian (k’artuli) which means the Georgian translation of the Greek hymns of the early
Hagiopolitan rite (5th-6th c.) which basically refers to the redaction of the Antiochian
tropologion and the hymns ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem;
• Saint-Sabaite (sabacmiduri) which refers to the ancient customs of the Palestine Mar Saba
(6th century) which consisted of diode and triode canons throughout the year cycle (not just
during Lent!) as prescribed in the horologion (ET-MSsc Sinait. georg. 34);
• Jerusalemite (ierusalēmeli) the later Hagiopolitan rite which was created between the 6th
and 8th century (including the custom of 9 ode canons).
Criteria are the concept of how the tropologion is composed (when the menaion starts and whether
it includes the movable feasts as well), whether it has modal signatures, the repertoire and the
particular feasts present in it.
Thus, he points at something which is very characteristic, not only for Eastern, but also for Western
rites, the presence of different local rites did not only exist in Georgia, but also in many other
liturgical traditions, even Roman liturgy had elements of Jerusalem as well as of Constantinople,
even if the official authorities were not always ready to admit it.
And there are two types of Iadgari called the “ancient” and the “new Iadgari”, the distinction
already existed during the 10th century, when Iovane Zosime already mentioned it. In the colophon
of ET-MSsc Sinait. georg. 19 (980), Iovane explains that a new book Oktoechos was recently
translated into Georgian on the island of Cyprus, it was brought to Palestine and integrated into the
hymn collection of “the new Iadgari”, since there are older iadgari and other manuscript types
dating to the early 10th century (ET-MSsc Sinait. georg. 53, 18, 40, 41, 34 & 26).

6 Školnik (1995).
7 Kujumdžieva (2012).
8 In accordance to the editor of Joseph’s opus by Evtychios Tomadakes (PhD 1971).
9 Renoux (2000).
10 Frøyshov (2012).

5
1.1.3. The Syrian tropligin
Concerning the Greek original, if there has ever been just one, we have only a Syriac translation of
the earliest tropologion created by Severus of Antioch, Paul of Edessa and Ioannes Psaltes between
512 and 518, but the later copy of Iakovos of Edessa’s revised edition of the Syriac translation
which survived, was written in 675 (GB-Lbl Add. 17134). It consists of 365 hymns, but 295 are
ascribed to Severus. Severus was born in Sozopolis within the Roman province Pisida (not far from
present-day Konya), he became a very strong advocate of monophysitism and with his ordination as
new patriarch of Antioch (nowadays known as the town Antakya in Southern Turkey and at the
height of Aleppo) by Emperor Anastasios, he anathematised the whole Council of Chalcedon in
451. His position became temporarily very successful beyond his life span, still Emperor Justin I
supported at first Monophysitism, when he established himself at the court, but his politics soon
turned against it. Unlike his nephew, the secretary and later follower Justinian, Justin was rather
pragmatic and indifferent in these dogmatic questions dealing in diplomatic affairs with Rome.
Severus fled to Alexandria, when Monophysites became suspended at the Patriarchate of the
Antiochian Sea. The struggle between Chalcedonian and Monophysitism did not only determine
many political conflicts of the Byzantine empire (which continued in a kind of civil war known as
the Nika riots), but also divided Syrian Christians. At the end Antiochian and Melkite Syrians, Latin
Christians as well as Christians from Georgia became closer associated to Byzantine politics, while
Armenian, Copts, and Ethiopian Christians strongly rejected it, and insisted on their own local
habits.
Findings in Sinai made in 1975 revealed that Greek and Syriac tropologia of the 9th and 10th
centuries were a revision of the repertoire of Antioch elaborated by the school of Saba between the
7th and 8th century. The reform of 691/692 was obviously already under influence of Andrew of
Crete. Ioannes of Damascus and his stepbrother Kosmas joined him at Mar Saba later, after the
reform was done. Ioannes was of Syrian origin, his family in Damascus was closely related to the
caliph who resided there. He learnt his knowledge of Greek language and theology from a house-
slave who was originally a Greek monk from Calabria. He later left disappointed the court of the
caliph which recently excluded Christians from higher offices, and entered together with his
stepbrother Kosmas, both educated by the house teacher Kosmas, the Orthodox monastery known
under the Syriac name Mar Saba near Jerusalem. Syrian tropligin, Greek tropologia and Georgian
iadgari developed under the influence of Jerusalem and the innovations of Andrew, Ioannes and
Kosmas. On the other hand, Ioannes was posthumously anathematised under his Syriac name by the
Council of Constantinople in 751, since he attacked in an official polemic Emperor Leo as
iconoclast. This political role explained, why he and Hagiopolitan rite likewise became so important
for the later reformers at the Stoudios Monastery, since another iconodule Council 787 re-
established Ioannes as one of the most important contributors to Greek patristics.

1.1.4. The Armenian šaraknoc’

The Armenian evidence is less oriented towards the Patriarchate of Jerusalem like the ancient
iadgari, but rather a translation based on the Syriac tropligin from Antiochia. It basically means that
it departs from the Hagiopolitan rite of the 5th century. This is also due to the dogmatic background
and the antagonism between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and Antiochia since the synode of
Chalcedon. Its relevance for Byzantine studies (concerning the symbolum during the 4th-century
synods of Antioch, and other dogmatic questions) was remarked by Gabriele Winkler, not only with
respect to the 5th-century lectionary.11 Like with the iadgari, there is no continuity between the
current tradition and the oral tradition to sing the ekphonetic neumes used within the šaraknoc’.
Concerning the Georgian church music, the polyphonic way of singing and its local variety has

11 Winkler (2005).

6
been studied by Philimon Koridze and Georgian clerics of the transcription movement during the
turn to the 20th century. Komitas Vardapet tried something similar for the šaraknoc’, but the
Ottoman genocide of the Armenian population, because it was regarded as a very privileged and
modern rival (which had even its own opera houses in Ottoman metropoles), put obstacles to the
efforts of such a revival. Nevertheless, Constantinople is still the residence of one Armenian
Patriarchate, and it was one centre for the creation of the Armenian hymnal (manuscripts as well as
print editions).
Recent studies of Armenian oktoechos treatises traced the earliest layer back to the 4th century,
almost to the beginning of the imperial age in Armenia.12

1.2. The oktoechos reform and the school of Mar Saba

The exact role of the Sabaite tradition cannot be studied by notated manuscripts, but by one
tropologion which could be dated back to the early 8th century (Nikiforova’s publications about the
tropologion Sinait. gr. NE/ΜΓ 56+5). Hence, the discussion is mainly based on the assumption that
the later notated sources are more or less a reliable transcription of an oral transmission (without
considering the possibility that new compositions, notated since the 11th century, replaced former
ones). On the other hand, sources provide evidence that the school of Mar Saba changed and
innovated the cathedral rite of Jerusalem considerably.
Stig Frøyshov assumed that many local styles developed since the 4th century due to the impact of
the oktoechos cycle as a liturgical concept (applied to a week cycle and to a cycle of 8 weeks as
well), but that the Sabaite school around Andrew the Cretan created a kind of “mainstream”
concerning the echos-melodies which had an over-regional impact. Irina Školnik and Elena
Tončeva, on the other hand, argued that the main corpus of stichera ascribed to the Sabaite school
are created in the rather complex chant genre called idiomela, while older compositions rather
established echos-melodies as recitation models (avtomela and heirmoi).13 Concerning the heirmoi
the contribution of the Sabaite school cannot be denied, while Peter Jeffery also emphasised the
importance of the Georgian evidence, since the iadgari does not confirm the later focus of the
Stoudites reform on Andrew, Ioannis and Cosmas, but also reveals the importance of a
Constantinopolitan school, especially concerning the heirmoi.14

1.2.1. Andrew the Cretan & Germanus I of Constantinople

Andrew the Cretan and the Patriarch Germanus I of Constantinople are both contemporary schools
located at Mar Saba and in Constantinople which became very famous during their time, since they
are both present in medieval tropologia of the 9th century. Due to the difficult situation of
Byzantine clergy during the crisis of iconoclasm, only the first school established as a mainstream
within the notated chant books oktoechos / parakletike, the heirmologion and the sticherarion.
Alexandra Nikoforova’s study of the oldest complete tropologion did emphasise the mainstream
focus already before the Stoudites’ reform, while she also published a Russian essay about the
forgotten school of Germanus I.15
Stig Frøyshov, on the other hand, underlined the importance of Georgian evidence given by
Georgian iadgari (especially ET-MSsc Sinait. georg. 41), but also the horologion (ET-MSsc
Sinait. georg. 34), that the Sabaite school already etablished in Jerusalem during the 6th century,
when the 9 ode-order was not yet established (he dated it back to the early 7th century, before the
school of Andrew). According to the sabacmiduri layer in the old Georgian iadgari only the
12 Frøyshov (2007, 170-171).
13 Školnik (1995).
14 Jeffery (2001).
15 Nikiforova (2011).

7
authentic modes were used according to the four evangelists which were read in combination with
the diode- or triode-canons, and not necessarily just during the morning service (Orthros). It means
that Mar Saba was already an important centre of the Hagiopolitan rite since the 6th century, and the
evidence for these former layers of the local traditions are mainly preserved in Tbilisi and the
Georgian collection at Mount Sinai.

1.2.2. Ioannes of Damascus and Kosmas of Maiouma

The pre-Stoudite tropologion (ET-MSsc NE/ΜΓ 56+5) mentioned only four names Cyril, Andrew,
Ioannes and Kosmas of Jerusalem:
Twelve troparia for Good Friday are assigned to Cyril of Jerusalem (rubrics 38.4–
38.15). The canon of Sts Faith, Hope and Love (1 June, rubric 69.2) and the troparia to
the Holy Cross chanted every Wednesday and Friday during Great Lent (without
rubrication) are signed by the name “Andrew”. John the monk is mentioned as the
author of 8 canons—for the Forefeast of the Nativity of Christ (rubric 1), the Forefeast
of the heophany (rubric 8), St Babylas (15 January, rubric 18. 2), St Euthymius the
Great (20 January, rubric 22.2), the Easter (rubric 40.1), St Thomas Sunday (rubric
41.4), the Apparition of the Holy Cross over Jerusalem (6 May, rubric 54.2), the
Pentecost (rubric 68). Cosmas is the author of 6 canons – for the Nativity of Christ (25
December, rubric 3.4), the Theophany (6 January, rubric 10.7), St Gregory the
Theologian (24 January, rubric 24.2), the Meeting of our Lord in the Temple (2
February, rubric 28.3), Holy Thursday (rubric 37.3), the Pentecost (rubric 65.5). They
are most likely the authors of many stichera and heirmoi, as well as other canons
transferred anonymously. Based on the stable manuscript tradition it is possible to
determine the authors of some unsigned hymns. Thus, the canon to St Basil the Great (1
January, rubric 5.1) belongs to John, the canon to St George (23 April, rubric 44.5) – to
Cosmas etc.16

Nevertheless, some of the anonymous hymns were attributed in later manuscripts to Germanus I
and Theophanes Graptos.17 This source is an almost authentic document of the Sabaite school of
Andrew, although it was written later, obviously after the rehabilitation of the anathematised Ioannis
of Damascus during Irene’s synod which de-canonised the former of 751 in 787, and also canonised
the former synod of 692 whose authority had so far been questioned.

1.2.3. The excommunication of Ioannes Damaskenos and his rehabilitation

The ecumenical synod of 787 solved the first crisis of iconoclasm on the basis of theological
arguments by Ioannes Damaskenos which were the very same which led to his posthumous
excommunication in 751. In fact, the concern of this synod were dogmatic and theological questions
and not hymn reforms, but the re-canonisation of former synods also confirmed the oktoechos
reform of 692 which obviously motivated a Carolingian transfer of the Hagiopolitan oktoechos
which led to a very independent modal classification system established by a new small book
known as tonary. Although pope Adrian I confirmed this reform also for the Western church, there
has never been any evidence for a tonary used in Rome. It rather seems the Old Roman chant was
based on another modality which was actually closer to the one used in Constantinople. On the
other hand, the establishment of a so-called “Gregorian chant” within the vast territory of the
Carolingian empire must be explained by transformations based on the Carolingian tonary.

16 Nikiforova (2013, 178).

17 See Frøyshov’s article (2013a) about the “Rite of Jerusalem” (subsection “annual cycle” of the section “global
tropologion”).

8
Nevertheless, Italy and the Adria preserved many local traditions which were very distinct from this
development based on the Carolingian reform of former local rites, known as Gallican traditions
(including Visigothic forms of an eschatological form of Christian rites).

1.3. The Stoudites reform and the “Hagiopolitan tropologion”

Differences between the Hagiopolitan and the Carolingian oktoechos are that the chromatic and the
enharmonic genus were entirely excluded by treatises the official Latin music theory, while the
Hagiopolites mentions two phthorai which are also sometimes called mesoi. All differences,
whether they were caused by transpositions, a change to another tone system or the change to
another (=non-diatonic) genus, were simply subsumed by the expression “absonia” which was
introduced by the unknown author of the Musica and Scolica enchiriadis. The latter also mentioned
the tetraphonic tone system as “Dasian system”, but the use of this tone system was refused by
11th-century theorists like Guido of Arezzo and Hermannus Contractus. Also the lesser perfect
system (LPS) was mentioned by Aurelian who probably got his name from this quotation from
Aurelius Cassiodorus, and known among Carolingian commentators who copied and commented
Martianus Capella, but its use in Western plainchant was never specified in any theoretic tonary.
The role of the Stoudites in Constantinople has until now not been entirely studied, although it is
very likely that many syntheses (between the Hagiopolitan oktoechos and the 16 echoi of the Asma)
were already created during a long period of revision between the 9th and the 13th century, when
their melodic notation was replaced and clarified by the Middle Byzantine Round notation. The
tropologion, the old chant book of Jerusalem, was used until the 12th century and it went through
various transformations which finally created various types of liturgical manuscripts with and
without musical notation.
Just the collection of Saint Catherine’s monastery at Sinai preserves 10 Greek tropologia which
show a big variety that tropologia developed between the 9th and the 12th century. The earliest
among them is one (ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. NE/ΜΓ 56+5) dating to the late 8th or early 9th century,
and its organisation does not separate the immovable from the movable cycle and starts with the
Christmas and Theophania celebrations beginning with the vesper psalm 140 (kekragarion). The
menaion organisation beginning the feast of Symeon Stylites on 1 September can be found in four
manuscripts:
• Sinait. gr. 607: Tropologion of the two months March (ff. 3r-125r) and April (ff. 125v-239v)
with calendar (ff. 1r-2v) of the 9th century.
• Sinait. gr. ΜΓ 28: Tropologion of the two months May and June (9th century).
• Sinait. gr. 579: Tropologion of the month September (11th century).
• Sinait. gr. 556: Tropologion of the month September (ff. 1r-142r) and of the month October
(ff. 142v-269r) (11th century).
Although their classification as a “menaion” is correct, since each month is separated and each
manuscript was left without musical notation (except modal signatures and the incipit of the
avtomela in case of prosomoia), the scribes of these manuscripts clearly rubrified them as
“tropologion”. Thus, the menaion as a text book which also includes acrostics (a prolongation still
unkown to the scribe of Sinait. gr. NE/ΜΓ 56+5) composed for a certain feast over a certain
heirmos was already created as a new organisation principle which did no longer include the
movable feast cycle, it did not start with Christmas, but with the month September.18
It means that the organisation of lesson cycles for the triodion (Lenten period) and the

18 About the history of the menaion, see Krivko (2012).

9
pentekostarion (between Easter and All Saints which was celebrated on Sunday, one week after
Pentecost) during the Stoudites reform was also connected with the organisation of the menaion,
and the separation of both cycles had been a result of this reform. ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. 759 started
with Palm Sunday, so it included also the Holy and the Easter Week, but it finished with the end of
pentekostarion (Orthodox All Saints).19
Other tropologia did rather correspond the later book oktoechos. The simplest (and probably
earliest form) was a liturgical roll with the text of the penitential troparia (katanyktika) for
weekdays (ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. E 26 written about 900) which were part of the later parakletike or
great oktoechos. But they were tropologia which organised the katanyktika together with the
penitential canons for weekdays and they were rather organised like heirmologia according to the
canon order (KaO), which means that the whole tropologion was organised according to the
oktoechos order in eight parts (4 kyrioi echoi, 4 plagioi echoi), while each part followed the
calendaric order with its canons, in case the parakletike its canons, pentitential chant, apostolic
prosomoia of ferial days and theotokia in each mode (ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. 777 dating back to the
11th century). The same organisation was used for a collection of hymns which corresponded the
repertoire of the great oktoechos including the weekday and Sunday cycle (ET-MSsc Sinait. gr.
784 dating back to the 12th century).
The last step was to skip all other chant genres except the canons, and the result was the (still
unnotated) heirmologion organised in canon order (ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. 789 dating back to the 12th
century).

1.3.1. The Hagiopolites introduction

The new type of tropologion also had a theoretical introduction which became known as
“Hagiopolites” (from Holy Polis as name of the town Jerusalem), the name clearly indicated the
dominance of Sabaite composers of the 8th century (the school of Andrew of Crete). The first
paragraph pretended that Ioannes Damaskenos was the author, but already the second paragraph left
no doubt the the author was obviously familiar with later hymnographers of the 9th century such as
Joseph the Confessor, Archbishop of Thessalonica and brother of Theodore Stoudites. The
paragraph also explained stylistic differences between the Constantinopolitan and the Sabaite
school.
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.20

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

19 About the Stoudites’ role concerning the triodion and its Slavic reception (Poliakova 2009). Sysse Engberg (1987)
raised the hypothesis that the cycle of the prophetologion for Hesperinos and tritoektē (present in manuscripts since
the 9th century) did exist as custom since the 5th century.
20 Hagiopolites (Raasted 1983, 10—§2). See also the first damaged page of the treatise (F-Pn gr. 360, f.216r).

10
 sing the compositions of Master Joseph and others “with the Mousike”, they will not fit,
having not been composed “according to the Mousike”). 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 of this
book) and not eight, only.21

Hence, both phthorai, nenano and nana, were not later corruptions of the diatonic oktoechos, they
were simply needed to integrate the Sabaite school around Ioannis and Kosmas:
Οἱ µὲν οὖν τέσσαρρεις πρῶτοι οὐκ ἐξ ἄλλων τινων ἀλλ’ἐξ αὐτῶν γινονται. οἱ δὲ
τέσσαρεις δεύτεροι, ἤγουν οἱ πλάγιοι, ὁ µὲν πλάγιος πρῶτος ἐκ τῆς ὑπορροῆς τοῦ
πρώτου γέγονε. καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ὑπορροῆς τοῦ πληρώµατος τοῦ δευτέρου γέγονεν ὁ
πλάγιος δευτέρου· ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον δὲ καὶ τὰ πληρώµατα τοῦ δευτέρου [εἰς τὸν
πλάγιον δευτέρου] τελειοῖ. ὁ βαρὺς ὁµοίως καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ τρίτοῦ· καὶ γὰρ εἰς τὸ ἆσµα ἡ
ὑποβολὴ τοῦ βαρέως τρίτος ψάλλεται ἅµα τοῦ τέλους αὐτοῦ. καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ τετάρτου
γέγονεν ὁ πλάγιος τέταρτος. καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τεσσάρων πλαγίων ἐγεννήθησαν τέσσαρεις
µέσοι· καὶ ἀπ’αὐτῶν αἱ τέσσαρες φθοραί. καί ἀνεβιβάσθησαν ἦχοι ις’, οἵτινες
ψάλλονται εἰς τὸ ἆσµα, οἱ δὲ δέκα ὡς προείποµεν εἰς τὸν Ἁγιοπολίτην.

The 4 Echoi which come first are generated from themselves, not from others. As to the
four which come next, i.e. the Plagal ones, Plagios Prōtos is derived from Prōtos, and
Plagios Deuteros from Deuteros – normally Deuteros melodies end in Plagios Deuteros.
Similarly, Barys from Tritos – “for in the Asma Hypobole of Barys is sung as Tritos
together with its ending”. From the 4 Plagioi originate the 4 Mesoi, and from these the 4
Phthorai. This makes up the 16 Echoi which are sung in the Asma – as already
mentioned, there are sung only 10 in the Hagiopolites.22

Eight diatonic echoi were obviously enough for the composer Joseph, but two additional phthtorai
or echoi were needed in order to perform those hymns of the 8th-century Sabaite school around
Ioannes and his step-brother Kosmas “according to the mousike”. At least, this is one information
about the preferences of Kosmas and Ioannes as musical composers which disapproves certain
concepts among Tillyard, Wellesz and Velimirović according to which the enharmonic phthora
nana and the chromatic-enharmonic phthora nenano had been misunderstood as an Ottoman
corruption. The change of the genus (µεταβολή κατὰ γένος) was a category of the Ancient
harmonics, and the Hagiopolites already proves that it was common knowledge among
hymnographers from Damascus. The only complete treatise has survived in a compilation of
monastic manuscripts, probably from Italy, which is now preserved at the Bibliothèque nationale de
France (F-Pn fonds grec, ms. 360, ff. 216r-237v). It was bound together with fragments of a
mathematarion (15th century) and 12th-century treatises of grammar and katechetical teaching
(13th century). There is no reason to date its last part later than to the 12th century like other
fragments of the Hagiopolites, when tropologia were still in use.
There is further evidence about the Hagiopolitan oktoechos in Latin and Arabic sources. Already
Al-Kindi (ca. 801-870) adored the universality of modal classification system of the Byzantine
oktoechos:
Sämtliche Stile aller Völker aber haben Teil an den acht byzantinischen Modi (hiya min
al-alhān at-tamāniya ar-rūmīya), die wir erwähnt haben, denn es gibt nichts unter
allem, was man hören kann, das nicht zu einem von ihnen gehörte, sei es die Stimme
eines Menschen oder eines anderen Lebewesens, wie das Wiehern eines Pferdes oder
21 Hagiopolites (Raasted 1983, 11).
22 Hagiopolites (Raasted 1983, 14-15). See also the manuscript (F-Pn gr. 360, f.217r line 3).

11
 das Schreien eines Esels oder das Krähen des Hahns. Alles, was an Formen des Schreis
einem jeden Lebewesen/Tier eigen ist, ist danach bekannt, zu welchem Modus der acht
es gehört, und es ist nicht möglich, daß es sich außerhalb eines von ihnen [bewegt].23

Every style of any tribe takes part of the Byzantine eight tones (hiya min al-alhān at-
tamāniya ar-rūmīya) which I mentioned here. Everything which can be heard, be it the
human or be it the animal voice – like the neighing of a horse, the braying of a donkey,
or the carking of a cock, can be classified according to one of the eight modes, and it is
impossible to find anything outside of the eight mode system.

Eckhard Neubauer’s analysis proved that Al-Kindi’s terminology was based on the translation of
Greek terms, because he could not yet rely on the Greek Ancient harmonics as later music theorists
like Al-Farabi. Unlike Al-Farabi he did also not mention the possibility of temporary transposition
(µεταβολή κατὰ τόνον) which basically meant that every pitch could not only be classified as one
of the eight modes, but also as each of the eight modes.
Basically the same concept can be found in a treatise by Hucbald which clearly explains the
difference between Byzantine and the Carolingian synthesis concerning the Ancient Greek tropes
and their modal interpretation within the oktoechos:
Lycanos ypaton scilicet autentum protum· & plagis eiusdem· id est primum &
secundum; Hypate mesonʕ autentum deuterum· & plagis eiusʕ iii & iiii· Parypate
mesonʕ autentum tritum & plagis eiusʕ id est v· & vi. Lycanos mesonʕ autentum
tetrardum. & plagis eiusʕ id est vii· & viii. Ita ut ad aliquam ipsarum ·quatuor. quamvis
ul[tra] citraque variabiliter circumacta necessario omnis quaecumque fuerit redigatur·
cantilena· Unde et e[a]edem finales appellatae quod finem in ipsis cuncta quae canuntur
accipiant.24

Λιχανὸς ὑπάτων [D] is [the φθόγγος of] the autentus protus and its plagal which are
[tonus] I and II, ὑπάτη µέσων [E] of the autentus deuterus and its plagal which are
[tonus] III and IV, παρυπάτῃ µέσων [F] of the autentus tritus and its plagal which are
[tonus] V and VI, λιχανὸς µέσων [G] of the autentus tetrardus and its plagal which are
[tonus] VII and VIII, for the reason, that these four very present ones surround
necessarily each melody, so that they, however they might be, can be reduced to them.
These four [φθόγγοι] are called ’finales’, since in all those [melodies] which are sung,
they are perceived as their end.

Unlike the Hagiopolitan concept which defined each element of the tone system as a certain mode
(according to the echema which memorised it), Latin theorists chose just one tetrachord whose four
notes were called “finales”. It corresponds also with terminology of another contemporary treatise
collection: the Musica and Scolica enchiriadis.
Another later evidence is a Latin treatise compilation known as (alia musica) which has survived in
different compilations in 11th-century manuscripts (although passages had been also taken from
9th-century manuscripts like Hucbald and John Afflighem). Certain parts added by the compilator
reveal a mutual understanding of the Hagiopolitan oktoechos and Carolingian concept as it can be
found in the Latin book tonary which was also included in fully notated manuscripts during the 11th
century. While the Latin term of church tone is “tonus”, it was obviously not confused with the
Greek term “echos” which was translated into Latin by “sonus”:
23 German translation by Eckhard Neubauer (1998, pp. 378f).
24 Hucbald’s theoretical tonary «De harmonica institutione», GS 1 (1784, p. 119), quoted according to the manuscript
Prague, National Library, Ms. XIX.C.26, f. 27v.

12
 Quorum videlicet troporum, sive etiam sonorum, primus graeca lingua dicitur Protus;
secundus Deuterus; tertius Tritus; quartus Tetrardus: qui singuli a suis finalibus deorsum
pentachordo, quod est diapente, differunt. Superius vero tetrachordum, quod est
diatessaron, requirunt, ut unusquisque suam speciem diapason teneat, per quam
evagando, sursum ac deorsum libere currat. Cui scilicet diapason plerumque exterius
additur, qui emmelis, id est, aptus melo vocatur.

Sciendum quoque, quod Dorius maxime proto regitur, similiter Phrygius deutero,
Lydius trito, mixolydius tetrardo. Quos sonos in quibusdam cantilenis suae plagae
quodammodo tangendo libant, ut plaga proti tangat protum, deuteri deuterum, triti
tritum, tetrardi tetrardum. Et id fas est experiri in gradalibus antiphonis.25

It is known about the tropes, as to say: the ἦχοι, that the Greek language call the First
πρῶτος, the Second δεύτερος, the Third τρίτος, the Fourth τέταρτος. Their Finales were
separated by a pentachord, that is: a falling fifth (gr. diapente) [between kyrios and
plagios]. And above [the pentachord] they require a tetrachord, that is: a fourth (gr.
diatessaron), so that each of them has its octave species, in which it can move freely,
rambling down and up. For the full octave (gr. diapason) another tone might be added,
which is called ὁ ἐµµελής: “according to the melos”.

It has to be known that the “Dorian” [octave species] is usually ruling in the πρῶτος, as
the “Phrygian” in the δεύτερος, the “Lydian” in the τρίτος, or the “Mixolydian” in the
τέταρτος. Their πλάγιοι are derived by these ἦχοι in that way, that the formula touch
them [going down a fifth]. So the πλάγιος τοῦ πρώτου touch the πρῶτος, the plagal
Second [τοῦ δευτέρου] the δεύτερος, the plagal Third [βαρύς] the τρίτος, the plagal
Fourth [πλάγιος τοῦ τετάρτου] the τέταρτος. And this should be proved by the melodies
of the antiphonal graduals as a divine law.26

According to this treatise, the Hagiopolitan oktoechos was simply based on four octaves (πρῶτος,
δεύτερος, τρίτος and τέταρτος) which were used by the kyrios as well as by the plagios echos. The
only difference was that the kyrios was based on the upper note of the pentachord, which means that
the kyrios protos α᾽ was based on a (V), while its plagios πλα᾽ was based on its base note D (I).
The only possible explanation to talk about the emmelis was that the whole tonal system was based
on tetraphonia. The natural position of the four octaves was D—a—d for Dorian, E—b—e for
Phrygian (sometimes also called “Lydian”), F—c—f for Lydian (sometimes also called
“Phrygian”), and C—G—c for Mixolydian. Now according to tetraphonia one step down from
plagios tetartos meant B flat for varys (the name of the plagios tritos), while a fifth higher the
tetartos octave G—d—g included f sharp. It forced the singer to keep the same phthongos in tune,
while she or he was singing a tritos echos which was based on F—c—f, otherwise they would sing
on augmented octave between F and f sharp. The most natural way to change from tritos to tetartos
was the use of phthora nana, because it would resolve the kyrios tritos into the plagios tetartos.
They needed to change again to the diatonic genus, in order to find their way into the diatonic mele
of the tetartos echoi.
The condition that each phthongos could have an echos of its own was tetraphonia, the condition of
emmelis was that a melos is usually ruled by heptaphonia with exception of the particular melos of
phthora nana which was based on triphonia. The three tone systems were not explicitly mentioned
within the Hagiopolites, neither by the compilator of alia musica. They existed as well within Latin

25 Gerbert (1784, 139) quoted after TML.

26 Translation by Oliver Gerlach (2011, 177).

13
tonaries, where the tetraphonia was known as the “Dasia system” (relevant for diaphonia mentioned
in Musica enchiriadis), triphonia was mentioned by Aurelianus of Réôme (a passus quoted without
any comment from Cassiodorus), while other tonaries usually relied on the Great Perfect System
(which corresponded to the Greek concept of heptaphonia) as it was given by the Boethian
diagramme which also included the chromatic and the enharmonic genus. Although Dasian notation
was widely used in many tonaries, no Latin theorists ever clarified the role that these tone systems
might have. It was Guido of Arezzo who solved the problem with three hexachords and who
prohibited the use of the Dasian system.
The other difference between theoretical tonaries and the Hagiopolites was, that the Latin authors
worked hard on a modal classification of an already given repertoire of plainchant. Their
classification was a posteriori. The author of the Hagiopolites was not interested in this question,
because he could not know about the trouble of Carolingian cantors. The tropologion had no
musical notation except modal signatures and the incipits of avtomela or odes of the heirmoi.
Hence, the knowledge of the melos was based on a classification a priori and the oral tradition of a
large system of melodies. An idiomelon on the other hand was a more complex composition which
did change between mele, even between echoi (µεταβολή κατὰ ἤχον). For this very reason the
author was much more concerned about the question about how to change between different mele.
But as such, the tropologion does not offer very much to study the Byzantine synthesis. We have
already modal signature in papyrus fragments of 6th-century tropologia, but we do not know, if they
already did mean the same modes like those of the oktoechos described by the Hagiopolites.

1.3.2. Contributions by Theodore Stoudites and his brother Joseph

After the synode 787, when the first crisis of iconoclasm was solved by the theological arguments
of Ioannes Damaskenos’ polemic against Emperor Leo III the Isaurian, the redaction of the
tropologion at the abandoned Stoudios monastery was realised by Theodore Stoudites (759–826),
after he had to flee the monastery of his family in Bythinia during an Arab invasion (between 797
and 798) and Empress Irene gave him permission to settle his community at the abandoned
Stoudios monastery of Constantinople. Theodore wrote a new typikon to grant the monastery’s
autonomy, but he also established a scriptorium. His typikon included also an order of the services,
but this part has only survived in later translations (especially into Slavonic language) and adapted
to local needs and also the close Evergetes typikon.27
The trouble of iconoclasm forced Theodore and other important hymnographers frequently into
exile, especially under the iconoclast patriarch Theodotos, so that there were various centres of
monastic hymnography, Saint Catherine’s at Sinai (Patriarchate of Alexandria), Mar Saba at
Palestine (Patriarchate of Jerusalem), and the Stoudiou Monastery in Constantinople which
collaborated with the Stoudites. Theodore and his brother Joseph (762–832) as spiritual mentors
also encouraged new monastic foundations, also those of nun convents.
The exact role of this first generation of reformers has become a controversial subject. Gerda
Wolfram dated the creation of a mixed rite to the last third of the 13th century, after the return of the
Patriarchate and the Court from its exile in Nikaia, while she published ten years later a second
essay about Theodore Stoudites’ role, in part based on Husmann’s study of contrafact concerning
idiomela and the repertory of the oktoechos book.28 A particular interest for the contribution of the
first generation of the Stoudites reform was motivated by studies of the Slavonic reception.29 The
more recent research regard many of the innovations ascribed to Ioannes Glykys and Koukouzeles

27 See the complete description of typika (Thomas & Hero 2000)

28 Wolfram (1993, 2003); Husmann (1972).
29 Proceedings of a conference at Bratislava about “Anfänge der slavischen Musik” [Beginnings of Slavic Music]
(1966), Christians (2001), Poliakova (2003), Nikiforova (2013), Kujumdžieva (2017).

14
to an earlier reception which developed since the Stoudites reform and which were later confirmed
by later reformers. The discussion was provoked by the earliest books of the cathedral rite
(asmatikon and kontakarion) which are in fact a peripheral reception history based on the Middle
Byzantine round notation which developed from the oktoechos notation used in monastic chant
books (sticherarion, heirmologion) which developed under those generations who followed into the
footsteps of Theodore and Joseph.
The main difficulty is that we have only few Greek manuscripts which allows us to study the
differences and transformation of the cathedral rite between the 9th century and 1201, when its
tradition was suppressed by Western crusaders. The earliest sources are in fact Slavonic or
unnotated kontakaria of monastic reformers in Alexandria and Constantinople organised as
menaion which have not yet found enough attention among scholars.30 But there are some
indications, that the reformers already established many Hagiopolitan customs at Constantinople
which were probably not yet accepted by the Patriarchate. This would mean that their liturgical
reform was far more ambitious that it could be simply regarded as a monastic reform which had no
concern for the cathedral rite. Hence, Alexander Lingas’ recent study mentioned Stoudite and post-
Stoudite customs which obviously introduced customs taken from the cathedral rite at the
Patriarchate of Jerusalem.31 He tried to imagine the whole Polis as one soundscape, although there is
a typikon of the Hagia Sophia which is not very relevant for the Stoudites reform and there is the
open question, whether both concepts of the Constantinopolitan rite were once opposed to each
other, at least during the second crisis of iconoclasm. At the same time, the study of local sources
also helped to get clearer ideas, what exactly was this local cathedral rite.32
Gerda Wolfram offers in general a fine overview of the musical contribution of Theodore Stoudites,
but together with Svetlana Kujumdžieva’s observations it must be more understood as a creation of
new tropologia which obviously preceded various types of notated and unnotated liturgical books
which developed between the 10th and 13th centuries:33
Der Einfluss des Theodoros Studites auf die byzantinische Hymnographie kommt vor
allem im Triodion (der Tessarakoste, ab dem Montag der ersten Fastenwoche bis zum
Lazarussamstag) zum Ausdruck, aber auch in der Sammlung der Oktoechos (dem Acht-
Wochen-Zyklus in den acht Tönen), den Menaia (dem Zyklus der unbeweglichen Feste
vom 1. September bis zum 31. August) und im Pentekostarion (vom Ostersonntag bis
zum Sonntag nach Pfingsten, dem Allerheiligen-Sonntag).34

Theodore Stoudites’ impact on Byzantine hymnography can be subsumed as the

creation of the triodion (the tessarakostes, beginning on the first Monday of Lent until
Lazarus Saturday), but also of the collection of the book oktoechos (the eight-week
cycle according to the eight modes), of the menaia (the cycle of immovable feasts from
1 September until 31 August) and of the pentekostarion (beginning with Easter until the
Sunday after Pentecost, the feast of All Saints).

It was not simply a question of reorganisation of an existing repertory which we might find in the
early tropologion with its focus on the Sabaite layer of the 8th century, but also the reorganisation of
scriptural lessons, and Wolfram choose the plural “menaia”, because she meant the textbooks, one
volume per month which corresponded closely to the menaion type among the tropologia.
30 The new monastic kontakarion (ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. 925 of the 10th century) proves, that the reformers did
continue the composition of kontakia, but they transformed the genre into a kind of troparion, abandoning the
elaborated structure of an introduction called prooimion followed by many strophes called oikoi.
31 Lingas (2013).
32 Frøyshov (2013), Nikoforova (2016).
33 Kujumdžieva (2017).
34 Wolfram (2003, 118).

15
Connected with it was also a new practice of acrostics, troparia which followed a given heirmos
with its original text and the Sabaite custom of eight odes, which was reduced to just three odes
during Lent which actually gave the name to the book called “triodion”. During Lent the weekday
triodion consisted of Ode 1-5 as the first ode, followed by ode 8 and 9 (which was a new custom,
similar but not identical to the one of Mar Saba): prosomoia of the triodion were a combination of
Theodore’s and Joseph’s poems (one triodion by each poet during the morning service called
“orthros”). The heirmoi are not easy to find in heirmologia, since they rather belonged to an oral
tradition of Constantinople. A similar practice existed for three kathismata during the morning
service (two by Joseph were followed by one of Theodore). Completely different is the triodion
practice for the evening service (hesperinos). Theodore composed new stichera prosomoia, but he
did not compose them according to simple stichera avtomela, but according to the more elaborated
stichera idiomela. Already during the 11th century, the triodion part of the sticherarion has its texts
provided with musical notation (Coislin in case of Palestine or Egypt, Chartres in case of
Constantinople), but not yet rubrified as prosomoia.
Concerning the horologion, Gerda Wolfram also mentions Theodore’s creation of katecheseis which
were read at the third hour on weekdays during Lent, but also the possibility that they had been
created already, while the Anavathmoi (antiphona made of the psalms 119, 130, and 132) composed
in all eight modes are regarded as Theodore’s contribution to the book oktoechos.
Theodore also contributed with many own kontakia dedicated to Greek church fathers which had
been composed as prosomoia according to simple avtomela. Therefore, also a new unnotated form
of kontakarion should be regarded as an original contribution to the kontakion genre which had
been now organised as a menaion. Sometime they had four or even ten strophes, and not all of them
were composed as acrostics similar to some prosomoia of the Lenten triodion.

1.3.3. Joseph the Hymnographer and Kassia

As well Kassia (810-865) as Joseph the Hymnographer (ca.816-886) were encouraged by Theodore
and Joseph as spiritual mentors, and both contributed to the new hymnography flourishing under the
Stoudites, while they also founded own monasteries.35 Kassia is also regarded as the poetess of a
long sticheron idiomelon created for the triodion and some other stichera, among them the
katanyktikon for Mary Magdalene Κύριε, ἡ ἐν πολλαῖς. There were also other higoumeniai like
Kassia like Theodosia and Thekla the Nun, but only few poetry composed by them has survived
(just the titles are known).
According to an edition of Joseph the Hymnographer’s poems by Evtychios Tomadakes, Joseph’s
contribution are mainly prosomoia and acrostics of the paraklektike, but also of the triodes and
tetraodes, so many canons that Tomadakes was tempted to regard him as the author of this book.
Recent studies of early tropologia and iadgari clearly disapproved this wide-spread opinion,
because the repertoire of the parakletike existed long before the Joseph’s time, while the prosomoia
of the triodion are obviously a confusion with the authorship of his mentor, because the simple
ascription “by Joseph” was frequently used within the tropologion and the monastic kontakarion.
Joseph’s family fled from Sicily during the Arab conquest of the island, and he became educated at
a monastery at Thessalonica, where he got soon acquainted to Gregory Decapolis and to Joseph,
Theodore’s brother. His vita also describes his failed diplomatic mission to Rome, because he was
kidnapped by pirates who sold him as a slave on the island of Crete. This long adventure is
concluded by his return to Constantinople, after the death of the iconoclastic emperor Theophilos,
but also after the death of his closest mentor Gregory of Decapolis. His founding activities were
35 An intertextual analysis of Kassia’s hymns (Simić 2011) revealed many literary influences like Clement the
Hymnographer’s canon for the Archangels Michael and Gabriel, also the school of patriarch Germanos I, but also
typical elements of Kassia’s milieu such as anti-iconoclastic polemics.

16
related with a retreat as a hermit together with another novice of Gregory, Ioannes of Antipas, and
in dedication to their deceased master. After the early death of Ioannes of Antipas, Joseph
established a relic cult dedicated to the memory of Gregory and Ioannes. He was also closely
associated with the patriarch Photius and he followed him into the exile to theme of Cherson, where
he also met protagonists of the early Slavonic mission in Russia.

1.3.4. Later contributions during the Makedonian Renaissance

The later contributions to the book oktoechos were the cycle of eleven stichera heothina which had
been attributed to the emperor Leo VI the philosopher (866-912) and the eleven exaposteilaria
anastasima attributed to emperor Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos (905–959). The latter also
commissioned a book about Byzantine state ceremonies which obviously had also a historical
interest for older palace ceremonies which were no longer in use.36 It has become a valuable source
for archaeologists.37

1.4. The new chant books sticherarion and heirmologion

The new books with musical notation developed quite late during the 11th century, but there are
earlier manuscripts of the 10th century with the partial addition of notation, in its earliest layer the
so-called “theta notation”. Sometimes it was removed by palimpsests to replace it with Old
Byzantine notation.
The heirmologion as a book form has been crystallised from the tropologion in oktoechos order
which dropped all other chant genres except the canons, and as already described the eight section
according to the eight-week cycle could be ordered according to the canon order (KaO) or to the
ode order into nine or eight sections (OdO). In its early phase one can distinct two different
redactions of the Greek heirmologion, the one of Sinai and Mar Saba notated in Coislin notation,
and the Constantinopolitan according to the Stoudites notated in Chartres notation. As a notated
chant book it just contained the model strophes of the heirmoi together with their original texts. The
acrostics became soon separated in textbooks called “menaia”.
Like the heirmologion also the sticherarion developed as an over-regional collection of hymns,
which basically means especially the less known or strange hymns needed musical notation, while
the well-known hymns (heirmoi, avtomela) did not need to be written down—neither their melodies
nor their texts. In the best case we have just the incipit written over the text of a prosomoion. Its
first parts, the menaion, the triodion and the pentekostarion just were composed of idiomela, or in
case of the triodion mainly of prosomoia which had been composed on the base of idiomela. The
last part was usually a short form of the book oktoechos which did not include the katanyktika and
the daily canons, but just the Sunday cycle beginning with Saturday hesperinos.

1.4.1. Theta notation and other Old Byzantine forms

The earliest form of notation was called “theta notation” which has nothing to do with mathematical
algorithm, but with the simple use of just one sign: the Greek letter θ, or in some cases an acute
accent / (ὀξεῖα, “oxeia notation”) or double acute accent // (διπλή, “diple notation”). These signs
indicated a melisma (“thema” in the sense of “melodic figure”) above a certain syllable of a
liturgical hymn text. The “theta notation” can be traced within Chartres and Coislin notation, when
the letter was still used for three great signs (µεγάλα σῃµάδια) called “thematismos” (θεµατισµὸς,
Coislin), “ouranisma” (οὐράνισµα, Chartres) and “thema haploun” (θέµα ἁπλοῦν, Chartres and
Coislin) which became all integrated within Middle Byzantine Round notation.
36 See the early edition by Reiske and Leich (1829).
37 Featherstone (2002,2006).

17
The notation can be found in early Melkite-Syrian, Greek and Slavonic chant books. A comparative
analysis of these sources together with manuscripts with Old Byzantine notation can easily show,
how these melismata became more and more explicit in notation.38
1. Constantinople and the Chartres form
“Chartres notation” bear its name from a fragment of a sticherarion which actually belonged
to a certain book preserved at the Mone Megistis Lavras on Mount Athos (GR-AOml γ.67,
about 1000). The “Chartres fragment” was destroyed during a bombing of the town by Nazi-
Germany in 1944, so that only microfilm reproductions are left (fol. 65v):
http://www.igl.ku.dk/MMB/chartres.html
On folio 159 recto of this sticherarion, there is a complete list of neumes together with its
names which was also reproduced in the section “Melodic notation” of the entry “Byzantine
chant” of the New Grove.39 This notation was developed by scriptoria of Constantinople and
on Mount Athos, and can be regarded as the later medium of the scribes at the Stoudios
scriptorium.
There are manuscripts of the 10th century which are fully notated, but not every syllable has
a neume. This early way is classified as “archaic Chartres notation”. Concerning the
sticheraria which are now online, there is one sticherarion of the Sinai collection (ET-MSsc
Sinait. gr. 1219, 11th c) which has a more elaborated way called “intermediate Chartres
notation” and can be studied in detail.
Just for the purpose of comparison one might have a look at folio 135 recto where are
written stichera idiomela for the feast of Saint Ann (SAV 679-680).
This notation came out of use by the mid-11th century, and Coislin notation was the
preferred notation, but there are rare examples of a “fully developed” form which has many
rows of notation.
2. Egypt and Palestine and the Coislin family
The Coislin notation has its name by the researcher Coislin who bought Old Byzantine
manuscripts. Those are now preserved under his name among the fonds grec of the National
Library of France. Oliver Strunk developed a classification in five steps (Coislin I-V), while
the more recent approach is an approximate distinction between an “archaic”, an “inter-
mediate” and a “fully developed” form, as far as it can be used according to a chronology of
the sources.
The genesis between tropologion, sticherarion and heirmologion can be studied by the
fragment of the Biblioteca Vallicelliana (I-Rv R32). The tropologion combines different
chant genres, on its first page there is a kontakion in echos tetartos ἐπεφάνης σήµερον which
was used as an avtomelon for the composition of another kontakion with one oikos-
prosomoion (girdle of the theotokos, here 2 July!) preceding acrostics about the seventh ode
Εἰκόνος χρυσῆς (echos devteros). In some parts of this fragment partly developed Coislin
notation has been added which allows to date this tropologion to the 11th century.
On folio 12 recto there is a sticheron οἱ ἐξ ἀκάρπων λαγόνων in echos plagios tetartos (SAV
679, Dormition of Ann, 25 July) which is in fact an elaborated idiomelon, the scribe might
have thought that its melody required some preparation. Especially the first two lines of a
preceding sticheron has neumes which look like an elaboration of “theta notation”. Also the
verso side is dedicated to the same feast with another notated idiomelon of the same echos

38 See the comparative study by Mariana Dimitrova (2006).

39 Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.04494.

18
 (SAV 680).
The next folio stems from a fully notated sticherarion (25 December, SAV 355-362) with
Middle Byzantine notation whose style seems very close to Chartres notation: the hypsile (ἡ
ὑψιλή) clearly resembles the psilon (τὸ ψιλὸν).
Nevertheless, despite of such “regionalism” among certain notators the Coislin notation has
obviously shown to be closer to the Middle Byzantine round notation. This can be observed
by the particular use of one sign which indicated a change to phthora nana: the later xeron
klasma (τὸ ξηρὸν κλάσµα) was originally a sign of the Coislin notation which helps with
respect to Old Byzantine notation not to confuse the Constantinpolitan Chartres with the
Sabaite and Egyptian Coislin notation. Chartres notation had only one sign zz for the nana
echema which followed sometimes the xeron klasma as a medial signature (not only in
Middle Byzantine notation, but already in later manuscripts notated with the Coislin type).
The bigger repertoire of signs in Middle Byzantine notation proves that it was somehow a
synthesis of both schools as far as the sticherarion is concerned, but with respect to the
heirmologion both schools were not just different in the way, how notators used notation,
they also provided a different way to understand the modal structure of the heirmoi.
A last interesting example might be a heirmologion of the Sinai collection (ET-MSsc Sinait.
gr. 929) which is a palimpsest of a former tropologion. It became at least half in size as the
original book. On folio 17 verso starts the second section of the heirmologion with all the
heirmoi composed in the (diatonic) echos devteros:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Heirmologion_from_Sinai.jpg
The heirmologion was organised according to ode order (OdO) which means that both
visible pages have only the first odes belonging to different canons. The first ode of the first
canon is ἐν βυθῷ κατέστρωσε ποτὲ and if we follow the apostrophoi which were used in
both families, we can only conclude that the early Coislin redaction started with a melos
beginning on the phthongos of the kyrios passing through the pentachord down to the
phthongos of the plagios. In the Constantinopolitan redaction of the 14th century, the melos
has a mesos echema and starts two steps lower on G:
http://ensembleison.de/publications/oktoichos/III/2/modell.htm#abb_229
Within the Sinai collection there is also a partly notated Syriac sticherarion from the 12th
century (ET-MSsc Sinait. syr. 261) which had developed out of the Syrian tropligin.40
Although the direction of Arabic script is right to left, the Coislin notation goes left to right
over each syllable.

1.4.2. The standard of Middle Byzantine sticheraria and heirmologia

The tropologion is the very long history which precedes the redaction of the standard abridged
sticherarion and heirmologion of the 14th century, a redaction which is as usual ascribed to Ioannes
Koukouzeles. The earlier Old Byzantine notation was originally distinguished according to the
geographic area where it was written. During the 12th century, it seems that Coislin notation
became rather a common preference of notators. Nevertheless, the heirmologion in its melodic
redaction developed differently within the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Jerusalem than in
Constantinople and on the Holy Mount Athos. These differences can well be studied in heirmologia
of the 12th and the 13th century, while the standard abridged version tried to harmonise between
both redactions.

40 See also the contributions about this source Husmann (1975) and Smelova (2011).

19
Concerning the sticherarion, the early books with Middle Byzantine Round notation offer a larger
repertoire of stichera41, while the scribes integrated Coislin as well as Chartres notation, so that
Middle Byzantine notation partly combined certain signs of both Old Byzantine types. The
redaction of the sticheraria in 14th-century Constantinople partly uniformed those stichera of the
standard repertoire, which means that certain melodic phrases were sometimes set into another
tetrachord as a kind of register change (which proves the importance of tetraphonia as the
predominating tone system which was based on fifth aequivalence). On the other hand, there are
many sticheraria whose notators did often offer an alternative version of the same melodic phrase,
which was written above in red ink.

1.5. The Slavonic reception and the Old Believers

The subject of an over-regional hymnography as it was established between the Patriarchates of
Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antiochia, became even more complex through its
reception and translation into other languages. Especially the early reception in Moravia and
Panonnia by Cyril’s and Methodius’ mission as Slavic apostels and a certain rivalry with concurring
missions caused many scholarly controversies, since there are hardly any sources dating back to
their days and the earliest sources often do not look as some scholars would like them to look. As an
example might serve the fragment known as the “Kievan missal” which proves that a reception and
translation of Greek hymnography was obviously not the only option, and the question remains
whose work does it represent.
Especially in the Northern Adriatic region where the Kievan missal was written, there are Slavonic
rites which also adapted to Latin customs. The question whether “East” or “West Rome” is too
simple to understand the local variety of the West Balkans, or even of Northern and Southern Italy.
There were several local rites already during the 12th century, Christians in Dalmatia had been
persecuted and violated as heretic Bogumiles by Western crusaders during Bernard de Clairvaux’s
crusade, although they were hardly Bogumiles. Dogmatic misunderstandings and intolerance were
already part of the history and they still are perceived as a scholarly challenge to understand the big
variety of local liturgical traditions in Europe, the Mediterranean and the Caucasus.
The earliest sources which are regarded as documents of Methodius’ difficult and failed mission in
Moravia which also involved two important protagonists among the students such as Clement of
Ohrid and Naum of Preslav, are the Glagolitic “euchologion sinaitikon” (ET-MSsc Sinait. slav. 37,
Et-MSsc Sinait. slav. 1/N) and lectionaries as the aprakos-lectionary (I-Rvat Vat. slav. 3) and the
Tetraevangelium Zographense (RUS-SPsc Glag. 1).42 The latter are regarded as a later copy of
Cyril’s and Methodius’ Slavonic translation of the Gospel and both sources prove that they went
into the footsteps of the Stoudites (the organisation of lesson cycles for the Triodion and a mixed
rite which combined Constantinopolitan with Hagiopolitan customs).

1.5.1. The evolution of znamennaya notation

The earliest liturgical of the Southern Slavic translation of Greek hymnography is “Iliya’s book”, a
manuscript which was very closely organised to a tropologion (RUS-Mda Fond 381 No. 131)—
and about 50% of its hymns correspond with the repertoire given by the earliest almost complete
Greek tropologion of the Sinai collection (ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. NE/MΓ 56+5).43 This tropologion
shows the typical preference for the Hagiopolitan rite, especially for the Sabaite contribution of the
school by Andrew of Crete, but not yet the practice of acrostics as it has been established by the

41 For the standard repertoire, see the permanently updated SAV list by Christian Troelsgård (2003).
42 For a list and a description of the Glagolitic sources, see Birnbaum & Schaeken (1999, 87-135).
43 About the history of research concerned with “Il’ina kniga” and its methodological problems, see Yuliya
Artamonova (2012).

20
menaion-tropologia of Theodore Stoudites and his brother Joseph.44 Hence, if this source was really
a later copy of a Southern Slavic tropologion or Oktoich used by Methodius and his students in
Moravia, it clearly proves a pre-Stoudite preference for this early period. But it remains
controversial, because the book also includes saints of the Kievan Rus such as Boris and Gleb…
Hence, the question is, whether parts of it were a copy of a kind of Southern Slavic tropologion
which would explain certain linguistic evidence (which attracted Svetlana Kujumdžieva to occupy
herself with the source as the earliest Byzantine South Slavic evidence), while other parts were
added by the scribe to adapt the book for a Northern use… Even E. M. Vereščagin had regarded it
as the “most ancient Russian-Slavonic source”, while he admitted that it “reflects the initial stage
adaptation of the South Slavic literary heritage in Rus”. It means, that both Slavic reception
histories in the first Bulgarian empire and within the territory of the Kievan Rus were not as
independent as it had been often assumed, but also that there is an evidence of an earlier reception
of the pre-Stoudite tropologion which preceded the latter’s organisation of the menaion, the fasten
and the flower triod. Note that this manuscript is organised as miney beginning with September, but
still without a separation from the movable feast cycle by another volume.
What makes “Iliya’s book” particular interesting for musicologists is the later added notation on
some of its pages. Especially, because it is not simply one kind of notation which has been added,
but the earliest notation (theta notation), early forms of znamennaya notation which obviously were
created by an early attempt to create an own Slavonic notation system in exchange with Coislin
notation, and there is also a more developed form of znamennaya notation:45
• another (ино) idiomelon for Epiphany (6 January, RUS-Mda Fond 381 No. 131, f. 109r) in
Glas 2 with theta notation;
• canon for the feast of Cross elevation in Glas 8 (14 September, f. 8v for instance) with
znamennaya notation (type A, golubchik type);
• avtomelon for St Catherine of Tyre in Glas 6 (24 July, f. 143r) with znamennaya notation
(type B), also the text of the translation was compared with the Tipografsky Ustav and later
versions of notated sticheraria.46
Since a precise musical notation developed late (except of very early papyrus fragments of the 3rd
century whose hymns had been provided with Alypian notation), it raises the question about the oral
tradition behind early Byzantine chant manuscripts, but also about the specifique philosophy of
those who did translate the original Greek texts into another language.47 It should be also noted that
Slavonic manuscripts without any musical notation dominated during the later centuries, although
its oral tradition has become more and more complex.48
The difference was that early translators, especially the literary school of Ohrid and Preslav had the
main concern to preserve the complex repertoire of avtomela and prosomoia, heirmoi and acrostics,
meaning the complex system of melodies created by the Stoudites and earlier composers in
Jerusalem, Constantinople and Sinai, while later translation like the one of the Kievan Cave
monastery (Pechersk Lavra) rather cared about new more literal translations of the hymns which
could result in the re-composition of its former melody. The earliest study which already mentions
the necessity to preserve the melodic system was Constantine Floros’ “Einführung in die
44 The first who pointed at this resemblance were Svetlana Kujumdžieva (2017) and Alexandra Nikiforova (2013).
45 Artamonova (2012, 24) classified these two kinds as “type A” and “type B”, the B type was obviously added by a
later hand—on the base of another comparison with the Tipografsky Ustav which used a type of notation with many
signs in common with respect to Old Byzantine notation.
46 Artamonova (2012, 28).
47 Troelsgård (2018).
48 As a Makedonian example I added a convolut of various books which was bound together with a psalter (MK-SKu
Ms.19). In fact it has a časolov (liturgical texts), a miney, the triods and the whole akatist morning service and
included everything what a community or its tipikar needed (see also my description of the Skopje collection).

21
Neumenkunde” and this hypothesis was approved by the recent edition in Bonn, which separates
the edition of znamenny neumes from the one of its texts.49
According to a simplified concept one might say that there are (similar to the composition of this
lecture) two Slavonic receptions:
• the one of the monastic chant based on znamennaya notation;
• the one of the cathedral rite based on Kondakarian notation (reserved to town cathedrals and
parochial churches).
In the same simplified way the former reception is regarded as the Slavic reception of the Stoudites
hymnography (which has basically two or three centres):
1. Constantinople and the Stoudios Monastery corresponding to early chant books (sticheraria
and heirmologia) with the Old Byzantine notation classified as “Chartres”;
2. Mar Saba at Bethlehem (Patriarchate of Jerusalem) and Saint Catherine’s Monastery at the
Mount Sinai (Patriarchate of Alexandria) corresponding to the same genres of chant books
with Old Byzantine notation classified as “Coislin”.
Interesting enough mainly the exchange and relation between znamennaya notation and the Coislin
family has been emphasised, probably because it became the dominating notation system during the
13th century before Middle Byzantine notation established as the new universal notation system,
like with the first samoglasen of miney наста въходъ.
About this time we find fully notated manuscripts like stichirar and irmolog with znamennaya
notation (see for instance the notated stichirar which has the first part of the miney until hypapante,
when the triodion was intermitted: RUS-Mda Fond 381 No.152, 12th century). In a certain way
RUS-Mda Fond 381 No.147 with the Fasten and Flower triod is the continuation. It is evident that
this form is close to the concept of a miney which contains the idiomela of the stichirar, the
samopodni (avtomela) with their podobni (prosomoia), but also the canons of the irmosi (heirmoi)
and their acrostics as podobni. The unnotated miney are more common then the notated, and the
separation of canons as a notated irmolog is rare, but always organised according to the ode order
(see RUS-Mda Fond 381 No.150). The notated miney was called miney služebnaya, like the
Sofiysky Sobor of Novgorod:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Menaion_12Ru.jpg
In general, and this is true also for the Bonn edition of miney (including the books of the
sticherarion and the heirmologion), most Slavonic sources studied so far are preserved in Russia, so
that there is only left to discuss a possible Southern provenance like in case of the so-called “Iliya’s
book”.
Only recently more Balkan collections had been studied and it should be said that most of sources
are of later date and usually without any musical notation.50
Further on, the journal “Bulgarian musicology” (Българско музикознание) recently published

49 See Constantin Floros (1980). The later edition was realised by Dagmar Christians and other Slavistic scholars
(beginning with December, not with September, including idiomela and prosomoia of the sticherarion and and the
kanones of the heirmologion, but separated according to the ode order, 2001 forthcoming) and provide enough
evidence, that also the earlier notated chant books of the Kievan Rus are still suitable to approve Floros’ hypothesis.
On the other hand, other scholars like Svetlana Poliakova (2009) emphasised a later need to replace the older
translations with focus of activities at the Kievan Cave Lavra.
50 This is definitely true for the interesting collection of the National and University Library of Skopje, which has
published many of its sources online. Right now only those reproductions published at wikimedia.com are available,
because the homepage of the Skopje Library has removed the reproductions so that we are only left with its
descriptions. It was probably published temporarily to get a feedback by informed scholars.

22
systematic descriptions of notated Byzantine sources preserved in various collections of different
Balkan countries. Asen Atanasov has published an article about “musical manuscripts in Ohrid and
Tirana” and also discussed earlier descriptions by other scholars. Also here notated manuscripts are
usually those in Greek and it proves the persistence of the Greek rite also in Slavonic areas between
Ohrid and the Adriatic coast (note that Albanian is not a Slavonic language, but Slavonic always
existed as a prominent minority language among the population of Albania). Interesting enough the
Old Byzantine notation of these sources belongs to the Coislin family and in both cases (Ohrid, Ms.
39 developed Coislin notation around 1200 & Sofia, Central State Archive, Rizov F 1650k/op4/3
undeveloped Coislin of the 11th century) the notator used red ink to add neumes to the book.51

1.5.2. The Russian reforms of the 17th century and its opposition
Already under influence of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra (“Cave Lavra”) the hymn texts had been re-
translated (to grasp the meaning of the Greek hymns better) and thus moved further away from the
melodic system of the Greek heirmoi and avtomela during the 14th century. In parts the process
required a re-composition of former melodies. Plenty of liturgical manuscripts had been written
without any notation, so that this process often remained hidden for readers today within an
unknown oral transmission of the past.
Later during the 16th century, several traditions had been established, there was still a tradition
znamenny raspev which somehow continued the early (Old Byzantine) tradition of znamennaya
notation on the base of neume lists (so-called azbuki “alphabets”) which renamed the signs since the
mid 15th century (6 are believed to date back to the period after the fall of Constantinople, about 40
had been dated to the 16th century). Thus, they became now called kryukovoye pis’mo (“hook-like
sign writing”) and the notation was often called kryuki notation. The azbuki sources do neither agree
concerning the names nor concerning the meaning of the neumes. Similar to late Byzantine and the
Ottoman continuation of psaltic art, there established a rather independent style known as anenayki
(a Russian expression for nenanismata). During the 16th century it became known as bol’shoy
raspev (“great chant”) whose centre had moved from Novgorod (for example identified with the
Blagoveščensky Kondakar of the 12th century) to Moscow. Even Ivan the Terrible who ruled
between 1533 and 1584, was known to be very enthusiastic about bol’shoy raspev that even two
compositions are believed to be his own works, and he moved singers from Novgorod to the
imperial chapel of Moscow. Ivan the Terrible and his court did even invent an own tradition and
notation known as Kazan’ raspev, but nothing is known about it today.
Next to bol’shoy and znamenny raspev there was a third tradition called demestvenny raspev whose
name derived from the title demestvenniki of educated singers (known in Greek as domestikoi
originally a Byzantine military title which was used for the leaders of the right choir). It referred to
the institution of the Russian Patriarchate which had been founded in Moscow in 1589. The process
of professionalisation was accompanied by extensive melodic formulas which became associated
with neumes known as popevki which became collected in own manuscripts (similar to the
Byzantine methods like Mega Ison) known as fitnik (from fita, the Slavonic name of theta) or
kokiznik (from kokiza). Opposed to bol’shoy raspev was another abridged style to sing traditional
melodies known as malїy raspev (“small chant”). They were other local styles Kiyevskiy raspev also
known as bolgarskiy raspev, since Bulgarian singers of the 19th century also did identify with the
local tradition of multipart singing associated with the Ukrainian region. Greek singers under the
Tsar or phanariotes who learnt in Constantinople, followed the living tradition of the ekphonetic
patriarchal style which was called in Russian grecheskiy raspev.
These different styles and their various ways to interpret the tradition of znamenny or of Byzantine
chant, was also accompanied with a current practice to pronounce the silent vowels of the Cyrillic

51 Atanasov (2012).

23
alphabet. The resulting deformation of words provoked a first reform about 1600 around a singer
from Novgorod (and probably also from Moscow) Ivan Shaydur. Shaydur invented an own letter
system which were written in red colour next to the notation to specify its meaning, and these letters
referred to a triphonic tone system which was organised in four trichords (“simple”, “dark”, “light”,
“three times light”) divided by a two whole tones and related among each other by a half tone. Until
today some scholars do believe that this tone system was the basis of znamennaya notation and
traditional music since the Kievan Rus, since its earliest use documented by the Tipografsky Ustav
and the so-called Iliya’s book (about 1100).
For a heirmologion of this time, see the Irmolog of Karelia which was preserved by Old Believers
(RUS-PZ National Library of Karelia at Petrozavodsk) which has parts of the 16th, the 17th and
early 18th centuries and its contemprary forms of notation.
Since the reform notation was not accepted by all singers and caused several problems among
copyists who had to prepare the new print editions of liturgical books, a second reform by
Aleksandr Mezenets became necessary in 1670 which was in fact partly caused by conflicts with a
singer of the late 16th century who refused Shaydur’s notation and who was even regarded by
certain musicologist as the “inventor” of the bol’shoy raspev: Fyodor Khristianin. The reform was
opposed to the practice of protraction, a melismatic style which forced singers to sing a sequence of
hymns at the same time. Since the 1650s also practices of multipart singing had been discussed,
which had already developed since the 16th century. The preferences of the Patriarchate, also for a
kind multipart singing in demestvenny raspev, caused disagreements between the Russian church
with schismatic groups who opposed to the patriarchal reforms. They became known as “Old
Believers”.
The reform itself, Mezenets and his commission, had to deal as well with the “deformed”
pronunciation of the text as with the (too expanded) music. The main concern of the reformer were
the preservation of neume notation by re-establishing the text and the “proper meaning” of the
neumes, after the red colour of the added letters was abandoned for its first print publication which
was published in 1772. Finally, the Old Believers did transmit this simplified neume notation until
the 20th century, while the Patriarchate adapted soon to a new trend in Poland and Ukraine (the
Habsburgian crown land Galicia) to favour Kievan staff notation for their print editions.52 Until the
18th century both notations were still accepted, only monastic communities still insisted on the use
of neumes and certain sects who became polemic that the Russian church converted with its use of
staff notation to catholicism, while they did preserve the true principles of Orthodoxy. Nevertheless,
also the insistence on monodic chant and neumes could prevent Older Believers to adapt to
multipart forms of singing.

1.6. Multipart models of vocal recitation

1.6.1. Slavonic traditions

Confronted with the living tradition, there are many forms of multipart singing and different
imaginations, how these forms might have developed during the history of church music.
Unfortunately, this lecture can only refer to more complete summaries of the local history.53
According to Jopi Harri the earliest evidence for multipart singing in Russian church music can be
related to the practice of the St. Sophia cathedral of Velikiy Novgorod during 1540s: the so-called
“Strochny polyphony” (Uspensky’s concept of 16th-century popular polyphony) which was

52 About the Joan Juhasevič’s edition of the irmolog published in Lemberg (Lviv), see Mária Prokipčáková (2015).
53 Harri (2012), Poliakova (2009), Gardner (1980).

24
documented in put’ notation.54 He also refers to the probably slightly earlier practice of
demestvenny polyphony.55
Especially Ensemble Sirin in Moscow specialised in the field demestvenny razpev and revealed a
kind of practice which treats the fifth-second trichord as a perfect harmony (corresponding to the
fifth-fourth harmony making up an octave, only the fourth can be found within the pentachord).
Here an example set over the Old Slavonic kekragarion “Gospodi vozzvah” (vesper psalm, Ps 140)
in Glas 1:
http://www.ensembleison.de/publications/organum/klang/sirin.mp3
Jopi Harri also refers to an oral tradition of multipart singing (similar to the Western practice of
local falsobordone styles sung over monophonic chant books), while mentioning that an earlier
more complex practice of a so-called partesny style seemed to have ceased by the end of the 18th
century.
He also quotes a report by D. Solov’ev dating back to 1887-1888, mentioning the pre-revolutionary
practice of harmonic multipart singing of the Northern Valaam Monastery in Karelia.56 Members of
Ensemble Sirin also reconstructed local harmonisations of the Kievan Cave Lavra:
Ex. “Sede Adam”
Kievan Cave Monastery (Female choir of Ensemble Sirin):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9czNo8jPTE
Valaamskiy razpev (Male choir “Pravoslavniye pevčie”):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3PDKWWxPB0
A comparison with the living tradition of Valaam multipart shows that the current practice still fits
to Solov’ev’s description.57
Apart from this simple local and rather orally based traditions, there are also many academic
arrangements of multipart singing which should be mentioned here, like Alexander Kastalsky’s or
Grigory L’vovsky’s arrangements to sing the cherubim chant in multipart.58 There are also related
Ukrainian concepts of multipart singing which had became also popular in Bulgaria under the name
“Bolgarsky razpev”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNUMXVDEYJo
Or another multipart version of the Romanian nun convent Cămârzani:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfgkvA8-9Qs
Jopi Harri also mentions a Galician practice described by Porfiry Bažan’skiy, teacher at the
Seminary of L’viv, referred to three-part singing of irmoi as “jerusalimka” and a seven-part singing
for the divine liturgy.59
He also mentions that certain reforms and notations were never accepted by local communities who
became soon characteristed as “Old Believers” who are definitely appreciated by
ethnomusicologists, since they tried to preserve older layers as well within the oral, but also within
the written transmission. They do exist in the Western (Poland, Lithuania) as well as in the Eastern
54 Harri (2012, 45 ex. 1.1.1.1).
55 Harri (2012, 46 ex. 1.1.1.2).
56 Harri (2012, 62 note 103). Listen also to recordings published by the Valaam Monastery at youtube.
57 See the links in the subsection Valaam Monastery within the section “Russian and Ukrainian tradition”.
58 See Old Church Slavonic examples in the article cherubikon of English wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherubikon.
59 Harri (2012, 62 note 107).

25
territory of Northern Slavic chant (Russia, Ukraine).

1.6.2. Georgian church music

Some cases of multipart singing are more complex like the various local traditions of Georgian
church music. During the 19th century, a political alliance with the Tsarist Empire (the treat of
Giorgievsk in 1801) was particular destructive. Although Georgian church music has a rather
independent history from Byzantium, the patriarchate of Tbilisi was forced in 1811 to abandon
avtocephaly in favour of the Russian synode and its own tradition of church music: Georgian was
forbidden as liturgical language and the divine services had to be celebrated according to the official
Russian multipart tradition based on Old Church Slavonic. During this period, when there was
already a revival in Eastern Georgia (Kartli-Karkheti) under King Erekle II who convocated bishops
and higumenoi of East Georgia to install new schools for singers, most protagonists of it had
already died. Under heir influence the “Karbelaant kilo” (“Karbela’s way” as a kind of pedagogic
style to prepare church singers for the “sada kilo”, true way, and the “gamshvenebuli kilo”, the
coloured way) was established by the singer Petre Karbela (born 1754) at the court and associated
to the Svetitskhoveli Cathedral in Mtskheta (Northwest of Tbilisi). Due to the oppression by the
Russian church, the Georgian tradition moved away from the conservatories as well as from the
monasteries, so that this tradition remained among the clans of important master-singers who had
preserved the local traditions over many generations (the Dumbadze clan, for instance, can be
traced back to the 17th century at the school of the Shemokmedi Monastery situated at the Guria
region not far from the Black sea coast).
According to Georgian historiography the golden age of Georgian church music was between the
10th and 13th century, between the New Iadgari and the Gelati academy founded near the historical
capital Kutaisi. The referent for an ancient tradition of multipart singing was based on a
philosophical comment by Ioane Petritsi, a monk at the Petritsoni Monastery at Bačkovo (nowadays
in the Rhodope mountains of Bulgaria) who became, at least according to his vita composed during
the 18th century, the first director of the Gelati academy in 1108.60 In his comment Ioane Petritsi
mentioned three-part singing and compared it with the Holy Trinity. The official doctrine was that
the practice of multipart singing existed since the 11th century, while there are Georgian
musicologists like Tamaz Gabisonia who rather regarded this tradition as a later impact of Georgian
folk traditions of multipart singing. Prince Ioane Bagrationi (1768-1830) mentioned a practice of
six-part singing which was an elaborated form of the traditional three-part singing, but he also
mentioned the decline of this tradition, so that it only existed recently as three-part-singing. By the
middle of the 19th century, Georgian patriots published public appels to transcribe the Georgian
church music, before it was too late.
Several musicians and composers, also from Russia, moved to Georgia to preserve the local
traditions, among them was the famous Georgian opera bass Pilimon Koridze who had made his
career at the Scala of Milan. He got engaged at the recently founded opera house of Tbilisi known
as “Karavanserei theatre” until it burned down (1847-1874). In 1884 the bishop Gabriel officially
authorised Koridze to transcribe the polyphonic tradition of Georgian church music. Between 1885
and 1886 he already transcribed 500 pieces under observance of Anton Dumbadze who was a kind
of main referent of West-Georgian chant (identified with the Gurian tradition, not only church
music, so that the school of the local Shemokmedi Monastery was simply called “Dumbadze’s
way”). The very heart of the transcription movement was the publisher Maxime Sharadze.61 Under
his influence a new system of typography was established (since nothing like it had ever existed in
Georgia) supported by Ilia Chavchavadze and Alexander Khakhanashvili (who realised the first
60 In fact nothing is known about Ioane Petristsi’s life and current linguistic and philosophical studies believe that the
real Ioane Petritsi had lived 100 years later than commonly assumed.
61 John Graham (2007) dedicated an own essay just to him.

26
editions between 1892 and 1895), he encouraged the young Estate Kereselidze to found a new
brotherhood for the revival of Georgian church music which was called the “cabinet”. They were
taught by Melkisedek Nakashidze, one of Anton Dumbadze’s students. Estate also published about
Pilimon Koridze’s work and informed the interested public about his exchanges with the last
important singers of church music. Between 1902 and 1909 the first five historical recordings could
be made in Kutaisi and in Tbilisi.62
The problem with Koridzes work was that he did it in a great rush and he did only transcribe the
lead voice, but when he died in 1911, about more than 5000 pieces had been transcribed by him.
The transcription movement ended with Sharadze’s early and unexpected death in 1908. Everything
was left to the responsibility of the still young Estate Kereselidze, who became monk at the Gelati
Monastery in 1911 under the name Father Ekvtime.
After an unpleasant fight with another publisher Spiridon Losaberidze who claimed the rights for
Koridze’s transcriptions (nine volumes, now preserved under the signature: Tibilisi, NCM, Ms. H-
154), Father Ekvtime could make copies of Koridze’s transcription within three systems, so that the
other two missing voices could be added by other master-singers (sruligalobeli) (NCM, Mss. Q-
687–Q-690).
He made a contract with Razhden Khundadze who once sang in a trio together with Ivliane Tsereteli
and Dimitri Chalaganidze for Pilimon Koridze. But Father Ekvtime did not like Father Razhden’s
homophonic realisations where the second voice always followed the first in parallel thirds. He
asked another singer Ivliane Nikoladze, a student of Pilimon Koridze, to revise Father Razhden’s
work.63 Only a small part, probably just 10% of Koridze’s transcriptions, had been reconstructed in
all three parts called tkma, modzakhili and bani. During the communist period Father Ekvtime left
Gelati in 1923 and he was hiding as an ill man with help of local nuns and monks at Mtskheta (near
Tbilisi) who looked after him. Father Ekvtime feared that state officers would confiscate those
volumes prepared by him and ordered according to the liturgies and a menaion of about 12 feasts,
and other chant sung during weddings and funerals. Only in 1936, two state archivists could gain
his confidence and they were surprised to find the whole work of the transcription movement which
was already believed of being lost forever. Both were killed during the political revisions in 1937,
but officially declared as “missing”. Then after the second world war the last recordings were made
of the last generation of church singers with Dimitri Patarava, Varlam Simonishvili and Artem
Erkomaishvili at the State Conservatory of Tbilisi in 1949. Another recording was made 1966 by
Artem Erkomaishvili who was already forced to sing all the three parts alone, since no-one was left
who could sing with him. Artem was student of Melkisedek Nakashidze who had been taught by
Anton Dumbadze, so all these singers belonged to the West Georgian school of the Shemokmedi
Monastery in Guria.64
Only recently choirs like the Anchiskhati church choir which is associated to the Patriarchate of
Tbilisi, but also other ensembles such as Ialoni, Basiani, Agsavali, Didgori, Mama Daviti choir, and
Shavnaba tried to make their own editions based on the given material and try harder to present the
different local traditions such as the schools of Gelati, Martvili, and Shemokmedi monasteries for
West Georgia and of Davit Garegi, Iqalto, and Tsveti-Tskhoveli monasteries for East Georgia, as
they could have been preserved by the transcription movement.65

62 One can listen to them at John Graham’s homepage: http://www.georgianchant.org/music/archival.html.

63 Graham (2012).
64 Handwritings and recordings have been published by the conservatory: http://www.alazani.ge/old-archives-Artem-
Erkomaishvilis-Sagaloblebi-folk-songs-ans59.html?georgian-folklore. Another team of researchers around Frank
Scherbaum published automatic transcriptions of these recordings under this address: https://www.audiolabs-
erlangen.de/resources/MIR/2017-GeorgianMusic-Erkomaishvili.
65 Please listen to some of the links given for recordings of the Georgian tradition.

27
2. The rite of the Asma and its reception history
Concerning the books of the Asma, the kontakarion for the monophonaris who recited from the
ambo, and the asmatikon for the domestikos who prepared the choir and directed it with
cheironomies, we have only one asmatikon in authentic notation which had been written late, during
the 14th century (GR-KA 8). Thanks to it there is an authorised transcription into Byzantine round
notation.
The earliest sources are in fact the Slavonic kondakar written during the 12th century, the asmatika
and kontakaria were written in peripheral monasteries, especially on the island of Patmos, on
Mount Athos, Sinai and in Italy during 12th and the 15th centuries.
Nevertheless, the history of the cathedral rite can be reconstructed by theological manuscripts
(especially typika and euchologia), by historical studies, and by archeological findings which allow
us to follow changes in sacred architecture concerning the Constantinopolitan rite which was wide-
spread throughout the Balkans.

2.1. John Chrysostom and the first Hagia Sophia

Like in all metropoles of the Mediterranean (Rome, Milan, Carthago, Alessandria, Jerusalem,
Antiochia, Damascus), urban monasticism had a strong impact on the new churches of the declared
state religion, and this innovation was concerned about the psalter and psalmody, the recitation of
psalms during the daily divine services. The older practice to recite the canticles was continued, but
within most traditions both collections were included in the psalter.
John Chrysostom revised (abridged) the formulary of Saint Basil which the latter created for
Antiochia. Concerning philological studies the Holy Anaphora must be regarded as the oldest layer
and the very heart of the eucharist service which can be attributed to Saint Basil and its basic
principle was that the Sanctus was sung in alternation by two choirs.1 Soon there was a first
scriptural part which was open to non-Christian visitors who seeked a conversion to the Christian
faith, the so-called “katechoumenoi” (those who asked to be baptised). As long as they had not been
converted, they were not allowed to join the second part. Both parts were organised in a parallel
way, the central ritual act of the Anaphora was the eucharist and the corresponding act of the
katechoumenoi part were the scriptural readings, usually epistles and Gospels.2
Soon, the epistle was preceded by a soloistic psalm (which became later called prokeimenon) and
the gospel was introduced by a psalm with an alleluia troparion (later called allelouiarion), while
the Holy communion after the eucharist was followed by the recitation of a psalm, the so-called
koinonikon (communion chant).
The main function of the early cathedral was mass baptism, it needed a baptistery which was in its
earliest form a fountain or bassin in an atrium (a kind of court yard on the West side of the church,
whose entrance part was called “narthex”). The narthex was a space with large doors or openings to
the central building, because katechoumenoi were only allowed to the narthex, so that they could
listen to the readings on the ambo (a kind of higher pulpit which was almost in the very centre of
the Hagia Sophia, but slightly closer to the altar screen). Within the central building there was a
second separation to the vema, a sanctuary which was separated by a kind altar or choir screen (the
later iconostasis became never in use concerning many traditional cathedrals of the Poleis, it was
their way to stick to the tradition of the Constantinopolitan rite).
While John Chrysostom was Archbishop, the relation between the Emperor Arkadios and the

1 Winkler (2005).
2 If there was a eucharist OT reading was controversially discussed between Sysse Engberg (2016) and Robert Taft.

28
Empress Evdokia escalated, since the bishop Chrysostom continued to criticise the imperial family
for their conduct which was not according to Christian principles. The last time John was banned to
Armenia in 404, but he was too old to make his way, so that he died on his way to exile. His case
provoked an upriot in Constantinople during which the building of the senate and the first church of
the Hagia Sophia were burnt down.

2.2. Romanos Melodos and the inauguration of the third Hagia Sophia
Another upriot known as the Nika riots (532) involved theological dogmas. Emperor Justinian, the
nephew of Justin I, was forced to decide to leave Constantinople or to face a massacre at the
Hippodrome, because he had to ask military forces to end a kind of civil war. It should be said that
Justin I arranged with the Athanasian symbol in order to make his way to the throne, because he did
just a military career without belonging to the aristocracy of the Polis. Later, the movement became
less powerful, but still under his nephew Justinian there were many followers in powerful positions
and Justinian dared to oppose them for several reasons. The hippodrome was basically a stadion for
chariot races which were divided between different parties and its colours, Nika was one of them
and it happened to be that this particular team and its followers identified with dogmatic questions
in opposition to Justinian.
During the Nika riots a whole quarter around the imperial palace had been burnt down, including
important places of imperial ceremonies such as the second Hagia Sophia and the Hippodrome.3 At
the end there was a huge empty space next to the palace, and Emperor Justinian asked two
architects Anthimos of Tralles and Isidore of Milet to fill it with a monumental building of a church
which had never been before in the history of architecture: the Hagia Sophia as it is known today.
Of course, there was no experience, how much time it would take to build such a monumental
building and even in that case Emperor Justinian insisted very rigidly to stay within the agreed plan
for the inauguration. Recent archaeological evidence found out, that certain constructions around
the dome had been added after the inauguration and had to be added in order to stabilise the whole
construction from outside. A closer look at the columns which are still there until today, reveal that
they were too weak for the weight they had to carry, most of them got deformed. On the other hand,
the rough brickwork which had huge layers to fill the gaps between the brickstone have proved over
the centuries as a successful antiseismic construction method, because Constantinople is a place
regularly shaken by earthquakes which connect a tectonic line between the island of Santorini,
central Italy etc. with the volcanic landscape between Naples and the volcanic islands of the
Aeolian group in the North of Sicily.
Unfortunately, this was not true for the first dome construction which fell down some decades later
during the first heavier earthquake. It means that during the inauguration the building could hardly
have made an appearance of a safe construction, the rendering must have gushed down during the
ceremony.
Even more interesting is Justinian’s commission of the well-known kontakion “On earthquakes and
conflagration” that was composed by Romanos the Melode. Johannes Koder assumed that it was
first celebrated during Great Lent in 537, but a second time during the official inauguration of the
Hagia Sophia on 27 December 537.4
The propaganda of this kontakion obviously aimed to reunify the population under Justinian’s
rulership by an official declaration that the experience of war, earthquakes, famines and plagues
were divine punishments to guide them back to the rightful Emperor and his predestined rulership

3 For the ceremonial of Byzantium see Reiske’s edition of “De ceremoniis” (περὶ τῆς βασιλείου τάξεως “On imperial
ceremonies”) ascribed to Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos (1829).
4 Koder (2008).

29
(Romanos, H.54.18):5
Ὑπὸ µὲν τούτων τῶν δεινῶν κατείχετο ἡ πόλις καὶ θρῆνον εἶχε µέγα·
Θεὸν οἱ δεδιότες χεῖρας ἐξέτεινον αὐτῷ
ἐλεηµοσύνην ἐξαιτοῦντες παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν κακῶν κατάπαυσιν·
σὺν τούτοις δὲ εἰκότως ἐπηύχετο καὶ ὁ βασιλεύων
ἀναβλέψας πρὸς τὸν πλάστην—σὺν τούτῳ δὲ σύνευνος ἡ τούτου—
«Δός µοι βοῶν, σωτήρ, ὡς καὶ τῷ Δαυίδ σου
τοῦ νικῆσαι Γολιάθ· σοὶ γὰρ ἐλπίζω·
σῶσον τὸν πιστὸν λαόν σου ὡς ἐλεήµων,
οἶσπερ καὶ δώσῃς ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον.»

The city was buried beneath these horrors and cried in great sorrow.
Those who feared God stretched their hands out to him,
begging for compassion and an end to the terror.
Reasonably, the emperor—and his empress—were in these ranks,
their eyes lifted in hope toward the Creator:
“Grant me victory,” he said, “just as you made David
victorious over Goliath. You are my hope.
Rescue, in your mercy, your loyal people
and grant them eternal life.”

The word “pistoi” (the baptised) also indicated in this context loyalty to the Emperor, and thus
excluded all those who now did receive their bad fate as a divine punishment, also God is
traditionally addressed with devotion as “Saviour”, also in connection with earthquakes (but
according to Romanos’ propaganda of the kontakion he did only save those who were close to
Justinian as the rightful emperor). Similar functions like the protection against earthquakes had
stichera dedicated to the feast of Saint Demetrios. Also he was conventionally addressed as a kind
of protecting saint against wars and earthquakes.
It was probably the first time in political history that an imperial order of a massacre carried out by
armed forces was compared to the situation of David in front of the giant Goliath. Romanos
obviously did compose propaganda commissioned by the emperor and in connection of the new and
very unconventional building he had ordered as the new third cathedral which followed the second
one, the re-construction of the first cathedral which was destroyed during the upriot caused by the
violent death of bishop Chrysostomos.
For music history the manifold function of the genre kontakion is relevant, it usually was connected
with a liturgical roll and the ambo and also with the cycle of immovable and movable feasts, but the
exact celebration was not fixed.6 There was the exceptional role of the akathistos hymnus as a kind
of celebration for victories, which was usually “read” or “said” in Blachernae chapel near the wall
and outside the usual places of celebration like the Hagia Sophia cathedral and the imperial palace.
This kontakion was obviously explicitly composed for the inauguration of the third Hagia Sophia
and therefore its place was the Hagia Sophia, probably even more than with respect to any other
kontakion, although it was very unlikely that it was repeated many times there due to the very
precise circumstances of its creation.
From a musicological point, nothing can be really said about its musical form during the time of
Romanos, of course, due to the freedom of a homiletic genre, the understanding of the message was
obviously important, and it can be also said, that the creation of the tropologion by Severus of
Jerusalem in the Patriarchate of Antiochia and its importance for the development of the local
liturgy at the Patriarchate of Jerusalem were obviously opposed to Constantinople, also for
theological reasons, partly also as a kind of anti-propaganda against the Constantinopolitan rite and
the official attitude to dogmatic questions concerning monophysitism. One should also bare in mind
5 Quotation according Koder (2008, 281 note 46).
6 Floros (1960), Lingas (1995).

30
that the heirmologic poetry was a homiletic genre like the kontakion, but based on a very complex
ode meter, although these odes referred in content to the first 9 cantica (biblical odes taken from the
old testament which were usually added to the psalter). For the Stoudites of the 9th century must be
said, that they did not refuse the genre kontakion, they even wrote own kontakaria quoting just one
or two oikoi (as the stanzas of a kontakion were called) for each kontakion of the classical repertoire
and continued the genre with own contributions as a kind of syllabic troparion which was purely
liturgical. Thus, they went somehow in the footsteps of the John Chrysostom who usually converted
pagan traditions not by suppressing them, but by fragmentising them and ordering them according
to a new context.7
On the musical side, such an antagonism is still present in the so-called “Hagiopolites”-treatise
which was obviously created in the Constantinople of the Stoudites (9th century), where the
Hagiopolitan oktoechos (4 kyrioi, 4 plagioi, 2 phthorai sometimes also called mesoi) is opposed to
the system sixteen echoi of the Asma (4 kyrioi, 4 plagioi, 4 mesoi and 4 phthorai), especially
because some paragraphs paraphrases passages taken from the acts of the oktoechos synod of 692
which are polemics against certain echoi used in Constantinople.
The source problem of musicologists is that there is not even one source of a kontakarion in original
notation. The earliest sources dating back to the 12th century are the Slavonic kondakar written
within the territory of the Kievan Rus (which are based on a system of 12 glasov and written in an
own system of notation), but its notations seems to be very close to the Kontakarion notation of a
14th century manuscripts which transcribes whole cheironomies in groups of neumes known as
Middle Byzantine round notation. The earliest Greek asmatika and kontakaria had been written one
century later in Italy and on the Holy Mount Athos, but not in kontakarion notation, but transcribed
into the oktoechos notation of the monastic hymn book sticherarion. It is obvious that these books
were in content identical (unlike the Slavic kondakar), but obviously written down in the wrong
notation due to the monastic scriptoria of Athos and Italy.

2.3. Changes in sacred architecture and the creation of the cherouvikon

Another important change with a strong impact of a liturgical reform was not connected with the
third Hagia Sophia, but caused decades after its construction due to new changes in the way, how
Orthodox churches should be constructed. Two rooms close to the vema, the pastophoria (two
separated rooms called diakonikon on the right and prothesis on the left) offered only access from a
space before the vema and created a necessity for the procession of the gifts, since they had to be
consecrated in the room of the prothesis.
It caused that the divine liturgies needed a processional troparion which is known as the Great
Entrance at the beginning of the second part following the scriptural lessons, and in Constantinople
the abbreviated form of Basil’s liturgy ascribed to John Chrysostom was celebrated and its troparion
was the cherouvikon. Its text was ascribed to Emperor Justin II.
This procession has very different ritual acts which had to be done simultaneously.8
As an ordinary chant it had to be sung with each celebration of the divine liturgy of Saint John
Chrysostom, but the original cherouvikon asmatikon just existed in one echos (a kind of mesos
devteros or plagios devteros), the first papadic oktoechos cycle was created very late by Manuel
Chrysaphes by the end of the Byzantine empire.

7 A particular evidence for this process is provided by the Sinai collection which I will also discuss here as a monastic
reception of the Byzantine rite.
8 Moran (1977).

31
2.4. The melismatic style within the asmatikon and the kontakarion
This explains, why even the earliest asmatika (dating not earlier than to 13th century) contain
different arrangements for the same cherouvikon asmatikon, often rubrics did already mention the
name who did this arrangement.
What exactly did convince scholars of Byzantine history to date the appearance of a melismatic
style in Constantinople back to the 9th century? Why not earlier?
The answer is that especially the 9th century (the period of the second crisis of iconoclasm) is
dominated by chronicles which had been written in favour of iconodules and influenced by the very
ambitious projects the Stoudites who try to establish Hagiopolitan customs as well in
Constantinople and in opposition to iconoclastic Emperors.9 These sources need to be studied with
respect to their very particular point of view, raising certain questions such as:
• Was the cathedral rite of the earlier centuries really so modest and just syllabic or
pneumatic, since we do not have any sources provided with musical notation?
• The Stoudites reform did obviously not oppose to the melismatic form and its genres, in that
case what was really new and inasmuch could their ambitious plans be fulfilled in practice
and since when did it become possible?
• With respect to the mixed rite as it was created after the return of the Patriarchate and the
Court from exile during the 1260s10, how much was the symbiosis already done by the
Stoudites after the second crisis of iconoclasm was finally over?
• What was the particular contribution of the so-called Makedonian Renaissance under
Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos during the 10th and 11th centuries?
Since we have no evidence about fully notated sources dating back to the 9th century (because
notation was only used randomly in Western as well as in Eastern liturgical books), part of the
answers can be only given by comparative studies about relationships between Mediterranean
centres of Christian worship, especially between Thessalonica, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Rome
and Milan.

2.4.1. The evidence in comparison with Jerusalem

Much has been already said in the first part of this handout, that the monastic book tropologion was
a highly relevant source for the local cathedral rite of Jerusalem, so that the antagonism between
cathedral rite (Constantinople) and monastic hymnography (Jerusalem) does in fact make no sense
for many local traditions, definitely not for Jerusalem and as consequence also not for those rites
which were strongly oriented to the same Patriarchate and to the one of Antioch, such as Georgia
and Armenia. Obviously one monastery Mar Saba was particular important, since it changed also
the local rite of Jerusalem, often understood (and simpilfied) as the divine liturgy of Saint James.
Recent studies of Georgian Iadgari and Greek tropologia have been very successful to find a deeper
understanding of this local tradition.
The Stoudites’ orientation towards Jerusalem was motivated by the historical fact, that especially
Theodore the Stoudite was regularly forced into exile during the second crisis of iconoclasm and he
obviously also wished to change the traditional cathedral rite towards a monastic direction, but
nevertheless, a rather representative one which did obviously not exclude melismatic genres of
chant, especially prokeimena in connection with Old testament readings which was also a central
genre during Great Vespers, a Hagiopolitan custom which was obvously imported from the

9 About the Stoudites and post-Studite tradition of Constantinople, see Lingas (2013) and Wolfram (1995).
10 Wolfram (1993).

32
cathedral rite of Jerusalem.11

2.4.2. The evidence in comparison with Rome

There is historical evidence that the relationship between Rome and Constantinople has been a kind
of love/hate-relationship since Pope Gregory the Great who had been earlier an important Roman
diplomat in Constantinople. Unfortunately, a very similar attitude which lacks a neutral point of
view, can be also found among many scholars occupied with Roman chant, especially one of its
finest experts James McKinnon. On the other hand, it was him who established central questions,
how to trace back earlier layers of melismatic chant by asking for further evidence about the
presence of an educated congregation of singers and soloists among them (apart from the later
evidence of notated sources).12 In exchange with his contribution, Christian Troelsgård admitted
also that the practice of melismatic psalmody like prokeimenon and allelouiarion developed much
sooner than the term for this genre itself, according to him the presence of a congregation of
specialised singers is already assumed during the second half of the 5th century.13 Troelsgård was
challenged by McKinnon’s monographic study of Roman chant where he described the particular
meaning of Pope Gregory the Great as a politician who built up Rome again after a long period of
destruction (various wars, the Tiber flood, plagues etc.), but he was also clear that Gregory I was
not the founder of the Roman Schola cantorum which was a common belief within the 8th-century
Frankish Empire, when Charlemagne asked Pope Hadrian I for “Gregory’s sacramentary”.14
Originally McKinnon planned his study about the Old-Roman Alleluia genre, where a melismatic
alleluia was first only performed once per year during the feast of ressurection. He himself was
challenged by Egon Wellesz’ study who pointed at the evidence, that Gregory the Great defended in
a letter to bishop John of Syracuse against the accusation that he used Constantinopolitan
allelouiaria to extend the local custom of allelouia singing.15 A kind of import which was already
proved by Wellesz’ and Stäblein’s study with respect to Old Roman graduals.16 McKinnon only
published the preface of his intended study, but never touched his discussion a second time in his
book, although the chant genre was still quite a central issue of the later book which was published
under the title “The Advent Project”.17 Gregory the Great regarded the Constantinopolitan rite as
“too secular” that was his reason to avoid a clear answer in his response to the young Italian Greek
who accused him that he disregards a rite from which he had profitted so much.
The basic problem of scholars occupied with Western plainchant is that the Byzantine allelouiarion
had never the same importance like it had within the Roman tradition and within the Frankish
reception of the Roman rite, it also had never been extended to the custom of a daily mass chant.
The alliluia refrain with an accent on u (not the final syllable a) was usually not notated together
with the one or two stichoi of the soloist (the more common practice was and is to sing it thrice in a
rather simple syllabic way before the Gospel), but separately in an appendix of the psaltikon and
asmatikon with just one melody for each echos.

11 With respect to the kontakia Christian Troelsgård (1995) referred Strunk’s opinion (1977, 161): “Oliver Strunk has
showed that the music of another genre, the kontakia, was originally a syllabic tradition, and that by the early 10th
cent. a new and ornamented style broke through, resulting in the reduction into two stanzas, the prooimion and the
first oikos. Strunk held the possibility of an ornamented style of the prokeimena and allelouiaria before this time
open, even likely, and recently P. Jeffery has defended that the prokeimena were of Palestinian origin, directly
dependent on what was actually performed in the basilicas of Jerusalem.”
12 See for instance the article “Alleluia” of the New Grove which he published together with Thodberg.
13 Troelsgård contributed also with his article “Prokeimenon” to the New Grove in which he changed certain earlier
opinions presented during his paper at Cantus planus (1995).
14 McKinnon (2000).
15 Wellesz (1954).
16 Wellesz (1967).
17 McKinnon (1967).

33
One further evidence which fits very well to the Byzantine practice of melismatic chant (without
any necessity to write all these details down in notation, because notation was only used for the
basic structure, not for the realisation of the melos), are Old Roman graduals where the alleluya is
never repeated in an identical way, but developing in sections. Another important feature of Old
Roman graduals is the presence of a few Greek psalm verses transliterated into Latin.18 A common
hypothesis is that the longest (third) repetition, the so-called “iubilus”, formed a new chant genre of
its own by repeating each melodic segment with a syllabic verse which became known as sequence
which followed the gospel reading (and thus replaced the Gallican custom of the antiphonum post
evangelium).
Although Gregory the Great insisted on the primacy of the pontificate among all the other
patriarchates, he could not end the long period of Byzantine papacy which Emperor Justinian never
denied. The latter just quitted it with the cynical remark which basically meant that a pope who
would like to do history, had to do as he wished.19 It ended only during the first crisis of iconoclasm,
when the papal excommunication of an iconoclastic Emperor was applauded by iconodule clerics
and higoumenoi of the Byzantine empire. In Italian church history the Greek population of the
Byzantine catepanate of Italy was never bothered by papal primacy. It changed suddenly after the
Norman conquest in 1071, when Greek monks came under Roman administration and Greek clerics
had to join the frequent synodes of reform papacy.
Another coincidence between Rome and Constantinople is that chanter titles such as protosynkellos
and primikerios were used in both metropoles.20 Also the Greek names “Georgius” and “Symeon”
mentioned in a letter by Pope Paul I to Pippin make think about the possibility, if Byzantine
chanters migth have had prospects doing a career at Saint Peter, when they left Byzantium during
the first crisis of iconoclasm.21
Another discussion about a possible Byzantine origin of Western notation (including ekphonetic
notation) is related to it and touches the understanding of notation as a whole, the discussion was
first raised by Hugo Riemann (1878), continued by Oskar Fleischer (1895) and Jean-Baptiste
Thibaut (1907) and had been culminated in a negative reception of Floros’ “Universale
Neumenkunde” among scholars of Western plainchant, not without certain ressentiments which
were obviously never shared by scholars occupied with Eastern chant and its Slavic reception.22 The
discussion is about the relation between the Greek term “nevma” and the Latin term “nota romana”
which means more than just “neumes”, but also “hints” and “orders” given by hand gestures: the so-
called cheironomia. It touches the original notation used in the books of the cathedral rite asmatikon
and kontakarion which have obviously not survived the numerous destructions of Constantinople.
As a system of gestures it must have directly combined oral and a written transmission by using
signs which were directly connected with certain gestures. The clear meaning of this system and the
theory behind it is still unkown, but certain sources were obviously closer to it, although the precise
meaning of the signs used by notaters still remained cryptic to readers today. Floros’ ideas were
simply influenced by his studies of the Middle Byzantine kontakaria which was soon followed by
comparative studies of Slavic Kondakars.23

18 Greek verses can be also founded in Frankish manuscripts, but there are neither identical with those verses found in
Old Roman graduals nor does the text fit particularly well to the melody, as if a Latin alleluiverse had been re-
translated according to the Greek psalter, while it seems that the Old Roman verses are indeed very close to the
versions given in the Byzantine kontakarion as they had been transcribed into Middle Byzantine notation.
19 Anastos (2001, 8th chapter, section d, note 109).
20 Wolfram (1995, 398).
21 See the edition of dMGH: http://www.mgh.de/dmgh/resolving/MGH_Epp._3_S._553.
22 Riemann (1878), Fleischer (1895), Thibaut (1907). About the reception of Floros’ “Neumenkunde”, see the
appendix of Neil Moran’s republication of Floros in English (2011, 371-378).
23 Floros (1961, 1965, 1967, 1970).

34
2.4.3. The evidence in comparison with Milan
Milan and the Ambrosian rite is one of oldest Mediterranean urban liturgies, since its main
protagonist bishop Ambrosius lived during a rather early period as a contemporary of bishop John
Chrysostom. The old custom is testified in very ancient monuments of church architecture and like
Rome, the local chant tradition has not been codified in neume notation before the 11th century
which are characterised by conservative habits of the scribes which cannot be found elsewhere.
While we have a separation of chant books according to the choir (asmatikon) and the soloist
(usually called “monophonaris” whose part was written in the psaltikon or kontakarion) or a
separation between the office (Antiphonary) and the mass chant (Gradual or Antiphonary
gradualis) in Rome, Milan uses just two Antiphonaries during the whole year which did not
separate the singers in groups or did separate office from mass chant, but it divided the chant
according to two cathedrals which had been traditionally used in Milan during the course of the
year: the summer cathedral for the half year around summer and the winter cathedral for the half
year around winter.
The reputation of the Milanese rite was so powerful, that even local rites in Southern Italy were
called “Ambrosian” in order to maintain their distinction from the Roman rite and its Frankish
adaptation. With the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite it shared a unique custom of cantica recitation
which were grouped in pairs against the usual order of 14 cantica at the end of the psalter. The other
distinction were hymns composed by or at least ascribed to the local bishop Ambrosius. Also the
Ambrosian rite had a counterpart to the Byzantine prokeimenon or the Roman responsorium
gradualis, the so-called psalmellus—a name, which emphasised the shortness of solistic psalm
recitation. Other soloist features were the collection of so-called “melodiae” (which corresponded to
meloform tropes which could prolong certain genres of chant, similar to the Constantinopolitan
practice of melismatic and later kalophonic chant and its separate collections of kratemata,
teretismata, nenanismata in so-called kratemataria in the 14th-century book Akolouthiai.

2.4.4. The evidence in comparison with Thessalonica

Another very important comparison which revealed the nature of the late Byzantine music history in
Constantinople is the conservative attitude of the Thessalonican bishop Symeon who called himself
about 1400 the “last champion of the old cathedrale rite” which he identified with the Hagia Sophia
cathedral in Constantinople and Thessalonica.24 As such, Symeon’s homiletic writings which
explain distinctive features of the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite, which had been lost after this
tradition was expelled in Constantinople by Western crusaders (between 1201 and 1204, when the
court and the patriarchate had been finally transferred to Nikaia and remained there for about 60
years).25
In his study about the “Byzantine Office at Hagia Sophia”, Oliver Strunk used this contemporary
evidence by Symeon of Thessalonica to reconstruct an older layer of the Constantinopolitan rite
which he could still find in 14th-century manuscripts (mostly written outside Constantinople, but
obviously with the intention to write down a once common practice into Middle Byzantine
notation): the psalmodic recitation of the cantica and the psalter and the usual troparia which had
been used during their recitation.26

24 Edition according PG 155 (1866): Περὶ τῆς ἴερας λειτουργίας (De sacra liturgia) (col. 253-304), Περὶ τῆς θείας
προσεύξης (De sacra precatione) (col. 535-670), Περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου ναοῦ καὶ τῆς τοῦτου καθί ερωσεως (De sacro
templo et ejus consecratione) (col. 305-362), Ἀπόκρισεις πρός τίνας ἐρωτήσεις ἀρχιερέως (Responsiones ad
Gabrielem Pentapolitanum) (col. 829-952).
25 About politics during and the role of Seljuks and the caliphate during the period of exile, see Günter Prinzing
(2014).
26 Strunk (1956).

35
A similar conclusion can also be drawn concerning the notated sources of the cathedral rite in Italy.
Most of the old books konown as asmatikon and kontakarion today had been written in Italy, but
usually after 1204. It means that Greek monks and clerics developed a late interest for
Constantinople under the Norman rule, when rich foundations like the royal Archimandritate SS.
Salvatore di Messina allowed to order, to copy and to write liturgical manuscripts. There are only
few sources which can be dated back to Byzantine Italy, and there is neither an asmatikon nor a
psaltikon among them. The new book Akolouthiai cannot be found in Italian collections, nor it is
mentioned in any inventory in Athanasios Chalkeopoulos’ diary of 1458, but psaltikon and
asmatikon. Some of these old books have later additions which also include modest kalophonic
arrangements of certain liturgical compositions. It seems that the fact that the cathedral rite had
been declined and removed from Constantinople encouraged Italian Archimandritates to preserve
their customs and their books, but they obviously followed into the footsteps of Athonite notators
who used the Middle Byzantine round notation which had developed with the books of sticherarion
and heirmologion. Therefore it is justified to regard it as a kind of local reception, although a highly
competent one which also observed and adapted the repertoire to local needs.

2.5. The reception of the cathedral rite

This reception history starts with earlier sources written by outsiders (diplomatic legacies, visitors
or pilgrims) who described from their point of view their impressions and ritual acts as they could
recognise them during their visit of the imperial celebrations. Another outsider view can also be
found in the 10th-century ceremonial which was commissioned by Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos,
since the first part obviously described older ceremonies no longer in use.27 The ceremonial has also
become an important source for archaeologists who try to reconstruct the historical changes of the
imperial buildings between the Hagia Sophia, the palace, and the hippodrome.28

2.5.1. Descriptions by pilgrims and diplomats

The earliest source is Slavonic, known as the Primary chronicle (Повѣсть времѧньныхъ лѣтъ “tale
of passed years”). It describes a visit of a legacy of the Rus, even before Vladimir the Great (ca.
958-1015) decided about Christianization, he obviously send out diplomats to find out which faith
would suit to the Slavic tribes of the Rus. And this was the decision they suggested successfully to
the Grand Prince:
во ѿ же днь҃ наоутриæ посла къ патреарху гл҃ѧ. сице придоша Русь пъıтающе вѣръı
нашеæ. да пристрои црквь҃ и крилос̑. и самъ причинисѧ в стльски
҃ æ ризъı. да видѧть
славу Ба҃ нашего. си слъıшавъ патреархъ повелѣ создати крилосъ. по ѡбъıчаю
створиша прзднкъ.
҃ и кадила вожьгоша. пѣньæ и лики съставиша. и иде с ними в
цркв . и поставиша æ на пространьнѣ мѣстѣ . показающ е красоту црквную.
ь
҃ пѣньæ и
службъı архиєрѣиски престоæньє дьæконъ. сказающе имъ служеньє Ба҃ своєго. ѡни
же во изумѣньи (108) бъıвше. оудивившес̑ похвалиша службу ихъ. и призваша є
цр҃ѧ. Василии и Костѧнтинъ. «рѣста имъ идѣте в землю вашю.» и ѿпустиша æ с даръı
велики и съ чс̑тью.

ѡни же придоша в землю свою. и созва кнѧзь. болѧръı своæ и старца. ре ч̑

Володимеръ се придоша послании нами мужи. да слъıшимъ ѿ нихъ бъıвшеє и ре ч̑
скажите «пред дружиною ѡни же рѣша æко ходихом въ Болгаръı. смотрихомъ како
сѧ покланѧють въ храмѣ рекше в ропати. стоæще бес поæ с̑. поклонивсѧ сѧдеть. и
глѧдить сѣмо и ѡнамо. æко бѣшенъ. и нѣ весельæ в них̑. но печаль и смрадъ великъ.

27 See Reiske’s edition of Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos (1829).

28 Featherstone (2002, 2006, 2008, 2013). See also the homepage with historical reconstructions of the Polis:
http://www.byzantium1200.com.

36
 нѣс̑ добро законъ ихъ и придохомъ в Нѣмци. и видѣхомъ въ храмѣ х̑. многи службъı
творѧща а красотъı не видѣхомъ никоєæже. и придохо[мъ] же въ Греки и ведодша
нъı идеже служать Бу҃ своєму. и не свѣмъı на нб
҃ ѣ ли єсмъı бъıли. ли на земли. нѣ с̑
бо на земли такаго вида. ли красотъı такоæ. и не дооумѣємъ бо сказати токмо то
вѣмъı. æко ѡнъдѣ Бъ҃ с члвки
҃ пребъıваєть . и єсть служба их̑ паче всѣхъ [fol. 37v]
странъ. мъı оубо не можемъ забъıти красотъı тоæ. всѧкъ бо члвкъ ҃ аще оукуси т̑
сладка. послѣди горести не приимаєть. тако и мъı не има[мъ] сде бъıти.»29

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, (108) 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.”30

The chronist described the great impression that the Byzantine ceremony made on the legacy, also
motivated by the interest of Slavic rulers to represent their political power in a similar way as it is
testified by kondakars of the Rus.
Some decades before the end of the cathedral rite, crusaders had been already received in
Constantinopel, but still as diplomatic guests, like King Louis VII in 1147. In his chronicle «De
profectione Ludovici VII in orientem» Eude de Deuil described a ceremony that the Greeks
celebrated for the King, since the emperor knew about the custom at Saint Denis cathedral, which
had been established under Louis the Pious and his chaplain Hilduin who was also abbot of Saint
Denis, that the patron was celebrated with a Missa graeca and in October (like the Orthodox feast),

29 See the critical edition of the version of the Laurentian text (f. 37r; around the no. 15 and 55):
http://litopys.org.ua/lavrlet/lavr05.htm#lyst37.
30 Translation by Samuel Cross and Olgared Sherbowitz-Wetzor (1953, 110-111).

37
but what they saw in Constantinople was obviously different:
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.31

Since the emperor realised, that the Greeks celebrate this feast [of the martyr and church
father Pseudo-Dionysios Areopagites, 3 October], 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.

As a stranger he remarked the pomp of the ceremony, the sound and harmony of the eunuchs’
voices and the cheironomia of the domestikos which was used to coordinate the singers.32
Another description was written by the monk Antonin of Novgorod who visited Constantinople in
December 1200, only a few months before Western crusaders will occupy the Polis and expell this
tradition forever.33
When they sing Lauds at Hagia Sophia, they sing first in the narthex before the royal
doors; then they enter to sing in the middle of the church; then the gates of Paradise are
opened and they sing a third time before the altar. On Sundays and feastdays the
Patriarch assists at Lauds and at the Liturgy; at this time he blesses the singers from
gallery, and ceasing to sing, they proclaim the polychronia; then they begin to sing again
as harmoniously and as sweetly as the angels, and they sing in this fashion until the
Liturgy. After Lauds they put off their vestments and go out to receive the blessing of
the Patriarch; then the preliminary lessons are read in the ambo; when these are over the
Liturgy begins, and at the end of the service the chief priest recites the so-called prayer
of the ambo within the sanctuary while the second priest recites in the church, beyond
ambo; when they have finished the prayer, both bless the people. Vespers are said in the
same fashion, beginning at an early hour.34

Antonin was very precise about ritual aspects of the ceremony, the exact position of the singers
during the procession which connected different celebrations like Orthros and the following divine
liturgy, the exact role of the Patriarch involved during the ceremony and the way the celebrants had
been dressed (also the use of two layers of vestments which could have been an inspiration for the
later Mevlevi ceremonies in the Polis), but also the fact that the proskomidia was not celebrated in a
separate room called prothesis, but inside the Hagia Sophia in the ambo.

31 PL 185 (col.1223A-B).
32 About the eunuchs and singers, see also Moran (1986, 2002).
33 Publications de la Société de l’Orient latin, Série géographique 5 (1889), p. 97.
34 English Translation by Oliver Strunk (1977, 112).

38
2.5.2. The Latin evidence of the cathedral rite
Since the early research about Eastern elements in Western plainchant by Egon Wellesz and Bruno
Stäblein many Latin sources of the so-called «Missa graeca» had been found.35 Later Charles
Atkinson and Michel Huglo established the concept that the Missa graeca was created under Louis
the Pious who tried to get on better terms with the Byzantine emperor for the patronal feast at the
Royal Abbey of Saint Denis, although it must have existed earlier for the celebration of Pentecost,
also because the sources can also be found outside Paris.36
Nevertheless, this concept was essential to understand this point of reference for Carolingian and
Byzantine diplomats which still existed during the reign of Louis VII. But in his time the break
between Eastern and Western Christianity could not be longer avoided, despite the fact that Greek
in Southern Italy did provide an important refuge where they tried to preserve the cathedral rite,
after it was expelled by Western crusaders in Constantinople in 1204.
The Missa graeca present in Latin liturgical sources does not offer a profound concept of the
Byzantine cathedral rite and its musical tradition, it was rather as Byzantine as the Palatine chapel
of Aachen was. Its main function was to display Charlemagne’s political power which also tried to
usurp the Byzantine empire, but without success… Later Charlemagne’s follower Louis the Pious
tried to improve the diplomatic relationship between the Frankish and the Byzantine empire.
Hilduin, abbot of the Royal Abbey Saint Denis, rewrote the vita of the patron, identifying him with
a third person, the Greek Father Pseudo-Dionysios of the Areopag. Therefore, the Missa graeca was
also celebrated during the festal octave from 3 October.
The repertoire of the Missa graeca is:
• The Greek Great Doxology (Doxa en ypsistis, Gloria in excelsis) with a particular Byzantine
text redaction
• Certain alleluia verses with Greek psalm (usually contrafactures of certain Latin alleluia
verses which had been replaced by the Greek version)
• The Greek and Latin cherouvikon rubrified as offertorium (I ta cherubim mysticos
Iconizontes, Qui cherubim mystice imitamur), these melodies are simpler than the
embellished ones of the earliest notated Asmatika (not before the 13th century)
• The Greek Sanctus (Agyos, agyos, agyos, kirrios o theos)
• The Greek symbolum which proves that it was recited melodically (Pisteuuo is ena theon)
• sometimes also the Greek Agnus dei (O amnos theu as part of the Great Doxology (a
particular Western form which has no conterpart in the Byzantine tradition)
It can be found in liturgical manuscripts of different regions (first Carolingian sources, Paris, Lake
Constance, German manuscripts of the Ottonic era, Aquitania, Winchester)

2.5.3. The kontakion as a secular and monastic genre

Concerning the cathedral rite, there was a common hypothesis among Wellesz, Strunk and also
Floros, that the kontakion declined already by the end of the 7th century and was replaced by canon
hymnography which was favoured in other patriarchates such as Antioch, Jerusalem and
Alexandria. During the Stoudites reform of the 9th century kontakia flourished again, but only in an
35 Wellesz (1967) and Stäblein published his examples he found mainly in French and Italian sources in an
enyclopaedical article about “Gallikanische Liturgie” in the first edition of the MGG (Bd.4, 1989).
36 Recently Nina-Maria Wanek started to publish systematically about the topic and started with an overview of the
history of research. For a list of sources available online and a current bibliography: http://gregorian-
chant.ning.com/group/amc/page/les-manuscrits-de-la-missa-greca-carolingienne.

39
abridged form which consisted of the prooimion and one or maximum three oikoi which had been
sung during the Orthros between the sixth and the seventh ode of the canon.37 An alternative
suggestion was made by Alexander Lingas who tried to profit from an older argument by José
Grosdidier de Matons that one should rather study the kontakaria as they are instead of raising
hypotheses. Since the collections of the long kontakia persisted through the 11th century, Alexander
Lingas established another hypothesis, that the tradition of celebrating the long kontakion had never
been abandoned, but persisted within the festive mesonyktikon called “pannychis”, since the
calendar of the kontakarion was rather limited. The melismatic performance of the abridged form
reduced just to the prooimion or to one or two oikoi was a development which established in a
biritual form not before the 11th century, while canon poetry was not introduced before the
Stoudites.38
Within the monastic Greek kondakarion, each kondakion was reduced to the prooimion and one
oikos, in exceptional cases three oikoi. This book can be dated back to the beginning of the 10th
century and was written without notation, but organised like a tropologion according to the Stoudite
separation of the immovable cycle (beginning with September) and the movable cycle by the two
additional books triodion (Sunday of Publican and Pharisee until Good Friday) and pentekostarion:
without notation but with modal signatures and incipits of the avtomela (see for instance ET-MSsc
Sin.gr. 925, 927). This practice related to the kontakion as a kind of particular troparion, whose
melodies were obviously syllabic. Slavonic sources referred as well to simple kondaks as well as to
the melismatic elaboration of them within the context of the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite
(within the so-called book kondakar).
Concerning the Slavic reception, the earliest kondakar of the Tipografsky Ustav (about 1100) is
crucial for its understanding. The scribe always wrote down the sung text before adding the notated
version, very likely leaving space for the notator, but usually just the prooimion. Later Slavic
kondakars abandoned the unnotated text of the following oikos, and their collection was even more
reduced with respect to Greek kontakaria which had been mainly written on Mount Athos and in
Southern Italy.

2.5.4. The Old Church Slavonic Kondakar

The Slavic reception of the cathedral rite had quite another quality with respect to the Latin one.
So far, only two sources have been published online: the Troitsky-Lavrsky kondakar’ (RUS-Mrg
fond 304 no.23) and the virtual exhibition of the Blagoveščenskiy Kondakar (RUS-SPsc Q.п.I.32)
with detailed transcriptions of the texts, as it has been realised by Tatiana Švets, a teacher for Old
Russian Chant at the Rimsky-Korsakov Conservatory of Saint Petersburg.
http://expositions.nlr.ru/ex_manus/kondakar/_Project/Dir.php
It was written about 1200 (written about the same time, when Antonin of Novgorod visited
Constantinople) at a Northern scriptorium, probably at Novgorod, the Blagoveščenskiy (literally
“Annunciation”) Monastery preserved the manuscript, before it was brought to Petersburg. It
attracted not only scholarly interest by the shape of its notation which seems very close to the
cheironomiai in Kastoria Ms. 8.
Scholars today have recognised about seven kondakars which have survived today:
1. Tipografsky Ustav: Moscow, State Tretyakov Gallery, Ms. K-5349 (about 1100).
37 Floros (2015, i:15-16).
38 Lingas (1995). Alexander Lingas obviously oversaw the older Constantinopolitan school of Patriarch Germanus I,
which was discovered in more recent studies of the tropologia. Nevertheless, a persistance of long kontakaria
without notation are not only the earliest sources, they were continued until the 13th and 14th century as well as the
process to limit the number of oikoi. This raises the question about the notated sources and their very nature.

40
 2. Two fragments of a Kondakar’ (one kondak with notation): Moscow, Russian State Library,
Fond 205 Ms. 107 (12th century).
3. Troitsky-Lavrsky Kondakar’: Moscow, Russian State Library, Fond 304 Ms. 23 (about
1200).
4. Blagoveščenskiy Kondakar’: Saint Petersburg, National Library of Russia, Ms. Q.п.I.32
(about 1200).
5. Uspensky Kondakar’: Moscow, Historical State Museum, Ms. Usp. 9-п (1207).
6. Sinodal’ny Kondakar’: Moscow, Historical State Museum, Ms. Sin. 777 (early 13th
century).
7. South-Slavic (Serbian?) Kondakar’ without notation: Moscow, Historical State Museum,
part of the book of prolog of the Khludov collection (14th century).
The Blagoveščenskiy Kondakar has the most synthetic notation (not only two lines like in other
kondakars, where notators tried to separate the cheironomiai from the small signs of Old Byzantine
notation, but also combinations of Greek signs with those znamennaya notation): Kondakarian
notation alone, znamennaya notation alone, but also a form of mixed notation and it testified new
trends of Constantinople from a period, where no evidence is left among contemporary Greek
sources. See a comparison with the Troitsky-Lavrskiy Kondakar (RUS-Mrg fond 304 no.23):
http://expositions.nlr.ru/ex_manus/kondakar/note.php
The example chosen is one of the kondaks dedicated to the local saints Boris and Gleb (24 July)
Въсиꙗ дьньсь in glas 3 (mesos tritos), a prosomoion of the Christmas kondak Дѣва дньсь (Ἡ
παρθένος σήµερον). The other Аще и убьена быста in glas 8 (echos plagios tetartos) is rubrified
as a podoben (prosomoion) of the Easter kondak Аще и въ гробъ (identified as the Old Church
Slavonic translation of the Greek kontakion Εἰ καὶ ἐν τάφῳ κατῆλθες).39
1. The Polyeleos in 8 glasov
It has also one polyeleos composition (ff.107r-113v) with techniques of melismatic chant
which do come very close to polyeleos compositions of 14th-century akolouthiai, although
they have not yet teretismata (sections over abstract syllables which do not belong to the
text of the psalm). It was composed about Ps. 135, but within its different verses it passes
through the whole oktoechos, but without finding its way back to the glas of the beginning:
• Glas 1: Ps. 135:1-4;
• Glas 2: Ps. 135:5-8;
• Glas 3: Ps. 135:9-12;
• Glas 4: Ps. 135:13-16;
• Glas 5: Ps. 135:17-20;
• Glas 6: Ps. 135:21-22;
• Glas 7: Ps. 135:23-24;
• Glas 8: Ps. 135:25-26.
Nevertheless, something very close to it: instead of алилуїа “але-нь-н-на-нъ-ъ-на-а-нъ-ı-ъ-
лɤ-гıа” (note that many letters used by the scribe or not Cyrillic, but obviously imported

39 See the transcription of these kontakia by Constantin Floros based on Greek kontakaria with Middle Byzantine
notation of the 13th century (Floros 2015, ii:71 & 209).

41
 from asmatic syllables, so that their pronounciation was obviously supposed to be like in
Greek) and this kind of “alleluia” was very close to a nenanismaton:
http://expositions.nlr.ru/ex_manus/kondakar/_Project/ShowIzo.php?l=112
The polyeleos section (Ps. 135:9-12) in glas 3 (the notator forgot to write the modal
signature on fol. 108v) is divided. The second part (fol. 109r) is interrupted by medial
intonations in red ink whose words are obviously transliterated from Greek: “ипе” (εἴπε
“Say!”) and “пал” (παλὶν “Again!”). Within the cathedral rite, these intonations were used
to coordinate changes between different choirs or soloists. παλὶν was usually a way of a
soloist to indicate, that the whole section or part of it is repeated another time from the
beginning.
According to Tatiana Švets’ transcription the refrain of the choir following the earlier section
at the top of the same page was not written out, probably it was sung by one of the soloists
and the choir or the choirs always finished the refrain:
П оражьшуму [fol. 109r] Егюпта съ пьрвеньци ихъ ꙗ[ко въ векы милость ѥго
алелугиа].

The refrain of Ps. 135 was: “Alleluia, alleluia. For His mercy [in Slavonic: ”love“] endureth
forever. Alleluia.” and this was the reason, why this psalm was counted among the
Polyeleoi.
Probably there was a change between two choirs and the monophonaris. With ипе the
domestikos (choir leader) indicated the right choir to continue the text of the refrain from
я[ко], the two alleluia at the beginning were probably sung by a soloist. пал could be sung
by the lampadarios to indicate the left choir to start, although a choir of Constantinople
would likely started the refrain from the beginning after a παλὶν intonation. Possibly Slavic
cantors who worked on the manuscripts as notators, did not understand the concrete
meaning of these medial intonations within the asmatikon, because the left choir simply
continues «въ векы ми-», and is then interrupted again within the word which is continued
by the right choir after another intonation of the domestikos ипе: «лость ѥго а [fol. 109v]
алелугиа.».
Unfortunately we do not have sources of the Greek counterpart (if there was one) which
would allow us to understand, whether the end of each section already modulated to the glas
of the following section. In fact each section, even the very last in glas 8, is left without the
conclusion of the refrain. Possibly the choir intonations with the changes between the choirs
had to be repeated after each section to conclude it within the same glas, so that the changes
were just the intonations which had been only written by modal signatures.
It is also very likely that with all these repetitions the whole composition was too long to
recite the whole psalm 135 on just one day. It was probably sung daily during the Easter
week with its daily changes to the next glas or during the following eight Sundays of the
Flower Triod period.
2. Early comparative research
Since Constantin Floros regarded the cheironomiai as one of oldest forms of notation
strongly related to the practice of cheironomia, he got engaged after his habilitation which
was dedicated to the Middle Byzantine kontakaria of Southern Italy, in a comparison of
these sources with the Slavic kondakars.40

40 The transcription of Italian kontakaria was published in 1961 and was recently republished online (2015), the
comparison was published first in two articles (1965, 1967) and became later the first volume of his “Universale

42
 Floros’ methodology was to identify the Greek cheironomiai with those written in Kastoria
8. In that respect the Slavonic reception seems closer than the later Middle Byzantine
kontakaria. On the other hand, one can also observe that this scribe had already developed
his own style concerning the kalligraphy and the notation, and it is commonly assumed that
the znamennaya notation (sematische Notation) was based on trichordal tone system and
defined as a system 12 glasov (the so-called triphonia of phthora nana within Byzantine
music theory).41
Kenneth Levy chose a stichologion Σήµερον τὸν προφητικὸν πεπλήροται of the Miney, in
glas 4 or echos tetartos (14 Sep, cross elevation), since it was written in Greek and in
Slavonic in the Blagoveščenskiy Kondakar (RUS-SPsc Q.п.I.32, ff. 84r-85v) and compared
it with the facsimile of the “Contacarium palaeoslavicum mosquense” (MMB 6), better
known under the name “Uspenskiy Kondakar” written in 1207.42 In the comparison (Abb.1)
the sequence of cheironomiai appeared more complete in the two versions of the
Blagoveščenskiy Kondakar. Now, the methodology of Levy (Abb.2-4) is just the same like
the one used by Floros, because his “transcription” simply compares his understanding of
the more familiar Middle Byzantine round notation according to the asmatikon of the Great
Lavra (GR-AOl Ms. γ 3, ff. 56r-56v) and the Greek version given. The comparison reveals
that the kondakar version follows very precisely the change of syllables given in the Greek
asmatikon and also includes all the asmatic syllables (as melismatic articulation of the same
syllable at the beginning of a melodic phrase), but Levy did still avoid a discussion of
possible differences given by both notation systems.
3. The difference between kontakarion, kondakarion and kondakar
Another discussion touches the composition of the kondakar. Was it simply a Slavonic copy
of a Greek kontakarion?
The composition of Slavic kondakars was not identical to a Greek kontakarion or psaltikon,
since the latter only contained the chant performed by soloists like the monophonaris
(usually at the ambo), not the changes between the domestikos (leader of the right choir) and
the right choir. Thus, it included the asmatikon part as well.
Tatiana Švets described the content of the manuscript:
http://expositions.nlr.ru/ex_manus/kondakar/_Project/Dir.php
Only the first part (ff.1r-72v) was a kontakarion in the strict sense which simply means a
collection of kontakia. The organisation of this part followed principles developed by the
Stoudites reform, the first part (ff.1r-55v) contained only the kontakia of the immovable
feast cycle and it was organised as a miney (menaion) beginning with the month September
and ending with the kontakia of August. The cycle of movable feasts was divided again into
two part according the fasten triod (triodion) beginning with the feast of Publican and
Pharisee and ending with the one of Holy Saturday (ff. 56r-65v) and the flower triod
(pentekostarion) beginning with the Easter kontakion and ending with the Allsaints
kontakion one week after Pentecost (ff. 65v-72v).
What was the difference between kontakion and kondak?
Neumenkunde” (1970). About the same time also Kenneth Levy published a paper (1966) presented at a conference
“Anfänge der slavischen Musik” in 1964.
41 Školnik & Školnik (1994). The problem was already discussed during “Anfänge der slavischen Musik” by Elmar
Arro (1966, 101-116).
42 Levy (1966, 78 fig.1). The Uspenskiy Kondakar had been published by Arne Bugge in 1960, as volume 6 of the
Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae facsimile series, and the edition included a description of five Slavic kondakars.
The reproductions of the Blagoveščensky Kondakar had been only available thanks to a publication by Uspenskiy at
that time, so that the rest written on f. 85v is missing in the comparison (Levy 1966, 82 fig.4).

43
 The Slavonic transcription was quite precise, because it referred to the Greek orthography
kondakarion which was already chosen by Greek monastic scribes. They wrote another kind
of book than the classical conservative type which usually attracted musicologists, because
it contained musical notation, only the wrong one: Middle Byzantine round notation had
developed within the books sticherarion and heirmologion which usually referred to the
Hagiopolitan oktoechos. But there are kontakaria in the collection of Sinai which are hardly
suitable to fulfill the expectations of musicologists. They are rather a menaion which just
present the whole kondakion or kondak by one stanza which was composed in a rather
simple melos without leaving the echos, so that it is enough to refer the echos by a main
signature and to specify the melos by the incipit of an avtomelon or even heirmos. It was not
a kontakion in Romanos’ sense which did rather ressemble the Andalusian cordal poem
which had a long cyclic form composed over many oikoi which followed a simple stanza at
the beginning known as a prooimion.
So the kondakarion in question has much in common with this monastic book and the
shortness of the kondak allows a melismatic elaboration which referred to the idiom of the
asmatic rite (ἡ ἀκολουθία ᾀσµατική) that actually attracted the Kievan Rus, when they
adapted the cathedral rite to their own local needs. But their reception clearly showed traces
of the Stoudites reform, while at the same time they were looking for a more suitable
notation which was a combination of cheirononomiai with additional small signs (only
partly borrowed from znamenny notation) which had to explain the great signs or
cheironomiai.
Also the following incomplete part (ff.72v-94v) with the hypakoai (troparia) still coincides
with the classical kontakarion, but what is missing, is the proper cycle of kontakion,
prokeimenon and allelouiarion as it has been described by Thodberg in his handbook. 43
Before folio 95r something is missing, because from this page on starts the koinonikon cycle
(its beginning is missing as well) and what follows was usually written in the book
asmatikon (koinonika, trisagia, even polyeleos, although the polyeleos about psalm 135
passing through all the eight modes was somehow an exception).
In comparison, the Troitsky-Lavrsky kondakar (RUS-Mrg fond 304 no.23) has no
asmatikon or this last part has been lost as some did assume:
• Miney of the kondakar ff. 2r-55v (palimpests: on folio 44 the kondaks for Boris and
Gleb (24 July) and 1 August was added, on ff. 55v-56v appendix with added kondaks;
December and beginning of Januar is missing between f. 23v and f. 24r);
• Fasten and Flower triod of the kondakar ff. 56r-77r;
• Resurrection kondaks in all 8 glasov ff. 77r-84v;
• Hypakoai in oktoechos order (ff. 85r-93r) and katavasiai (ff. 93r-105v);
• Troparia and stichologia of a second hand (ff. 105v-115r);
• Appendix with later added kondaks for St Alexey and Archbishop Nicholas (f. 115).
An exception makes the earliest source known as “Tipografsky Ustav” between 1090 and
1100 (RUS-Mgt Ms. K-5349). It did neither include the asmatikon and its koinonikon cycle,
but it had a lot of more text than the later kondakars (also the texts with notation added a
second time before the notated version), and resembled much more in content the psaltikon:
• Ustav part (incipits of the triod cycle including prokeimena ff. 1r-21r; kathismata ff.
21v-24r);
43 Thodberg (1966).

44
 • Kondakar part (miney ff. 24v-79r with complete Akafist ff. 58v-64r; fasten triod ff. 79v-
87v; flower triod ff. 87v-94r; resurrection kondaks in 8 glasov ff. 94r-97r);
• Incomplete Oktoich until glas 5 ff. 97r-110r;
• Alliluiaria in oktoechos order without notation ff. 110r-117r;
• Podobnicy in oktechos order ff. 117v-123v;
• Appendix ff. 123v-126v.
As a whole, the Slavic reception appears as quite up-to date, by combining innovative
elements of the monastic kondakarion with the traditional idiomatic kontakarion notation
which is known in this form as “Kondakarian notation”. In fact Tatiana Švets distingished
the use of kondakarian notation, the combination of kondakarian notation and znamennaya
notation, a mixed notation which combined signs taken from both systems (Coislin and
Chartres), and the use of znamennaya notation alone:
http://expositions.nlr.ru/ex_manus/kondakar/_Project/Description.php?n=02
4. Later comparative research
While the transcriptions by Gregory Myers were understood as a realisation of Floros’
methodology, at least by Johann von Gardner, Floros’ codicological typology of asmatika
and kontakaria also influenced later generations.44
Later methodologies were not so much about “deciphering” notation and their transcription
into staff notation than about a critical philological study of the different signs, their
combination as a certain notation system, and the relations between analogue signs used
within each notation system (without any assumption that their musical structure was always
supposed to mean the same). The main focus was now the recognition of the great signs
thinking Ioannis Koukouzeles’ Mega Ison and the cheironomiai together.
It concerned the relationship between the Greek cheironomiai of kontakarion notation, their
transcription into Middle Byzantine round notation understood as a group of neumes which
does represent a “great sign” (both given in Kastoria 8 which allowed a further comparison
with asmatika and kontakaria written in Middle Byzantine round notation) and the
cheironomiai used by Slavic notators within the 3 kondakars, because only 3 among the 7
have one part with chant of the asmatikon: the Blagoveščenskiy (about 1200), the Uspensky
(1207), and the Sinodalny Kondakar (early 13th century).45

2.5.5. The monastic copies of asmatikon and kontakarion

So far, kontakaria written in Middle Byzantine notation had been the main focus of studies
dedicated to the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite, although one must admit, that none of these
manuscripts had been really written in Constantinople. The biggest collection has survived in four
libraries of Italy: the most complete version has survived at the Biblioteca laurenziana-medicea
(Cod. Ashburn 64). It became soon published as volume 4 within the MMB main series. Other
kontakaria are preserved in the three Italian collections of Byzantine sources: the Vatican Library,
the library of Grottaferrata Abbey (near Rome) and the Fondo SS. Salvatore at the Regional
University Library of Messina (Sicily). Together with some other manuscripts on Mount Athos, the
National Library of France, Sinai etc., they all had been described in a systematic study by Christian

44 Floros (1965, 1967, 1970), Conomos (1980), Gardner (1980), Doneda (1994), Myers (1994), Floros & Moran
(2009), Doneda (2011), Artamonova (2013).
45 See Doneda’s concept (2011) for a database which combines Slavonic and Greek kontakarion notation.

45
Thodberg.46 In conclusion, one can say that the book kontakarion is one of the most sophisticated
sources of Byzantine chant, because we have a proper cycle consisting of prokeimenon, on certain
feasts allilouiarion and a kontakion each one sorted according to the genre and then ordered
liturgically.
The two kontakaria online already reveal something about the composition of the notated psaltikon
with a kontakarion:
F-Pn gr. 397:
• 12th-century fragment of a menologion with acrostics (f.1)
• incomplete prokeimena collection (ff.2r-20v)
• allelouiaria with rubrified refrains in red ink (ff.20v-47v)
• ἀρχὴ τῶν ἀναστασιµῶν ὑπακοῶν hypakoai anastasima in oktoechos order (ff.48r-52r)
• kontakarion organised as menaion (Sep-Aug) with the triodion (after hypapante, 2 Feb) and
pentekostarion (Mar-Jun) integrated (ff.52r-129r)
• ἀρχὴ τῶν ἀναστασιµῶν κοντακαρίου οἴκων only oikoi of some of the kontakia anastasima
(prosomoia) more or less in oktoechos order (ff.129r-134v)
• 13th-century fragment of a notated sticherarion (September SAV 16-21) (f.135)
ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 1280:
• antiphona & eisodika Ps 135-148 (pentecost, feasts of the Theotokos, Transfiguration,
Purification, Martyrs, Cross exaltation) (ff.1r-9r);
• ἀρχὴ τοῦ πλαγίου δευτέρου ἤχου προκειµένων (makarismoi, prokeimena for lessons, Good
Friday, Easter) (ff.9r-15v);
• ἀρχὴ τῶν προκειµένων τοῦ λϊχνηκοῦ prokeimena of the lychnikon (ff.15v-35r);
• allelouiaria with rubrified refrains in red ink (ff.35r-75r);
• eight hypakoai anastasima in oktoechos order (ff.75r-82v);
• varia (anti-cherouvikon of the liturgy of presanctified gifts, kekragarion) (ff.83r-83v);
• kontakarion (menaion with movable cycle integrated) (ff.84r-233v).
On the other hand, there is something quite not right with this source type. First of all, they all date
to a period, when the cathedral rite did no longer exist in Constantinople. The siege of Western
crusaders caused a decline of the rite, so that court and patriarchate were forced into exile at Nikaia
in 1204. Although scholars were quite satisfied with the use of Middle Byzantine notation, since
this notation could be transcribed or “deciphered” easily (much better then znamennaya notation by
the way), the question, whether this was the right and authentic notation for this kind of book, was
hardly ever asked… But this question would also concern the one about the “Byzantine tonal
system” as it had been answered already by Oliver Strunk in 1942. Since he discussed there the
sources in Middle Byzantine round notation, he had no open questions concerning his study of the
cathedral rite (1956) which was as well based on later 14th-century sources which had been again
written outside Constantinople. It was very convenient that the notation system was just the same as
the one used during the chant books of the following histories (Greek Byzantine as well as Greek
Ottoman books), whatever kind of chant book it was.
The fact that these books were so much according the philologists’ expectations and needs was
46 Thodberg (1966).

46
indeed a trap to ask certain questions which were related to the cathedral rite, its books, its notation
and its tonal system:
• What was the authentic tonal system of the Asma?
• What was the composition of its chant books, known as psaltikon or kontakarion as book of
the monophonaris and as asmatikon as book for the choirleaders such as the domestikos and
the lampadarios?
• What was the authentic notation system of this book with respect to its great signs and the
practice of cheironomiai which was used by the choirleaders to coordinate the choirs, but
also changes between them and the soloist who was singing from the ambo?
• What was the authentic or traditionalist way to understand the genre kontakion? How was it
supposed to be performed?
The discovery behind these questions that the kontakaria as well as the asmatika written in Italy,
Athos etc. had been already part of a monastic reception history which followed the one of the
Slavic kontakaria, for instance by transcribing Kondakarian notation into the oktoechos notation of
the Middle Byzantine hymn books sticherarion and heirmologion.
If we are aware of it, then it clearly means that the synthesis of all notation signs within the
oktoechos notation of the sticherarion was obviously a long process which started already with the
Stoudites, since they combined the Constantinopolitan rite with Hagiopolitan customs. It was
continued by notators of the Kievan Rus who did still recognise the difference between various Old
Byzantine notation system such as znamennaya notation and the Kondakarian notation which was
already a combination of Old Byzantine notation systems like Coislin, especially Chartres, and the
cheironomies. The synthesis of the notation also concerned the question, how the oktoechos
notation was innovated by new syntheseis, that it could include the 4 mesoi and two other phthorai
which had been not used within the musical tradition of Jerusalem. Only after these questions had
been answered, it is possible to understand, what were really the innovations of the maistores later
during the period of the Palaiologan dynasty?
With respect to the Kievan Rus and the decline of the cathedral rite in Constantinople, it must be
said, that the Normans who expelled the Byzantine administration from Southern Italy, created, on
the other hand, with the Royal foundation of the Archimandritate SS. Salvatore near the port of
Messina a new representative and centralised culture of Greek monasticism which could afford to
order books in Constantinople, but also to study them and to learn from Constantinopolitan scribes,
how to write the books of the local cathedral rite and how to understand the Constantinopolitan rite
out of their own monastic tradition which was more concerned with chant books like sticherarion
and heirmologion.
This explains, why they stayed within the current oktoechos notation obviously also in exchange
with Athonite monks, on the one hand, while they were much more eager to learn more about the
lost cathedral rite and its characteristic features than any Slavic scribes in a region of the Kievan
Rus association who were mainly occupied to create an own miney cycle for their local saints.

2.5.6. The melos system behind the repertoire of kontakia

With exception of the Tipografsky Ustav which was written 100 years earlier, at least 3 kondakars
just precede the earliest Middle Byzantine kontakaria about 20 or 25 years. These 13th-century
sources almost collected the same repertoire which was transcribed by Constantin Floros as 86
kontakia, about the half it (44) could be recognised by him as contrafacts made over a repertoire of
other kontakia. Since most of the kontakia have notated music for the prooimion as for the oikos
(usually just one, in exceptional cases 3), some of the oikoi are also of considerable length, the

47
repertoire of models was analysed by Floros:47
• 14 prooimia made up a model for 45 other compositions (a rest of 28 prooimia remained
unique);
• 13 oikoi made up a model for 61 other oikoi (just a rest of 13 oikoi remained unique).
With respect to the Ustav, the repertoire was analysed by Floros and other scholars:
• according to the prooimia 22 are used as models for others;48
• according to the much smaller repertoire of oikoi, there are only 7 which had been used for
others, other 7 oikoi remained unique.49
Despite of these differences mainly caused by the unnotated oikoi in the Ustav whose text does no
longer appear in later kondakars, it is easy to recognise those Greek kontakia which had been
translated into Old Church Slavonic for the Slavic kondakar.
Since Floros’ study, it has been established to use the terminology of monastic hymnography to call
the models avtomela or “model”, the unique compositions idiomela, and the contrafactures
proshomoia. Such a terminology is not up-to date, because more recent studies have shown, that it
makes sense to make a difference between avtomela and idiomela which had also been used as
model for other texts. The difference is that avtomela are usually echos-melodies which do not
leave the main echos within their melos, while idiomela are more complex compositions which
have sometimes also been used to generate new texts, at least by the generation of Theodore
Stoudites and his brother Joseph.50 All the kontakia whether called podobni (prosomoia) or
samoglasni (idiomela) do have medial intonations or medial signatures (martyriai) which indicate
that they do change the echos within the melos.
If we have a look, how the Slavonic scribes did rubrify the kondaks in the fully notated chant book
kondakar, there were kondaks which had been been rubrified as samoglasen (idiomelon), while a
contrafacture of a samoglasen was rubrified as podoben (prosomoion). There is not one kondak
which had been rubrified as samopodoben (avtomelon). See, for instance, the Troitsky-Lavrsky
kondakar: RUS-Mrg fond 304 no.23. Its scribe classified each kondak of the repertoire.
In fact, Russian scholars specified the particular way, how a prosomoion was composed by
emphasising that a kondak-prosomoion was not adapting the melody to the text (which was the
usual way to deal with accentuation patterns within the troparion genre), but adapting another text
to a given melisma (a way of contrafacture which can be also found within the koinonikon cycle of
the asmatikon). At least there is no contradiction to Floros’ description of contrafacture. The
formulaic character of the music was just part of oktoechos modality and could be verified by the
system of cheironomies which corresponded to he hand signs used to direct a choir. The formulas
were simply indicated by the hand signs.
There are also idiomela which have just one or two prosomoia, while others have been used to
generate many other kontakia. These frequently chosen models are in fact eight prototypes which
represent the eight modes of the oktoechos with four diatonic kyrioi and plagioi echoi, because they
were also used to compose eight prosomoia as the oktoechos cycle of “resurrection kontakia”.
But unlike psalmody or echos-melodies these kontakia were not recitation models which had to be
adapted to the accents of a given text, but a more complex form of contrafacture within a
melismatic chant genre which changed between different echoi within its melos, and also used

47 Floros (2015, published as habilitation in 1960, i:137).

48 Artamonova (2013).
49 Vladyševskaya (2006, 156).
50 Husmann (1972), Školnik (1995, 1998).

48
phthorai for temporary changes into another genos or even temporary transpositions. And this
complexity is reflected by the process of using notation.
1. Typology of kontakaria
Nevertheless, there are books called kondakarion which did use also the classification
avtomelon. They are the earliest sources which can be dated back to the 10th century and
they do not have any musical notation, except modal signatures and the incipit of an
avtomelon to specify its melos. Unlike the psaltikon-kontakarion or the mixed type of
kondakar which also included a part with chant of the choir book asmatikon, there is also a
monastic book called “kondakarion” which was a kontakarion in the narrow sense that it
was just a collection dedicated to the genre kontakion. It has something in common with the
fully notated kontakaria, notated with Byzantine round notation, and the fully notated Slavic
kondakar with Old Byzantine notation forms known as Kondakarian notation and
znamennaya notation: that the kontakia had been shortened with exception of the Akathistos
hymnus to one or three oikoi.
Therefore I propose to make a difference between at least five books:
• the kontakion roll or unnotated collection of the complete kontakaria as the oldest form
known since the time of Romanos the Melode. One kontakion had many oikoi (12, 24,
36 etc.) and it was not organised according to the menaion created by the Stoudites and
without a separation of the movable from the immovable cycle (6th-9th centuries), and
the whole repertoire (from different periods) was about 740 kontakia. The earliest and
most complete sources are two 10th-century kontakion collections which contain about
370 kontakia with the complete collection of those ascribed to Romanos, and organised
according to the Stoudites (GR-P 212, 213)51;
• the kondakarion as an unnotated collection of kondakia (as a certain kind of tropologion)
already truncated (between 3 and 8 stanzas) organised according to Stoudite principles
as a menaion, either in with the cycle of movable feasts separated as a triodion and
pentekostarion for the cycle of movable feasts (GR-P 212, 213 these manuscripts are the
only testimony of an untruncated version without notation, but an important source for
Romanos’ kontakia), or those kondakaria which do not separate both cycles like certain
kontakaria of the Sinai collection (ET-MSsc Sin.gr. 925, 927) (10th-14th centuries);
• the Slavic kondakar with cheironomies (first row) and Old Byzantine notations (second
row) whose kondakarion part was very closely organised to the kondakarion, but always
with a clear separation from the movable cycle as triodniy kondakar’ and its repertoire
was reduced to about 14 oikoi (RUS-SPsc Q.п.I.32, RUS-Mrg Fond 304 No.23) (11th-
14th centuries);
• the kontakarion-psaltikon fully notated with Middle Byzantine notation as the book of
the soloist separated from the choir book asmatikon (I-GR Γ.γ. I, I-GR Γ.γ. VII), and its
combinations, the collection of kontakia is organised as menaion, but without separating
the movable cycle, the first kontakion of the triodion followed the feast of hypapante (2
February) (12-15th centuries)52;

51 For a recent datation see Krueger & Arentzen (2016).

52 See, for instance, the Parisian kontakarion (F-Pn gr. 397) or the one of Sinai (ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 1280). The menaion
begins with 1 September and ends with the kontakion parakletikon πρωστασία τῶν χριστιανῶν which was obviously
sung for the feast about the girdle of the Theotokos (31 August): ff.52r-129r. The kontakion of hypapante (2
February), ff. 84v-86r, is followed by the second kontakion of the triodion on the verso side, the first follows in the
wrong order, f.88r. An ornament on the top margin of folio 87 recto was obviously added to indicate the beginning
of the triodion.

49
 • the asmatikon with cheironomies (first row) and Middle Byzantine round notation
(second row written under the text) which was obviously a late reception of a
Constantinopolitan book type which was already copied within the Kievan Rus’ since
the Tipografsky Ustav (GR-KA 8) (14th century);
• the kalophonic oikoimatarion with arrangements by various composers for the
Akathistos hymnos and with arrangements by Ioannes Kladas for the other kontakia
(usually part of the akolouthiai collection) (14th-18th centuries). The missing link was a
recomposition of the kontakia by the domestikos Michael Aneotos whose realisation
became beautified by Ioannis Glykys and Ioannes Koukouzeles (see the Athonite
manuscript, now preserved at Sinai: ET-MSsc Sin.gr. 1262).
Since there also developed a kalophonic oikoimatarion under Ioannes Kladas, the
melismatic style of the fully notated kontakaria should not be confused with later
kalophonic arrangements, although there are few differences (mainly the use of kratemata).
This means that the /kontakia/ repertoire was a kind of prototype for kalophonic techniques
identified with papadic style and psaltic art, even before the reception of the /kontakia/ by
Michael Aneotos, by Glykys and later by Ioannis Kladas.
For this very reason, the melismatic compositions were obviously a result of shortening the
cyclic poetic compositions which was a 9th-century reception of kontakion rolls under the
Stoudites, but there was a difference between a secular and a monastic custom to perform
the kontakia. The monastic reception was obviously treating the kontakion like a kind of
troparion and this monastic custom persisted until today. Nevertheless, although the
unnotated kondakaria are obviously sources which can be dated back to the 10th century, it
does not necessarily mean that this simple form were the authentic melodies used by
Romanos. The use of echos-melodies was more likely a simplification which also caused the
shortening of the cyclic texts which had been reduced to the prooimion and one or three
oikoi. Even certain odes of the heirmoi had been chosen to compose new kontakia as a kind
of acrostic.
2. The 16 echoi of the Asma and their intonations
We have the evidence through the 10th-century treatise “Hagiopolites”, that the
Constantinopolitan tonal system was different, since there are passages which do paraphrase
polemics against certain modes which must have been those 4 mesoi and 2 phthorai which
the Hagiopolitan oktoechos did exclude.
In fact, there are intonations or echemata within the Middle Byzantine kontakaria which
cannot be found in any other book. And these intonations obviously were efforts to
transcribe the non-Hagiopolitan echoi within the medium of a Hagiopolitan oktoechos
notation which was created by the Stoudites and at Mara Saba (Jerusalem) and Saint
Catherine’s Lavra (Sinai) on the base of Chartres and Coislin notation.53
Protos echemata
• standard echema of kyrios protos: The standard form was represented by the kontakion
Ὅταν ἔλθης ὁ θεός (Ѥгда придеши Боже) for Meatfare Sunday of the triodion (F-Pn
gr. 397, f.86v; RUS-Mgt K-5349, f.80v), since it was chosen to compose the kontakion
anastasimon of echos protos Ἐξανέστης ὡς θεός (Въскрьслъ ѥси боже) (F-Pn gr. 397,
f.129r (only the oikos); RUS-Mrg fond 304 no23, f.72r).
• the low (exo) echema on the plagios phthongos: the idiomelon of the hypapante

53 The first who paid attention to the particular echemata and to the particular great signs which were obviously
imported from the kontakarion into Middle Byzantine notation was Christian Thodberg (1960).

50
 kontakion Ὁ µήτραν παρθενικὴν (Ѹтробѹ дьвичю) represents this melos (F-Pn gr.
397, f.84v; ). Note that the echema means not necessarily on own melos, because protos
models could also switch to the exo echema, if the text of the prosomion required it (in
this case the prosomoion Εὐφραίνου Βηθλεέµ for Sunday before Christmas had an exo
echema as well, but the Kontakion anastasimon as prosomoion represented the standard
form with an exo echema as well, although it derived from a kontakion beginning on the
kyrios phthongos).
• there is no mesos echema with an own kontakion
• there is no phthora echema with an own kontakion, but phthora nenano echemata are
used for medial intonations after a kolon ending on a cadence at the plagios phthongos
(D), if the chromatic melos starts on the top of the pentachord on the kyrios phthongos
(a).
Devteros echemata
Most kontakia are composed in this echos which basically meant two different mele
characterised by Floros as “two families”.54 The group of kontakia composed in this echos
unproportionately larger than any of the other echoi.
• standard echema of kyrios devteros (only G!): On G was represented by the very first
kontakion Τὰ ἄνω ζητῶν µέσος (Вышьнихъ ища) of the menaion for 1 September
(Symeon Stylite) (F-Pn gr. 397, f.52r; ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 1280, f.84; RUS-Mrg fond
304 no23, f.2r) which was also used for the kontakion anastasimon of the echos devteros
Ἀνέστης, σωτήρ, ἐκ τάφου (Въскрьслъ ѥси спасе ѿ гроба) (RUS-Mrg fond 304
no23, f.78r). It is one of nine kontakia which are made according to this melos, but also
Theodore the Stoudite used the same melos to compose an own model Ἐν σαρκὶ τοῖς
ἀγγέλοις (Въ плъти съ ангелы) for St Anthony (17 January) which he used for a second
kontakion Τῷ θεῷ ἀπὸ µήτρας (Лъчь стьнѣмь рожьстѣти) for St Evthymios (20
January) (RUS-SPsc Q.п.I.32, ff. 29r,30v);
• mesos form on F: the other important devteros melos has two different echema,
depending on the manuscript. It is basically a mesos form on the enaphonon (F) which is
unique for the kontakarion, but it has been sometimes transcribed as the standard mesos
form on G: these kontakia follow the one for the dormition of the Theotokos (15 August)
Τὴν ἐν πρεσβείαις ἀκοίµητον (Въ молитвахъ неѹсыпающю) (F-Pn gr. 397, f.124r;
ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 1280, f.228v; RUS-Mrg fond 304 no23, f.50v) which served to
compose two other kontakia (for St Andrew, 30 November, and for St Philipp, 12 May),
but there are not only four other kontakia which belong to the same melos, but also
another model Χειρόγραφον εἰκόνα (Рѹкописанаго ѡбраза) (F-Pn gr. 397, f.74v; ET-
MSsc Sin. gr. 1280, f.121r; RUS-SPsc Q.п.I.32, f.27v) which was used for the
kontakion-prosomoion for Holy Saturday Τὴν ἄβυσσον ὁ κλείσας (Бездьнѹ
затворивыи) and which is associated with four other idiomela not identical in its modal
structure (medial intonations).
Although only two mele had been identified as two mesos forms of echos devteros, these
group of kontakia is the most numerous and out of proportion with respect to any other
echos.
Tritos echemata
• standard echema of kyrios tritos: Like in echos devteros, there is no echema which has
the standard conclusion on the kyrios phthongos (c or F), instead there is a mesos form
54 Floros (2015, i:139-140).

51
 on the diphonon (a third between plagios and kyrios like a or D), since this is the
echema of the Christmas kontakion Ἡ παρθένος σήµερον (дѣва дньсь пребогата
ражаѥть) (F-Pn gr. 397, f.76r) which was the model for the kontakion anastasimon of
echos tritos Ἐξανέστης σἠµερον ἀπὸ τοῦ τάφου (Въскрьслъ ѥси дньсь ѿ гроба)
(RUS-Mrg fond 304 no23, f.79r). Eight prosomoia depend on it.
There is no other idiomelon in echos tritos, and no phthora nana, since it is only used in
tetartos echoi.
Tetartos echemata
• standard echema of kyrios tetartos: also here the standard form is represented by a
kontakion anastasimon Ὁ σωτὴρ καὶ ῥύστης µου (Спасъ избавитель мои) ( RUS-Mrg
fond 304 no23, f.80r) made over the melos of the kontakion Ἐπεφάνης σήµερον (Ꙗви
сѧ дньсь вьселенѣи) for Theophania which begins the first kolon introduced by a low
(exo) intonation on the plagios phthongos and followed by another kyrios intonation and
a mesos cadence (F-Pn gr. 397, f.81v). The same idiomelon has four other prosomoia;
• phthora nana of echos tetartos (enharmonic mesos of echos tetartos): there are two
related idiomela Ὁ ὑψωθεῖς ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ (Възнесꙗи сѧ на крестъ, 14 September,
cross exaltation) with 5 prosomoia and the unique Ἰωακεὶµ καὶ Ἄννα (Їѡакимъ и анна,
8 September Nativity of the Theotokos) which belong to this melos. In certain
manuscripts these kontakia begin on exo echemata as well and turn with a later medial
signature to phthora nana (see, for instance, F-Pn gr. 397, f.54r) and the kontakion for
cross exaltation which opens in kyrios tetartos (F-Pn gr. 397, f.55r).
Plagios tou protou echemata
• the standard echema (still known today) is used for the kontakion Μιµητὴς ὑπάρχων
(подобьникъ сы милостивѹмѹ) for St Panteleimon (27 July) (RUS-SPsc Q.п.I.32,
f.54r; the standard signature can be found in ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 1280, f.216v, but the one
in F-Pn gr. 397, f.121v, is somehow different) which was also used for the composition
of the kontakion anastasimon Πρὸς τὸν ᾍδην, σωτήρ µου (Къ адамови спасе мои) for
the same echos (RUS-Mrg fond 304 no23, f.80v). There is only one more idiomelon of
this melos: the kontakion Ἡ τοῦ προδρόµου ἔνδοξος ἀποτοµή (прѣдътеча славьноѥ
ѹсѣчениѥ) for the Decollation of the Forerunner (29 August) (ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 1280,
f.228v; F-Pn gr. 397, f.125; RUS-Mrg fond 304 no23, f.53v).
Plagios tou devterou echemata
• the standard echema chosen for the kontakion anastasimon Τὸν ζωαρχϊκῄ παλάµῃ
(Живоначальною дланию) derived from the kontakion Τὴν ὑπερ ἡµῶν πληρώσας
(Ѥже о насъ съвьрши съмотрениѥ) for Ascension (RUS-Mrg fond 304 no23, f.81v;
ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 1280, f.194v). The melos has temporary changes into the chromatic
genus of phthora nenano (at least in those manuscripts of the M-group, second row in
Floros’ transcription).55 But the Greek kontakaria of Paris and Sinai concentrate on the
xiron klasma of the first kolon which causes a change into the enharmonic phthora nana
(F-Pn gr. 397, f.108v). The same elaboration of phthora nana can be found in the two
other kontakia-prosomoia Ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν ἐδέξω (Отъ небесъ приимъ, 13 November
John Chrysostom) and Πᾶσαν στρατιάν τοῦ κόσµου (Вьсе воиньство мира, 9 March 40
Martyrs) (F-Pn gr. 397, f.67v & 92v), while the notator of the Sinaitic kontakarion
rarely used medial signatures, only concerning the kontakion for St John Chrysostom,
there is an alternative version for his name which is sung in phthora nana (ET-MSsc

55 Floros (2015, ii:231).

52
 Sin. gr. 1280, f.107v).
There are other mele which belong to the standard form of the diatonic echos plagios
devteros, even without changes into the phthora nana, since the notator of the kontakion-
idiomelon for 26 December Ὁ πρὸ ἑωσφόρου (Преже дьньницѣ) did not use any xiron
klasma or medial signature in the Sinaitic kontakarion (ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 1280, f.134v),
while the notator of the Parisian kontakarion did something rather unexpected: after the first
kolon on the enaphonon (varys phthongos), there is a phthora nana which organises the
upper tetrachord ἐκ πατρός according to triphonia (F-Pn gr. 397, f.78r). In this particular
case the melos is closer to the following example:
• echema ending on the enaphonon (tritos phthongos: F) and with various changes into the
phthora nana: Idiomela Ψυχή µου, ψυχή µου ἀνάστα (Дѹше моꙗ дѹше моꙗ
въстани) for the Great Canon and Τῷ θρόνῳ ἐν οὐρανῷ (На прѣстолѣ на небесе) for
Palm Sunday (triodion cycle) (F-Pn gr. 397, f.95v & 96v), and the kontakion
parakletikon Προστασία ἄµαχε τῶν χριστιανῶν (31 August, girdle of the Theotokos).
According to Floros the M-group interprete the melos of the first two triodion kontakia
as phthora nenano which has its own echema.56
• echema ending on the diphonon (tetartos phthongos: G) (interpreted as phthora nenano
according to the group M): This particular melos is used in the prooimion of the
kontakion Πρῶτος ἐπάρσης (Пьрвоѥ насѣꙗнъ) for St Stephen (2 August), kontakaria
of the group M interprete the beginning one pitch higher (as phthora nenano) which was
likely an assimilation to the Hagiopolitan oktoechos… As plagios devteros diphonon it
originally rather seems to be a kind of mesos tetartos which became classified as plagios
devteros. In fact, unlike Floros’ transcription the first kolon does not end on the
phthongos of plagios protos (D), but in the version of Paris and Sinai, the notator of
Sinai wrote a double apostrophos to indicate a cadence on the finalis of plagios devteros
(E), the following elaphron prepares a kind of phthora nana beginning jumping up the
fourth with the second kolon (ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 1280, f.220r). In Paris the notator wrote
a medial signatur for kyrios tetartos, since the elaphron is followed by the raise about a
fifth: the tetartos pentachord (C—G). Thus, the beginning of the second kolon is indeed
the phthongos of kyrios tetartos (G) (F-Pn gr. 397, f.120r). Interesting is the following
kolon which has a medial signature for mesos devteros on the enaphonon (here c), it
opens the melos for a higher register, so that the phthongos of plagios protos is on a (the
πλ was written here as a round ligature over the medial signature), but this register
change is already reversed by the end of the kolon which returns to D as the new
phthongos of the plagios protos.
• between the mesos devteros, phthora nana and phthora nenano: The oikos Τῷ
τυφλοθέντι Ἀδὰµ of the kontakion Τὴν σωµατικὴν σου παρουσίαν (Плътьнаго ти
пришьствиꙗ) for John the Baptist (7 January) was used to compose another oikos Τοῦ
παραδείσου τὰ ἄνθη ὁρῶν for the kontakion Πρῶτος ἐπάρσης of St Stephen (2 August).
They both are classified by the standard signature of plagios devteros which is closely
associated with phthora nenano according to the Hagiopolitan oktoechos and the Middle
Byzantine notation of the sticherarion.
Both versions of the model in Paris and Sinai are different from those transcribed by Floros
and they were not recorded in his critical apparatus: their second kolon finishes on the tritos
phthongos (F) not on tetartos (G) as mesos devteros as it was transcribed by him. The
notator of the Parisian kontakarion used even phthora nana as medial signature (F-Pn gr.
397, f.83v), while the notator of Sinai did not use any medial signature here which he rarely
56 Floros (2015, ii:185&191).

53
does. Nevertheless, both contrafactures are made differently due to the different accents
given by the text and both versions end at the same kolon on the tetartos phthongos (G)
which the notator of the Parisian kontakarion classified as plagios tetartos (F-Pn gr. 397,
f.120v). Here a comparison with the Sinai kontakarion is useful (ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 1280,
f.221r), because the strepton group at the melisma of the second syllable of ὁρῶν raises until
δ᾽ (d) which is only possible, if we understand the sign under the strepton as a kentima
(which is a gorgon according to the other scribe). The following kolon in Paris has a mesos
devteros intonation on F which was completed by two ascending steps as a phthora nenano
between plagios devteros (E) and kyrios protos (a) (F-Pn gr. 397, f.121r).
Varys echemata
While there is no real kyrios tritos which was somehow replaced by a mesos echema, the
varys echemata are standard, although its mele do all start under its basis, either a fourth or a
third (group A). Floros transcribed them all a fifth higher on c, but I believe, the basis and
finalis of varys was supposed to be a third lower to the mesos tritos (a & F). Together with
varys there are three tritos mele for the kontakarion: the mesos tritos, the diatonic and the
enharmonic varys.
• the standard echema as the model for the kontakion anastasimon: the model for the
kontakion anastasimon Ἐκ τῶν τοῦ ᾍδου πυλῶν (Отъ адовыихъ вратъ) (RUS-Mrg
fond 304 no23, f.82v) is the kontakion Ἐπὶ τοῦ ὄρους µετεµορφώθης (На горѣ
прѣобрази сѧ) for Transfiguration (6 August). All three manuscripts (the Slavic version
of the kontakion anastasimon as well as its model RUS-Mrg fond 304 no23, f.49r; ET-
MSsc Sin. gr. 1280, f.222v; F-Pn gr. 397, f.123r) agree with a beginning on the lower
third, the phthongos of plagios protos (D). The same beginning can also found at the
beginning of the oikos Ἐγέρθητε οἱ νωθεῖς.
• the enharmonic phthora melos of echos varys:
Another idiomelon, the kontakion Οὐκέτι φλογίνη ῥοµαία (Ѹже пламеньноѥ орѹжиѥ)
of the triodion for the Sunday of cross adoration (3rd Sunday of Lent, not to be confused
with the kontakion of cross exaltation, 14 September) begins on the lower fourth of the
phthongos for plagios tetartos (C). Another even simpler melos which does not break
through the triphonia of phthora nana like the standard melos of the Transfiguration
kontakion which uses the medial signature for devteros (b natural) for the triphonon. This is
in fact possible, since the original melos of varys is supposed to be diatonic, and not
enharmonic.
Plagios tou tetartou echemata
• The standard echema:
Obviously there was a kind of competition between two idiomela the one for the
Annunciation of the Theotokos (25 March), better known as Akathistos hymnus Τῇ
ὑπερµάχῳ στρατηγῷ (Възбраньнѹмѹ воѥводѣ побѣдьнаꙗ), and the kontakion Ὡς
ἀπαρχάς τῆς φύσεως (Ꙗко начатъкы родѹ) for the Sunday of All Saints (the last of the
pentekostarion cycle). The prooimion of the Akathist served as model of the kontakion
anastasimon Τῷ ἀναστάντι σοι Χριστέ and Ὡς ἀπαρχάς τῆς φύσεως was used for another
kontakion anastasimon which can also be found in the Slavic kondakars: Ἐξαναστὰς ἀπὸ
τοῦ µνήµατος (Въскрьслъ ѥси ѿ гроба). Since the second more common kontakion
anastasimon Ἐξαναστὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ µνήµατος has an echema on the enaphonon, ending on
the phthongos of protos (D or a), I call the less common one Τῷ ἀναστάντι σοι Χριστέ the
“basic form”, since it uses the simple unmodified echema of echos plagios tetartos.

54
 There are as well kontakia which have both mele (the basic form within manuscripts of
group A, the enaphonon form within manuscripts of the group M):57
• The kontakion Tῶν ἀποστόλων τὸ κήρυγµα (Апостольскоѥ проповѣданиѥ) with the
melos of the basic echema is present within Slavic kondakars and notated kontakaria of
the group A (RUS-SPsc Q.п.I.32, f.70v; RUS-Mrg fond 304 no23, f.71v; ET-MSsc
Sin. gr. 1280, f.197v)
1) The basic form: Τῇ ὑπερµάχῳ στρατηγῷ (Възбраньнѹмѹ воѥводѣ побѣдьнаꙗ) and
its kontakion anastasimon Τῷ ἀναστάντι σοι Χριστέ:
The akathistos as model has only been preserved in the Sinaitic kontakarion (ET-MSsc Sin.
gr. 1280, f.164v), it was not included by the scribe of the Parisian kondakar. But from its
ambitus it seems that the melos is organised in triphonia (only that the lower tetrachord had
no idetical intervals according to tetraphonia (descending C-Γ: πλδ—υαρ—πλβ᾽—πλα᾽),
even if the xiron klasma (which usually indicates a change to phthora nana) is only used at
the beginning of the first oikos (f.165v). The latter was also used as model for the oikos
anastasimon Ἄγγελος ἐν τῷ τάφῳ of the corresponding kontakion anastasimon.
A second kontakion-prosomoion Τῇ ὑπερµάχῳ κραταιᾷ (Възбьраньнѹмѹ свѧтителю) as
an alternative prosomoion for St Nicholas was so rare, that it was obviously not included
within the critical edition by Floros, but he listed it as no. 16.58 The Slavonic version has
been preserved on the very last page of the Troitsky-Lavrsky Kondakar, obviously as a later
addition (RUS-Mrg fond 304 no23, f.115v). It should be mentioned that the Tipografsky
Ustav has a third kondak Свѣтьлыимь житиѥмь for St Nicholas which used a third text as
an idiomelon composed in echos devteros (RUS-Mgt K-5349, f.42v).
The list is not complete without the Easter kontakion Εἰ καὶ ἐν τάφῳ κατῆλθες (Аще и въ
гробъ) that served as a model for the Slavonic kondak-prosomoion Аще и убьена быста for
Boris and Gleb (14 July) (RUS-SPsc Q.п.I.32, f.52v). It belongs to the basic echema of
echos plagios tetartos, while the Troitsky-Lavrsky Kondakar chose another model (the
Christmas kondak in glas 3) for another kondak Въсниꙗ дньсь (RUS-Mrg fond 304 no23,
f.43r) to celebrate the memory of these saints.
2) the enaphonon: Ὡς ἀπαρχάς τῆς φύσεως (Ꙗко начатъкы родѹ) for the Sunday of All
Saints and its kontakion anastasimon Ἐξαναστὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ µνήµατος (Въскрьслъ ѥси ѿ
гроба)
Rather a mesos form of the tetartos echoi which employs the triphonia of phthora nana as
already indicated by the xiron klasma on the base note and finalis πλδ᾽ (G or C). The model
has been only preserved in the pentekostarion cycle of Sinai (ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 1280,
f.202r), since some folios had been cut out of the Parisian kontakarion. The Slavonic version
of the Blagovečensky and Troitsky-Lavrsky Kondakar and was rubrified as samoglasen
(RUS-SPsc Q.п.I.32, ff.71v-72r; RUS-Mrg fond 304 no23, ff.75v-76r). Its kontakion
anastasimon Въскрьслъ ѥси ѿ гроба is preserved in the latter (RUS-Mrg fond 304 no23,
f.83v).
Apart from the kontakion anastasimon there are two other kontakia-prosomoia made over
the same model, at least the first allows to study the notation and the medial signatures used
by scribe of the Parisian kontakarion:
• Ὁ µαθητὴς καὶ φίλος σου (Ѹченикъ и дрѹгъ твои) 14 November, Apostle Philipp
(F-Pn gr. 397, f.69r; ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 1280, f.110r; RUS-Mgt K-5349, f.38v; RUS-

57 Floros (2015, ii:240).

58 Floros (2015, i:39).

55
 SPsc Q.п.I.32, ff.19v-20r)
• Ὁ Ἰακὼβ ὠδύρετο (Иꙗковъ плачеть сѧ) Monday of the Holy Week (triodion) (rare)
(RUS-Mgt K-5349, f.85r without notation)
The same melos is also present in other idiomela like Τῆς παρθενίας τὸ κάλλος (Дѣвьства
добротѹ) 24 September St Thecla (F-Pn gr. 397, f.59r).
• The echema of phthora nana on the triphonon:
These mele begin a fourth higher on the triphonon, so that the tetrachord between πλδ᾽ and
γ᾽ is coloured by the enharmonic division of phthora nana:
• The idiomelon Πίστιν χριστοῦ ὡσεὶ θώρακα (Върѹ Христовѹ) for 1st Saturday of
Lent, Theodore Stoudites (F-Pn gr. 397, f.90r; ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 1280, f.155v)
• The kontakion Τὸν δι᾽ ἡµᾶς σταυρωθέντα (Насъ ради распьнъшаго сѧ) of Good Friday
(ET-MSsc Sin. gr. 1280, f.174r; F-Pn gr. 397, f.98r; RUS-SPsc Q.п.I.32, f.64v; RUS-
Mrg fond 304 no23, f.63v)59

2.6. Conclusion
As well the Greek kontakaria as the Slavic kondakars must be mainly regarded as sources of a
peripheral reception either through the medium of Slavonic language and its own musical
palaeography, or through the medium of monastic scriptoria which integrated the cheironomiai of
Kondakarian notation within the Hagiopolitan oktoechos notation of the sticherarion. Nevertheless,
both source groups show many consistencies and are the only notated sources for the kontakion
repertoire. They present a melodic system of 100 kontakia within a huge collection of 750 historical
kontakia, about 80% of them can be recognised as a common repertoire which must have been
closely related through the 13th century.
The quotation of the 16 echoi used by the Asma which obviously related to the notation system of
Kastoria 8, corresponds to a more complex system about the same number of echoi and they have
been notated as echema within the medium Middle Byzantine notation, showing many forms which
are not known from the book sticherarion. In comparison, the kontakarion seems to be the
Constantinopolitan aequivalent to the monastic and overregional collection of stichera, and its
melos was obviously elaborated to melismatic forms under the influence of the abridgement which
reduced each kontakion to the prooimion and the first oikos. The Slavic kondakars show an even
more radical abridgement which was probably caused by a break between the Tipografsky Ustav
and the kondakars written 100 years later. The special notation known as “Kondakarian notation”
rather relates to the Asmatikon and the coordination of the choirs through the gestures of
cheironomia. It was not exactly the notation of the kontakion, since its melismatic parts (except of
the final refrain) were sung by a soloist from the ambo. This soloistic recitation was obviously an
11th-century concept which also influenced the contemporary vita of Romanos, but it might have
already existed in his time. The oldest layer is the system of mele which have resisted all
transformations and simplifications of the 9th century, and even if the word as a kind of imperial
propaganda or a homiletic genre was in its very focus, that a melismatic recitation as they have
survived since the Tipografsky Ustav seems to be rather unlikely, a recitation by a soloist might also
be part of clear and comprehensive presentation of its poetry.

59 See also Floros’ discussion of the version in Old Byzantine notation (Floros 2015, i:83-92).

56
3. Recordings

3.1. Reconstructions

3.1.1. Nun convent of the Annunciation in Ormylia (Greece)

Hesperinos of the feast for St Mary Magdalene (1985)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPb-WkBQbDE
Orthros of the feast for St Mary Magdalene
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSqlwiHW4Ds

3.1.2. 19th-century Hilandar manuscript

Ste Kassiane Choir, dir. Vesna-Sara Peno
in collaboration with Ioannis Arvanitis
Peno, V.-S., 2013. Post-Byzantine Chanting Tradition in the Serbian Monastery Hilandar on Mount
Athos, Musicology Today, 16. http://www.musicologytoday.ro/BackIssues/Nr.16/studies3.php
About the author http://www.music.sanu.ac.rs/English/AssVP.htm
Katavasies for Easter (Gl. 1):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtMUhOvUSZE
Stihire na stihovne (Gl. 5):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLlLVWwI58g

3.1.3. Psaltikon Ensemble, dir. Spyridon Antonopoulos

Pre-Concert Lecture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zozIhxE1mrw
Byzantine Chant for the Holy Week
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGuUTk_iq3M

3.1.4. Greek-Byzantine Choir, dir. Lykourgos Angelopoulos

The Service of the Three Youths in the Fiery Furnace
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCxhHTAZArI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUiiSi9YYw0
Trinity hymn reconstructed from a papyrus fragment:
P.Oxy.XV 1786
Christian Hymn with Musical Notation
dated back to the late 3rd century
Reconstruction in collaboration with Soteria Adam and Stelios Psaroudakes:

57
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6cTHpXj-KU

3.1.5. Byzantion, dir. Adrian Sîrbu

Programme (in collab. with Grain de la voix) dedicated to the Palatine Chapel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZKcZi_8zvY

3.2. Armenian tradition

Sunrise Service with šarakans revised by St Nerses Šnorhali are celebrated by Seminarists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDyDYNaaMUw

3.3. Bulgarian tradition

Cheruvimskaya Pesn in Bulgarian Rozpev (male choir «Optina Pustiyn»)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNUMXVDEYJo
Bulgarian psaltic chant (CD, Patriarch Neofit)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhm97snXCEg
Divine Liturgy Otec Stiliyan & Atanas Nikolov with Hieromonk Symeon (recording: 7 August
2002, Bačkovski Manastir)
http://www.concertzender.nl/programma/bonum-est-621/

3.4. Georgian tradition

3.4.1. Research
“The empirical research of a Georgian sound scale” by Z. Tsereteli and L. Veshapidze
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFncneafovI

3.4.2. Georgian Harmony Choir, dir. Nana Peradze

CD with Georgian Orthodox Polyphonic Chant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V8CoyzBc4E

3.4.3. Basiani Ensemble, dir. Giorgi Donadze

http://basiani.ge/
Georgian Orthodox Polyphonic Chant (2013) with track list:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhzoDhePPNU
Live Concert with the same programme in St Petersburg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18qM3mwpzdc

3.4.4. Divine Liturgy according to various schools

Te deum sung by Ensemble Ialoni (Gelati school)

58
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY87K3yrhWw
Athanasium symbolon sung by Ensemble Agsavali (Gelati school)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpc2ujA3N8s
Cherouvikon sung by Ensemble Didgori & Anchiskhati church choir (Gelati school)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBCcj6At488
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzSOBqyJPfI
Cherouvikon sung by Anchiskhati church choir (Karbelashvili school)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I8xwAJQlMY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muOXcpOYXNw
Anaphora dialogue:
Ensemble Ialoni (Gelati school)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPYoQIlzzbU
Ensemble Ialoni, Didgori, Agsavali, Basiani
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUuJmUhK2gE
Hosanna sung by Ensemble Agsavali
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpVW8LGFGB4
Sanctus sung by Ensemble Ialoni (Karbelashvili school)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvM6Jhk5yaE

3.4.5. Oktoechos according various schools

Heirmos, Tone I, Anchiskhati Church Choir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2PV4V6QGpI
Sunday Hymn, Tone I, (Gelati School) Mama Daviti Church Choir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJWDffvFGsM
Sunday Hymn, Tone II, (Shemoqmedi School) Anchiskhati church choir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLOcYe5H7So
Sunday Hymn, Tone II, (Gelati School) Anchiskhati church choir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrVXmeo1gjE
Hymn of Transfiguration, Tone III, (Gelati School) Anchiskhati Church Choir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnPKBFLL-cY
Hesperinos Psalm, Tone III, (Gelati School) Ensemble Agsavali
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxFuJsh8VoA
Hymn to St Ekvtime the Confessor, Tone IV, Ensemble Agsavali
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXbCYO1Lgho
Sunday Hymn, Tone IV, Ensemble Agsavali
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHMHyiIIluU

59
Sunday Hymn, Tone V, (Gelati school) Anchiskhati church choir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vv7tcWQi44
Hesperinos Psalm, Tone VI, (Shemoqmedi school) Anchiskhati church choir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Qks2aB6PGw
Theotokion, Tone VI, (Karbelashvili school) Anchiskhati church choir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p25c-uINMAI
Heirmos by Andrew of Crete, Tone VI, (Gelati school) Anchiskhati church choir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqt8yMpcVCk
Hesperinos Psalm, Tone VII, (Karbelashvili school) Ensemble Sakhioba
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2GE8QH3wYc
In that we have beheld, Tone VII, (Karbelashvili school) Anchiskhati church choir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roKpIfl8iLs
In that we have beheld, Tone VII, (Gelati school) Anchiskhati church choir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dGaGRLLWlU
Sunday Hymn, Tone VIII, Anchiskhati church choir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzh5mouz6Mk
Svetiskhovlis mgalobelta gundi mtkheta
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scLA8rLO3-c

3.4.6. Georgian Orthodox psaltic chant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K61xMHfzaY

3.5. Greek tradition

List of texts of all odes of the heirmoi and all prosomoia with recordings of the melodies according
to the hyphos:
http://www.imkorinthou.org/keimena/misc/Prosomia.htm

3.6. Macedonian tradition

Славете го Господа:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7tf8D6ogBg

3.7. Romanian tradition

Heruvicul (Gl. 1) sung by the nuns of Mănăstirea Cămârzani:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfgkvA8-9Qs
Fericit barbatul (Gl. 1) sung by the nuns of Mănăstirea Văratec:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co8dLNHvNmI
Limbile sa salte (Gl. 1):

60
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgPvKdltLSE
Colind Sfant esti Doamne (Gl. 5) sung by the monks of Mănăstirea Nuseni:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvQLYeduJZU
Colinde strămoșești (Gl. 2, Gl. 1) sung by the monks Mănăstirea Bujoreni:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jkr4D0tZAYc

3.8. Russian and Ukrainian tradition

3.8.1. Ensemble Sirin

Polyphony of Kiev Pechersk Lavra (Ensemble Sirin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9czNo8jPTE
Demestvenny Razpev (Ensemble Sirin):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejS2OrnLzIA
Seminary at Festywal w Jarosławu (24 August 2009):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1YfMtJcSUc

3.8.2. Valaam Monastery (Karelia)

Hymns from the Lenten Triod and the All Night Vigil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMtyTXDc9Fw
Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0eit4OcDfk

3.8.3. Rural Funeral

Heirmos Молитву пролию
Russian-Orthodox polyphony for a funeral
(Tashla, village near Nishni Novgorod):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu5pfGmIt_8

3.8.4. Old Believers

Wedding ceremony (Old Believers from Liponi):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MsicYgCjwE
Ceremony in the absence of a priest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYne40dR5CI
Concert of Old Believers’ Chant (male and female choirs)
(recording: 29 August 2013)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRY4mBdNNXA

61
3.9. Serbian tradition
Divine Liturgy (12 December 2010) at Monastery Visoki Deçani:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zcuL6YQLmU
Song for Sv. Vladika Nikolay:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8jon2AHJU4

3.10. Syrian traditions

Monastic Traditions (recordings at the British Library):
http://sounds.bl.uk/World-and-traditional-music/Syriac-liturgical-music
Syrian-Orthodox Church of Antioch
Qurobo Alohoyo (Eucharistia) in Syriac:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJQ3ZZrPUKM
Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom (Mount Lebanon Choir):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhYwR2traGk
Maronite Tradition with Marie Keyrouz:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUbKFiZ-ZyU

62
4. Sources

4.1. Kontakaria / Psaltika

F-Pn gr. 397: Paris, National Library of France, fonds. grec, Ms. 397. Incomplete Kontakarion (f.
2r-17r: Prokeimena without beginning; ff. 17r-19v: Christmas Stichologia for Hesperinos; ff. 19v-
20v: Epiphany Stichologia for Hesperinos; ff. 20v-47v: Allelouiaria; ff. 48r-52r: ἀρχὴ τῶν
ἀναστασιµῶν ὑπακοῶν; ff. 52r-129r: ἀρχὴ τῶν κοντακαρίου οἴκων; ff. 129r-134v: ἀρχὴ τῶν
ἀναστασιµῶν κοντακαρίου οἴκων) in short psaltikon style with Middle Byzantine Round notation
(late 13th c.). http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10723130v
ET-MSsc gr. 925: Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Cod. sinait. gr. 925. Kontakarion without
notation organised as menaion, triodion and pentekostarion (10th century).
https://www.loc.gov/item/00271074724-ms/
ET-MSsc gr. 926: Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Cod. sinait. gr. 926. Kontakarion without
notation organised as menaion, triodion and pentekostarion (11th century).
https://www.loc.gov/item/00271074712-ms/
ET-MSsc gr. 927: Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Cod. sinait. gr. 927. Kontakarion without
notation organised as Menaion (1285). https://www.loc.gov/item/00271074700-ms/
ET-MSsc gr. 1280: Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Cod. sinait. gr. 1280. Psaltikon
(Prokeimena, Allelouiaria, Hypakoai, Antocherouvikon for the Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts) and
Kontakarion (menaion with integrated movable cycle) with Middle Byzantine round notation
written in a monastic context (about 1300). https://www.loc.gov/item/00271076083-ms/
ET-MSsc gr. 1314: Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Cod. sinait. gr. 1314. Psaltikon-
Kontakarion (prokeimena, allelouiaria, kontakarion with integrated hypakoai, hypakoai anastasima,
rest of the complete Akathistos hymnus, kontakia anastasima, appendix with refrains of the
allelouiaria in oktoechos order) written by monk Neophyte (mid 14th century).
https://www.loc.gov/item/00271076204-ms/
ET-MSsc gr. 1262: Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Cod. sinait. gr. 1262. Kalophonic
Oikoimatarion written by the monk Gregory at the Athonite Esphigmenos monastery in 1437, the
manuscript was bound at the scriptorium of the Great Lavra and sold by Gerasimos for the
Akaleptos Monastery (1437). https://www.loc.gov/item/00271076137-ms/

4.2. Slavic kondakars

RUS-Mgt K-5349: Moscow, Library of the State Tretyakov Gallery, Ms. K-5349.
RUS-SPsc Q.п.I.32: Sankt-Petersburg, Russian National Library (Российская национальная
библиотека), Ms. Q.п.I.32. Blagoveščenskiy or Nižegorodsky Kondakar’ of the Blagoveščensky
[Annuntiation] Monastery at Nižniy Novgorod (about 1200).
http://expositions.nlr.ru/ex_manus/kondakar/
RUS-Mrg Fond 304 No.23: Moscow, Russian State Library (Российская государственная
библиотека), fond 304 Ms. 23. Troitsky Kondakar’ of the Trinity Lavra of Saint Sergius (about
1200). https://dlib.rsl.ru/viewer/01004637794

63
4.3. Asmatika
I-GR Γ.γ. I: Biblioteca Statale del Monumento Nazionale di Grottaferrata, Cod. crypt. gr. 156 (olim
Γ.γ. I). Complete Asmatikon (Dochai for the Hesperinos Prokeimena, ff. 29v-31r; Dochai for the
Great Prokeimena, ff. 31v-33r) of Southern Italy (13th c.).
I-GR Γ.γ. VII: Biblioteca Statale del Monumento Nazionale di Grottaferrata, Cod. crypt. gr. 62
(olim Γ.γ. VII). Italo-Byzantine Asmatikon (ff. 1- 71r) with a second part (ff. 73r-153v: Dochai for
the Hesperinos Prokeimena, ff. 42r-46r); Dochai for the Great Prokeimena, ff. 49r-51v; Stichera
kalophonika ff. 130-153v) added during the late 14th century (about 1225).
Some extracts with the cherouvikon asmatikon in both manuscripts:
http://ensembleison.de/publications/oktoichos/III/4/

4.4. Hagiopolites
F-Pn gr. 360: Hagiopolites (12th c.; ff. 216r-237v) in a collection with fragments of a sticherarion
kalophonikon (15th c.), of a menologion (12th c.), and grammar (12th c.) and exegetic treatises
(13th c.). http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10723253d/f222.image

4.5. Tropologia (Tropligin, Iadgari, Šaraknoc’)

GB-Ob P.Oxy.XV 1786: Oxford, Bodleian Libraries, Sackler Library, Papyrology Rooms,
Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. XV, fragment 1786. Christian hymn transcribed into Alypian notation
(late 3rd century). P.Oxy.XV 1786
A-Wn G 19.934: Vienna, Austrian National Library, Pap. Vindob. G 19.934. Papyrus fragment of a
tropologion (6th century). Facsimile published in Troelsgård (2009).
D-Bk P. 21319: Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Pap. Berol. 21319. Papyrus fragment of an Egypt
monastery of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. http://berlpap.smb.museum/record/?
result=0&Alle=21319
GB-Lbl Add. MS 17134: British Library, Add. Ms. 17134. Syriac Tropligin with Jacob of Edessa’s
redaction of the Syriac translation of the Greek tropologion by Severus of Antioch (695).
I-Rv R32: Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, Ms. R 32. Tropologion (prosomoia and idiomela
together with canons) with (partly) developed Coislin notation (ff. 4r-7v; 11r-12v) and fully notated
fragment of a 13th-century sticherarion (ff. 13r-13a v) with Middle Byzantine round notation (11th
c.). Ms.R 32
US-BAw 545: Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery Library, Ms. W.545. Illuminated Šaraknoc’ with khaz
notation by the scribe Awet, probably written in the scriptorium by the Monastery of Surb
Amenap’rkič in New Julfa, Isfahan, Iran (about 1700).
http://www.thedigitalwalters.org/Data/WaltersManuscripts/html/W545/description.html
US-BAw 547: Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery Library, Ms. W.547. Illuminated Šaraknoc’ with khaz
notation, written by the priest Yakob Pēligratc‘i in Constantinople, having been commissioned by
Člav, son of Nawasard, as a dedication to his sons, Astuacatur and Sahak (15 August 1678).
http://www.thedigitalwalters.org/Data/WaltersManuscripts/html/W547/description.html
D-BNu Sharaknoc’: Bonn, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Goussen Collection. Printed
edition: Šaraknoc’ eražštakan ergec’mownk’ hogeworakank’ A[stowa]caynoc’ ew erǰankac’
s[r]b[o]c’ vard[a]petac’ hayoc’ t’argmanč’ac. Constantinople, 1790. http://digitale-
sammlungen.ulb.uni-bonn.de/content/titleinfo/276824?lang=en

64
Ancient and New Iadgari of the Sinai collection
ET-MSsc Sinait. georg. 18: Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Georg. 18. Ancient Iadgari
translated into French by Charles Renoux (2000) (900).https://www.loc.gov/item/00279388902-ms/
ET-MSsc Sinait. georg. 40: Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Georg. 40. Ancient Iadgari of
Jerusalem with a series of processional hymns (litaniisaj) and hypakoai / kathismata (tsardgomaj)
(10th c.)
https://www.loc.gov/item/00279386930-ms/
ET-MSsc Sinait. georg. 41: Ancient Iadgari with canons of the odes, including short canons of just
two or three odes such ode 7-9 (ancient custom for Nativity!), 7 & 9 and 8-9 and only in the four
authentic modes related to the lessons the Tetravangelo (10th c.).
https://www.loc.gov/item/00279387041-ms/
ET-MSsc Sinait. georg. 26: Ancient Iadgari (954) https://www.loc.gov/item/00279386929-ms/
ET-MSsc Sinait. georg. 1: Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Georg. 1. New Iadgari known as
“Sinaitic Iadgari” with modal signatures and notation in Nuskhuri script (980)
https://www.loc.gov/item/00279388355-ms/
ET-MSsc Sinait. georg. 20: New Iadgari in Nuskhuri script (987)
https://www.loc.gov/item/00279388926-ms/
10 Greek tropologia of the Sinai collection
ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. NE/ΜΓ 56+5: Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Gr. NE/MΓ 56+5.
Tropologion without separation of the immovable and movable cycle (73 services for the period
from the Forefeast of the Nativity of Christ to the commemoration of St Joseph of Arimathea, 12
June, with incorporated Lenten and Paschal services) of a Monastery of the Patriarchate of
Alexandria (early 9th c.)—description (Nikiforova 2013a), Incipitarum (Nikiforova 2013b).
ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. 607: Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Gr. 607. Tropologion of the two
months March (ff. 3r-125r) and April (ff. 125v-239v) with calendar (ff. 1r-2v) (11th c).
https://www.loc.gov/item/00271075224-ms/
ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. ΜΓ 28: Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Gr. ΜΓ 28. Tropologion of the
two months May and June (11th c).
ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. Ε 26: Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Gr. E26. Liturgical roll with
penitential troparia (katanyktika) (10th-11th c).
ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. 579: Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Gr. 579. Tropologion of the month
September (11th c). https://www.loc.gov/item/00279381750-ms/
ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. 556: Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Gr. 556. Tropologion of the month
September (ff. 1r-142r) and of the month October (ff. 142v-269r) (11th c).
https://www.loc.gov/item/0027938085A-ms/
ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. 759: Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Gr. 759. Tropologion starting with
Palm Sunday until Allsaints/hagion panton (Pentekostarion cycle) (11th c).
https://www.loc.gov/item/00271075716-ms/
ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. 777: Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Gr. 777. Tropologion of the
parakletike canons, pentitential chant, apostolic prosomoia and of ferial days and theotokia
composed according to the canon order (KaO: α᾽: ff.1r–24r, β᾽: ff.24r–45r, γ᾽: ff.45r–65r, δ᾽: ff.65r–
85r, πλα᾽: ff.85r–105r, πλβ᾽: ff.105r–123r, υαρ: ff.123r–141v, πλδ᾽: ff.142r–160v) (11th c).

65
https://www.loc.gov/item/00271075741-ms/
ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. 784: Sinai, St Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Gr. 784. Tropologion of the stichera,
kathismata of the eight echoi, and their canonic prosomoia composed according to the oktoechos
order (α᾽: ff.1r-7v, β᾽: ff.8r-17r, γ᾽: ff.17r-26v, δ᾽: ff.27r-37r, πλα᾽: ff.37v-48r, πλβ᾽: ff.48r-57r, υαρ:
ff.57r-65r, πλδ᾽: ff.65v-77r, appendix with prosomoia in oktoechos order: ff.77r-82v). Each section
consists of troparia sung with the evening psalm 140 (kekragarion) like stichera anastasima,
prosomoia, ainous, katanyktika, stavrosima, apostolika, martyrika, nekrosima, kathismata with
prosomoia, anatolika and theotokia (12th c). https://www.loc.gov/item/00271074323-ms/
ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. 789: Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Gr. 789. [Tropologion of the]
stichera of the eight echoi, and of the canons composed according to the canon order KaO (α᾽: ff.1r-
67v, β᾽: ff.67v-85r, γ᾽: ff.85r-102v, δ᾽: ff.102v-119v, πλα᾽: ff.119v-148v, πλβ᾽: ff.148v-154r, υαρ:
ff.154r-166v, πλδ᾽: 166v-188r; appendix with lessons ff.188r-189v; Bioi ff.190r-210v) (12th c).
https://www.loc.gov/item/00271074359-ms/

4.6. Oktoechos, Parakletike, Oktoich

ET-MSsc Sinait. georg. 53: Sinai, St Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Georg. 53. Liturgy of St James,
lectionary, weekday hymns of the parakletike, Nuskhuri script (9th-10th c.).
https://www.loc.gov/item/00279387065-ms/
GB-Lbl Add. MS 11282: London, British Library, Add. Ms. 11282. Incomplete notated Iadgari
called “Galobani” (or Tveni) in Nuskhuri script with the Parakletike organised as year cycle
(without separation of fixed and mobile feasts which are present in small parts), weekly cycle of
hesperinos chant at the end, no musical notation, but partly with modal signatures for the qhmay
(Old Georgian for khma “voice”) (about 1000). http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?
Source=BrowseScribes&letter=A&ref=Add_MS_11282
RUS-Mda Fond 381 No.131: Moscow, Rossiysky Gosudarstvenny Archiv Drevnich Aktov
(РГАДА), Fond 381 Ms. 131. Old Church Slavonic Oktoich organised like a tropopologion without
separation of movable and immovable feasts, partly with theta and znamenna notation (11th
century). Some pages had been reproduced in the articles by Artamonova (2012) and Kujumdžieva
(2015, 2017).

4.7. Sticheraria
ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. 1219: Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Gr. 1219. Greek Sticherarion
with Old Byzantine Chartres notation (11th century). https://www.loc.gov/item/00271076861-ms/
ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. 1217: Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Gr. 1217. Greek Sticherarion
(only Menaion) with Old Byzantine Coislin notation (11th-12th century).
https://www.loc.gov/item/00271076885-ms/
ET-MSsc Sinait. syr. 261: Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. syr. 261. Syriac Sticherarion
written in Coislin Notation from Saint Catherine’s Monastery (13th century)
https://www.loc.gov/item/00279388264-ms/
RUS-Mda Fond 381 No.152: Moscow, Rossiysky Gosudarstvenny Archiv Drevnich Aktov
(РГАДА), Fond 381 Ms. 152. Old Church Slavonic Stichirar mineyniy (Miney from 14 September
until 2 February) with znamennaya notation (12th century). Link
RUS-Mda Fond 381 No.147: Moscow, Rossiysky Gosudarstvenny Archiv Drevnich Aktov
(РГАДА), Fond 381 Ms. 152. Old Church Slavonic Stichirar (Fasten and Flower triod) with
znamennaya notation (12th century). Link

66
RUS-Mrg Fond 304 No.439: Moscow, Russian State Library, Fond 304 Ms. 439. Stichirar in Old
Church Slavonic of Trinity Lavra of Saint Sergius collection (early 15th century).
https://dlib.rsl.ru/viewer/01004714732
RUS-Mrg Fond 304 No.409: Moscow, Russian State Library, Fond 304 Ms. 409. Stichirar in Old
Church Slavonic of Trinity Lavra of Saint Sergius collection (late 15th century).
https://dlib.rsl.ru/viewer/01004712642
RUS-Mrg Fond 304 No.411: Moscow, Russian State Library, Fond 304 Ms. 411. Stichirar in Old
Church Slavonic of Trinity Lavra of Saint Sergius collection (16th century).
https://dlib.rsl.ru/viewer/01004713329

4.8. Heirmologia
ET-MSsc Sinait. georg. 14: Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Georg. 14. Iadgari
(heirmologion) with modal signatures and notation (12th c).
https://www.loc.gov/item/00279388872-ms/
ET-MSsc Sinait gr. 929: Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Gr. 929. Greek Heirmologion
composed in ode order (OdO) with Old Byzantine Coislin notation (12th-century palimpsest over
pages of a former tropologion). https://www.loc.gov/item/00271074694-ms/
IL-Jgp Ms. Hagios Sabas 83: Jerusalem, Greek Orthodox Patriarchal Library, Hagios Sabas
collection, Ms. 83. Heirmologion in canon order (KaO) with Old Byzantine Coislin notation (11th
and 12th centuries). https://www.loc.gov/item/00279394811-jo/
RO-Ba Gr. 261: Bucharest, Library of the Romanian Academy, Ms. Gr. 261. Heirmologion with
troparia and prosomoia of the Parakletike, KaO Κανόνες, παρακλητικοὶ καὶ ἐγκωµιαστικοὶ πρὸς τὴν
ὑπεραγίαν θεοτοκόν· ψαλλόµενοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποδειπνίοις (ἦχος πρῶτος ff. 1–33v; ἦχος δεύτερος ff.
33v–55r; ἦχος τρίτος ff. 55r–79r; ἦχος τέταρτος ff. 79r–103v; ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ πρώτου ff. 103v–
125v; ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ δευτέρου ff. 126r–150r; ἦχος βαρύς ff. 150r–173r; ἦχος πλάγιος τοῦ
τετάρτου ff. 173r–197v) (12th c.). http://medievalia.com.ro/manuscrise/item/ms-gr-261
RUS-Mda Fond 381 No.150: Moscow, Russian State Archive of historical acts (РГАДА), Fond
381 Ms. 150. Incomplete Irmolog in ode order (OdO, many parts missing, without glasov 4-5) with
znamennaya notation (12th century). Link
RUS-PZ: Petrozavodsk, National Library of Karelia. Old Believers’ Irmolog in ode order (OdO)
with kryuki notation compiled between the 1550s and 1625, with a third hand of the mid 17th-
century, and a main manuscript dating between 1675 and 1725.
http://library.karelia.ru/cgi-bin/library/irmolog.cgi
World Digital Library: http://www.wdl.org/en/item/12909/view/1/1/

4.9. Lectionaries
ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. 7: Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Gr. 7. Prophetologion with
ekphonetic notation starting with Christmas and Epiphany and the cycle for the movable feasts and
concluding with the menaion (10th century). https://www.loc.gov/item/00271070081-ms/
ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. 8: Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Gr. 8. Prophetologion (menaion
starting with September, triodion and pentekostarion) with ekphonetic notation and a list of
ekphonetic neumes on the last page (10th century). https://www.loc.gov/item/00271070093-ms/
ET-MSsc Sinait. gr. 213: Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Gr. 213. Gospel Lectionary with
pericopes assigned to the Divine Liturgies and other Offices of the Byzantine Church with

67
ekphonetic notation added by presbyteros Eustathios on 30 January 967.
https://www.loc.gov/item/00271078857-ms/
I-Rvat Vat. gr. 351: Rome, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, Cod. Vat. gr. 351. New Testament
Lectionary (Liturgy and Orthros cycle) in uncial maiuscule script written in Constantinople with
ekphonetic notation (10th century). https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.351
I-Rvat Vat. gr. 756: Rome, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, Cod. Vat. gr. 756. Commented
Tetraevangelion of the Archimandritate SS. Salvatore of Messina (11th century).
https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.756
GB-Bm Gr. 2: University of Birmingham, Cadbury Research Library, Mingana Collection, Ms. Gr.
2. Fragment of a Gospel Lectionary with ekphonetic notation (11th c.).
http://vmr.bham.ac.uk/Collections/Mingana/Greek_2/table/
F-Pn gr. 375: Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fonds. grec, Ms. 375. Greek Missal-
Lectionary (Lectionary of Gospels and Epistles organised according the mobile and fixed cycle, and
11 Morning Gospels preceding the stichera heothina at the end of the mobile cycle) of the Royal
Abbey of Saint-Denis written by Hieromonk Helias with later aditions for the patronal octave made
during the 12th c. (1022). http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8496551f
I-Rvat Vat. slav. 3: Rome, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, Cod. Vat. slav. 3. Aprakos lectionary
beginning with Easter (Gospel of John) and a menologion (ff.112v-153v) in uncial Glagolitic script
from Macedonia written by the end of the first Bulgarian Empire (11th century).
https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.slav.3
RUS-SPsc Glag. 1: Sankt-Petersburg, Russian National Library (Российская национальная
библиотека), Ms. глаг. 1. Tetraevangelium Zographense (beginning is missing: the first page shows
Mt 3:11) in uncial Glagolitic script written in West Bulgaria / Makedonia (11th century), with later
added portions of the text (12th century), and a third part with synaxaria in Cyrillic script added by
“Ioan Ierey”. http://expositions.nlr.ru/ex_manus/Zograph_Gospel/eng/about_manus.php
GB-Bm Gr. Peckover 7: University of Birmingham, Cadbury Research Library, Mingana
Collection, Ms. Peckover Gr. 7. Illuminated Tetraevangelion written in Constaninople (12th c.).
http://vmr.bham.ac.uk/Collections/Mingana/Peckover_Greek_7/table/
F-Pn suppl. gr. 27: Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Ms. supplément gr. 27. Illuminated
Gospel lectionary with ekphonetic notation and synaxaria (12th c.).
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8593586z

4.10. Psalteria
GB-Lbl Add 19252: British Museum, Add MS 19252. Psalter with Odes (ff.192v-207v) written by
Protopresbyteros Theodore for Michael, Abbot of the Stoudios Monastery (February 1066).
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_19352
ET-MSsc Sinait. slav. 38: Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Slav. 28. Incomplete Glagolitic
Psalter (known as “Psalterium sinaiticum”) with only Ps. 1-137, one leaf (Ps 67:19-36) is missing
(11th-century), the continuation is preserved as ET-MSsc Sinait. slav. 2/N.
https://www.loc.gov/item/00279385664-ms/
MK-SKu Ms.19: Skopje, National and University Library Kliment Ohridski, Ms. 19. Complete
psaltir organised in 20 kathismata with cantica (ff.2r-147), časoslovi with svetilni and trebnik
(ff.148r-234v), miney (ff.235r-292v), posten and cvetnaya triod (292v-315r), služba (ff.315r-322r),
kanones with scriptural readings (ff.322r-345v), služba with prosomoia and stichera stavrosima
(ff.345v-353v), the Utrenna (orthros) with the whole Akathistos hymn for the morning of 25 March

68
(ff.353v-367v), redaction of the Resavska school (1550). pdf

4.11. Typika, Horologia & Euchologia

I-Rvat Barb. gr. 336: Rome, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, Barb. gr. 336. Euchologion of the
Great Church of Constantinople (8th c). https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Barb.gr.336
F-Pn fonds grec, Ms. 1590: Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fonds grec, Ms. 1590.
Menaion from September to February of the Typikon of the Palestine rite with 13 days of the
monastic order of services of the Great Church (1062/1063).
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10722543s
F-Pn fonds grec, Ms. 1587: Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fonds grec, Ms. 1587.
Menaion from March to August (11th c). http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10723053n
ET-MSsc Sinait. georg. 34: Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Georg. 34. Ancient horologion,
later redacted and written by Iovane Zosime, with the archaic Sabaite rule, the 9 odes (sample)
prescribing triodes and diodes for the whole year (not just for Lent!), and a hymnal with
prokeimena for Sunday hesperinos, but also for ferial weekdays; the third part of the manuscript is a
iadgari (new type in full text, old type just incipits) (932-965).
https://www.loc.gov/item/00279386875-ms/
ET-MSsc Sinait. slav. 37: Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Ms. Slav. 37. Glagolitic Euchologion
with extracts of the divine liturgies and other rituals, probably copied at Preslav (11th-century). The
missing parts are preserved as https://www.loc.gov/item/00279385652-ms/

69
5. Studies and editions

5.1. Internet

5.1.1. Constantinople and the Hagia Sophia

Reconstructed map of medieval Constantinople:
http://www.byzantium1200.com/tiles.html
Reconstruction of historical buildings:
http://www.byzantium1200.com/contents.html
Documentary (Greek subtitles) about the construction of the Hagia Sophia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyx4jeVC9WY
German version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUNjdsG9IiE

5.1.2. Saint Catherine’s Monastery (Mount Sinai)

http://www.sinaimonastery.com/en/index.php?lid=1

5.1.3. My source descriptions relevant to the topics here

Ten Greek tropologia of the Sinai collection:
http://gregorian-chant.ning.com/group/byzantin/forum/topics/easter-special-the-greek-tropologia-
of-the-sinai-collection-mone
Two Armenian šaraknoc’ at the library of the Walters Art Museum:
http://gregorian-chant.ning.com/group/byzantin/forum/topics/2-armenian-hymnals-online
Digitised Slavonic manuscripts of the National and University Library of Skopje:
http://gregorian-chant.ning.com/group/byzantin/forum/topics/list-of-the-digitized-chanr-in-skopje-
national-and-university
Seven Greek kontakaria of the Sinai collection:
http://gregorian-chant.ning.com/group/byzantin/forum/topics/7-greek-kontakaria-of-the-sinai-
collection-et-mssc
The Parisian kontakarion (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France):
http://gregorian-chant.ning.com/group/byzantin/forum/topics/the-first-kontakarion-f-pn-fonds-grec-
ms-397-online
Blagoveščenskiy kondakar (Saint Petersburg, National Library of Russia):
http://gregorian-chant.ning.com/group/byzantin/forum/topics/orthodox-easter-special-the-blagove-
tenskiy-kondakar-online
Troitsky-Lavrsky kondakar (Moscow, Russian State Library):
http://gregorian-chant.ning.com/group/byzantin/forum/topics/troitsky-lavrsky-kondakar-online

70
5.1.4. Oktoechos
Peter Jeffery’s Lecture “At the Origins of the Byzantine Musical Tradition: The Eight Modes”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=if7mZ92IsO4&list=PLlYVyJo0I7DEtIxS9Tixs7oDeVOuRwSS2
Articles about the Hagiopolitan Oktoechos and the book Oktoechos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagiopolitan_Octoechos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octoechos_%28liturgy%29

5.1.5. Slavic and other local traditions

http://www.synaxis.info/psalom/regional/regional.html

5.1.6. Georgian chant

History of Georgian Orthodox Chant
http://polyphony.ge/en/georgia/georgian-sacred-music/history/
Schools of the Living Tradition in Georgia
http://polyphony.ge/en/georgia/georgian-sacred-music/schools/
About Iovane Petritsi
http://polyphony.ge/en/georgia/georgian-sacred-music/historical-figures/
No. 20 of Musicology Today
http://www.musicologytoday.ro/BackIssues/Nr.20/studies.php
John Graham’s website about Gregorian Chant
http://www.georgianchant.org/

5.1.7. Armenian chant

No. 24 of Musicology Today
http://www.musicologytoday.ro/BackIssues/Nr.24/studies.php

71
5.2. Palaeographic introductions

5.2.1. History and evolution of notation

Fleischer, O., 1895, 1897, 1924. Neumenstudien. Vol. 1, Über Ursprung und Entzifferung der
Neumen. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel; vol. 2, Das altchristliche Recitativ. Leipzig: Breitkopf &
Härtel; vol. 3, Die spätgriechische Tonschrift. Berlin: G. Reimer.
Floros, C. & Moran, N.K., 2011. The Origins of Western Notation, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin,
Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien: Peter Lang. Open access: http://oapen.org/search?
identifier=626995.
Floros, C., 1980. Einführung in die Neumenkunde. Wilhelmshaven: Heinrichshofen.
Riemann, H., 1909. Die byzantinische Notenschrift im 10. bis 15. Jahrhundert. Leipzig: Breitkopf
& Härtel.
Riemann, H., 1878. Studien zur Geschichte der Notenschrift. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.
Thibaut, J.-B., 1907. Origine byzantine de la notation neumatique de l’Église latine. Paris: Picard.

5.2.2. Ekphonetic notations

Engberg, S. G., 2005. Les lectionnaires grecs. In O. Legendre & J.-B. Lebigue, eds. Les manuscrits
liturgiques, Cycle thématique de l’IRHT 2003-2004. Ædilis, Actes. Séminaires et tables rondes.
Paris, Orléans. http://irht.hypotheses.org/612
Engberg, S. G., 1995. Greek Ekphonetic Notation: The Classical and the Pre-Classical Systems. In
J. Raasted & C. Troelsgård, eds. Palaeobyzantine Notations - A Reconsideration of the Source
Material: Acta of the Second Conference on Byzantine Music organized by the A. A. Bredius
Foundation and held at Hernen Castel, the Netherlands, in November 1992. Hernen, pp.33–55.
Available at: https://www.academia.edu/11911989.
Martani, S., 2003. The theory and practice of ekphonetic notation: the manuscript Sinait. gr. 213.
Plainsong and Medieval Music, 12(1), pp.15–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0961137103003024

5.2.3. Old Byzantine notations

Dimitrova, M., 2006. Some Observations on the Slavic Sources for Theta Notation. Scripta & e-
Scripta, 2006(3-4), 225–237. Available at: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=83427.
Floros, C., 1970a. Entzifferung der ältesten byzantinischen Neumenschriften und der altslavischen
sematischen Notation. Universale Neumenkunde, 1. 3 vols. Kassel-Wilhelmshöhe: Bärenreiter.
Floros, C., 1970c. Die byzantinischen, slavischen und gregorianischen Tonfiguren und Formeln.
Universale Neumenkunde, 3. 3 vols. Kassel-Wilhelmshöhe: Bärenreiter.
Raasted, J., 1995. Theta Notation and Some Related Notational Types. In J. Raasted & C.
Troelsgård, eds. Palaeobyzantine Notations - A Reconsideration of the Source Material: Acta of the
Second Conference on Byzantine Music organized by the A. A. Bredius Foundation and held at
Hernen Castel, the Netherlands, in November 1992. Hernen, pp. 57–62.
Tillyard, H.J.W., 1952. The Stages of the Early Byzantine Musical Notation. Byzantinische
Zeitschrift, 45, pp.29–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/byzs.1952.45.1.29
Tillyard, H.J.W., 1937. Byzantine Neumes: The Coislin Notation. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 37(2),
pp.345–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/byzs.1937.37.2.345

72
Troelsgård, C. & Wolfram, G. eds., 1999. Palaeobyzantine Notations II: Acta of the Congress held
at Hernen Castle (The Netherlands) in October 1996. Hernen: Bredius.
Troelsgård, C., 2018. Byzantine Chant Notation – Written Documents in an Aural Tradition. In B.
V. Pentcheva, ed. Aural Architecture in Byzantium : Music, Acoustics, and Ritual. London, New
York: Routledge, pp.52-77. https://auralarchitecture.stanford.edu/
Wolfram, G. & Troelsgård, C. eds., 2004. Palaeobyzantine Notations III: Acta of the Congress held
at Hernen Castle, The Netherlands, in March 2001. In Eastern Christian Studies, 4. Leuven, Paris,
Dudley/MA: Peeters. http://books.google.com/books?id=Bn8q1zs8ufwC
Wolfram, G., 1995. Modulationszeichen in der paläobyzantinischen Notation. In A. Doda, ed. Studi
di musica bizantina in onore di Giovanni Marzi. Studi e testi musicali;  nuova ser. Lucca: Libreria
musicale italiana, pp. 33–44.

5.2.4. Middle Byzantine Round notation

Raasted, J., 1995. Byzantinische Neumen und Kirchengesang: Ein Minimalkurs für neugierige
Musikologen anderer Fachgebiete. In Cantus planus: Papers read at the 6th meeting, Eger,
Hungary, 1993. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 879–899. Available at: http://www.uni-
regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_I/Musikwissenschaft/cantus/CPvolumes/1993-
2.pdf#page=483.
Tillyard, H.J.W., 1935. Handbook of the middle Byzantine musical notation, Copenhagen: Levin &
Munksgaard.
Troelsgård, C., 2011. Byzantine Neumes:  A New Introduction to the Middle Byzantine Musical
Notation, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

5.2.5. Slavic notation

Floros, C., 1970. Entzifferung der ältesten byzantinischen Neumenschriften und der altslavischen
sematischen Notation. In Universale Neumenkunde, 1. Kassel-Wilhelmshöhe: Bärenreiter.
Floros, C., 1965, 1967. Die Entzifferung der Kondakarien-Notation. Musik des Ostens 3, 7-71 & 4,
12-44.
Floros, C. & Moran, N.K., 2009. The Origins of Russian Music - Introduction to the Kondakarian
Notation, Frankfurt, M. [u.a.]: Lang.
Haas, M., 1979. Byzantinische und slavische Notationen. In W. Arlt, ed., Paläographie der Musik
nach den Plänen Leo Schrades vol. 1, fasc. 2. Köln: Volk.
Levy, K., 1966. Die slavische Kondakarien-Notation. In L. Mokrý, ed. Anfänge der slavischen
Musik. Bratislava: Verlag der Slowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp.77–92.
http://gregorian-chant.ning.com/group/byzantin/forum/topics/kenneth-levy-s-transcription-of-
slavic-kontakarion-notation
Wagner, P., 1912. Neumenkunde: Paläographie des liturgischen Gesanges, In: Einführung in die
gregorianischen Melodien, 2. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel (second improved edition).
https://archive.org/details/einfhrungindieg00wagngoog

5.2.6. Armenian khaz notation

Arevshatyan, A., 2015. Komitas and Grigor Gapasakalian. Neumological Connections. Musicology
Today, 24. http://www.musicologytoday.ro/BackIssues/Nr.24/studies2.php

73
Shahnazaryan, A., 2015a. A Brief Historical Overview of Armenian Sacred Music and Neumes,
transl. by Vatsche Barsoumian. Musicology Today, 24.
http://www.musicologytoday.ro/BackIssues/Nr.24/studies1.php
Shahnazaryan, A., 2015b. The Key to the Armenian Neumes, transl. by Vatsche Barsoumian.
Musicology Today, 24. http://www.musicologytoday.ro/BackIssues/Nr.24/studies3.php

5.2.7. Georgian neume notation

Oniani, E., 2014. Georgian Neumatic System in the Context of Orthodox Chant Tradition.
Musicology Today, 20. http://www.musicologytoday.ro/BackIssues/Nr.20/studies4.php
Wagner, P., 1912. Neumenkunde: Paläographie des liturgischen Gesanges, In: Einführung in die
gregorianischen Melodien, 2. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel (second improved edition).
https://archive.org/details/einfhrungindieg00wagngoog

5.3. Oktoechos hymnography

Artamonova, Y., 2012. On the Archaic Form of Znamennaya Notation (Neumes in the so-called
“Iliya’s Book”). Българско музикознание, (3-4), S.23–34. Available at:
https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=18375.
Atanasov, A., 2012. Musical Manuscripts in Ohrid and Tirana. Българско музикознание, 2012
(3-4), 81–88. Available at: http://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=18362.
Birnbaum, H. & Schaeken, J., 1999. Die altkirchenslavische Schriftkultur: Geschichte - Laute und
Schriftzeichen - Sprachdenkmäler (mit Textproben, Glossar und Flexionsmustern), Munich: Sagner.
http://www.schaeken.nl/lu/research/online/publications/akslstud/index.html
Christians, D. ed., 2001. Die Notation von Stichera und Kanones im Gottesdienstmenäum für den
Monat Dezember nach der Hs. GIM Sin. 162: Verzeichnis der Musterstrophen und ihrer
Neumenstruktur, In Patristica slavica, 9. Wiesbaden: Westdt. Verl. https://uni-
bonn.academia.edu/DagmarChristians
Chronz, T. & Nikiforova, A., 2014. Beobachtungen zum ältesten bekannten Tropologion-Codex
Sinaiticus graecus MG 56+5 des 8.-9. Jhs. mit Erstedition ausgewählter Abschnitte, pp. 147–174. In
D. Atanassova, ed. Synaxis katholike. Beiträge zu Gottesdienst und Geschichte der fünf
altkirchlichen Patriarchate für Heinzgerd Brakmann zum 70. Geburtstag. orientalia - patristica -
oecumenica, 6.1. Vienna, Münster: Lit. https://www.academia.edu/6054883/
Conomos, D., 2012. What is a Troparion? Musicology Today, 12, pp.1–14.
http://www.musicologytoday.ro/BackIssues/Nr.12/studies1.php
Frøyshov, S.S.R., 2013. The Resurrection Office of the First Millennium Jerusalem Liturgy and Its
Adoption by Close Peripheries. Part I: the Pre-Gospel Section. In S. Hawkes-Teeples, B. Groen, &
S. Alexopoulos, hrsg. Studies on the Liturgies of the Christian East. Selected Papers from the Third
International Congress of the Society of Oriental Liturgy, Volos, May 26-30, 2010. Leuven, Paris,
Walpole: Peeters, S. 31–57. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/3337427.
Frøyshov, S.S.R., 2013a. Articles “Greek Hymnody”, “Rite of Constantinople”, “Rite of
Jerusalem”, “Byzantine Rite” of the Canterbury Dictionary of Hymnology.
https://www.academia.edu/4874642.
Frøyshov, S.S.R., 2012. The Georgian Witness to the Jerusalem Liturgy: New Sources and Studies.
In B. Groen, S. Hawkes-Teeples, & S. Alexopoulos, eds. Inquiries into Eastern Christian Worship:
Selected Papers of the Second International Congress of the Society of Oriental Liturgy (Rome, 17-

74
21 September 2008). Eastern Christian Studies. Leuven, Paris, Walpole: Peeters, pp. 227–267.
http://www.academia.edu/2449049/
Frøyshov, S. S. R., 2007. The Early Development of the Liturgical Eight-Mode System in
Jerusalem. Saint Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 51, pp.139–178.
https://www.academia.edu/2980443/
Gardner, J. von, 1983a. Gesang der russisch-orthodoxen Kirche, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz
Verlag.
Gardner, J. von, 1983b. Gesang der russisch-orthodoxen Kirche bis zur Mitte des 17. Jahrhunderts,
Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.
Gardner, J. von, 1980. Russian Church Singing: History from the Origins to the Mid-Seventeenth
Century, Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press. Available at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=2eTamGqyQhQC.
Gardner, J. von, 1976. System und Wesen des russischen Kirchengesanges, Kommission für die
Geistesgeschichte des östlichen Europa.
Gerlach, O., 2011. About the Import of the Byzantine Intonation Aianeoeane in an 11th Century
Tonary. In M. Altripp, hrsg. Byzanz in Europa. Europas östliches Erbe: Akten des Kolloquiums
„Byzanz in Europa“ vom 11. bis 15. Dezember 2007 in Greifswald. Turnhout: Brepols, S. 172–183.
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1484/M.SBHC_EB.1.100945.
Géhin, P. & Frøyshov, S., 2000. Nouvelles découvertes sinaïtiques. À propos de la parution de
l’inventaire des manuscrits grecs. Revue des études byzantines, 58(1), 167–184.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/rebyz.2000.1990
Graham, J.A., 2012. Ivliane Nikoladze: the Alternate Redacteur of the Georgian Heirmoi. In
Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. Tbilisi: V. Sarajishvili
State Conservatory, 425–446. Available at: http://symposium.polyphony.ge/en/publications/v-
symposium/.
Graham, J.A., 2007. Maxime Sharadze: Transcriptions and Publication in the Nineteenth and
Twentieth Century Georgian Chant Preservation Movement. Sacred Music Series: Issues in
Musicology, 5, 98–106. http://www.georgianchant.org/jagraham/publications.html
Harri, J., 2012. St. Petersburg Court Chant and the Tradition of Eastern Slavic Church Singing.
PhD. Turku: University of Turku, Finland. Available at: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-29-4864-
2.
Husmann, H., 1975. Ein syrisches Sticherarion mit paläobyzantinischer Notation (Sinai syr. 261).
Hamburger Jahrbuch für Musikwissenschaft, 1, 9–57.
Husmann, H., 1972. Strophenbau und Kontrafakturtechnik der Stichera und die Entwicklung des
byzantinischen Oktoechos. Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 34, 151–161; 213–234.
https://doi.org/10.2307/930421
Husmann, H., 1971. Hymnus und Troparion. Studien zur Geschichte der musikalischen Gattungen
von Horologion und Tropologion. Jahrbuch des staatlichen Instituts für Musikforschung
Preussischer Kulturbesitz, 7-86. https://www.sim.spk-berlin.de/jahrbuecher_944.html
Jeffery, P. ed., 2001. The Earliest Oktōēchoi:  The Role of Jerusalem and Palestine in the Beginnings
of Modal Ordering. In The Study of Medieval Chant : Paths and Bridges, East and West . In Honor
of Kenneth Levy. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, pp. 147–209.
Krivko, R., 2012. A Typology of Byzantine Office Menaia of the 9th - 14th cc. Scrinium. Journal of
Patrology, Critical Hagiography, and Ecclesiastical History, 8, 3–68. Available at:

75
https://www.academia.edu/1145451.
Kujumdžieva, S., 2017. The Hymnographic Book of Tropologion: Sources, Liturgy and Chant
Repertory, London, New York: Routledge. https://books.google.com/books?id=9449DwAAQBAJ
Kujumdžieva, S., 2015. Имало ли е старобългарски Трополог? [Was there an Old Bulgarian
tropologion?]. Старобългарска литература, 2015(51), 11–38.
https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=341238.
Kujumdžieva, S., 2012. The Тropologion: Sources and Identifications of a Hymnographic Book.
Българско музикознание, 2012(3-4), 9–22. http://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=18371
Kujumdžieva, S., 2002. Viewing the Earliest Old Slavic Corpus Cantilenarum.
PALAEOBULGARICA / СТАРОБЪЛГАРИСТИКА, (2), 83–101.
https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=415927
Kujumdžieva, S., 1995. The Kekragaria in the Sources from the 14th to the Beginning of the 19th
Century. In Cantus planus: Papers read at the 6th meeting, Eger, Hungary, 1993. Budapest:
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, pp. 449–463. http://www.uni-
regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_I/Musikwissenschaft/cantus/CPvolumes/1993-2.pdf#page=449
Neubauer, E., 1994. 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, 373–414.
Nikiforova, A., 2016. The Liturgy of Chrism in the Near East: A New Evidence from Sinai (Sin. Gr.
NF/E 55). Unpublished paper held 13 September 2016, 6th SOL (Society of Oriental Liturgy)
Conference, Etchmiadzin, Armenia. https://www.academia.edu/28541305/
Nikiforova, A., 2015. The Oldest Greek Tropologion Sin.Gr. ΜΓ 56+5: A New Witness to the
Liturgy of Jerusalem from outside Jerusalem with First Edition of the Text. Oriens Christianus, 98,
138–174. https://www.academia.edu/27656786
Nikiforova, A., 2013a. Tropologion Sinait.Gr. ΝΕ/ΜΓ 56–5 (9th c.): A new source for Byzantine
Hymnography. Scripta & e-Scripta. International Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies, 12, 157–
185. https://www.academia.edu/5931009/
Nikiforova, A., 2013b. The Tropologion Sin.Gr. ΝΕ/ΜΓ 56+5 (9th c.): Complete Incipitarium. In
To the History of Menaion in Byzantium: Hymnographic Monuments of the 9th–12th Centuries
from the St. Catherine’s Monastery on the Sinai. Moscow, S. 195–235. Available at:
https://www.academia.edu/15384281.
Nikiforova, A., 2012. Из истории Минеи в Византии: Гимнографические памятники VIII-XII
вв. из собрания монастыря святой Екатерины на Синае [To the History of the Menaion in
Byzantium: Hymnographic Monuments of the 8th–12th Centuries from the Collection of the St.
Catherine’s Monastery on the Sinai], Moscow: PSTGU. https://www.academia.edu/2631080/
Nikiforova, A., 2011. Неизвестное гимнографическое наследие константинопольского
патриарха Германа [Unknown Hymnographical Heritage of St. Germanus, Patriarch of
Constantinople]. Вестник ПСТГУ. Филология, 4(26), S.29–43. Available at:
https://www.academia.edu/1042860.
Nikolopoulos, P., Archbishop Damianos, Peltikoglou, B. & Sophronios, A. 1998. Τὰ νέα εὑρήµατα
τοῦ Σινᾶ. Ἱερὰ Μονὴ καὶ Ἀρχιεπισκοπὴ Ὑπουργεῖο Πολιτισµοῦ, ἵδρυµα Ὅρους Σινᾶ. Athens, 3–
24, 27–49.
Poliakova, S., 2009. Sin 319 and Voskr 27 and the Triodion Cycle in the Liturgical Praxis in Russia
during the Studite Period. PhD. Lissabon: Universidade Nova de Lisboa.

76
http://run.unl.pt/bitstream/10362/4934/1/SvetlanaPoliakova.pdf
Prokipčáková, M., 2015. Joan Juhasevič’s Irmologion (1784-1785) and Its Role in the Development
of the Music and Text Forms of Carpathian Prostopinije in the 16th - 18th Centuries. In L. Kačic,
ed. Musikalische und literarische Kontexte des Barocks in Mitteleuropa in der Slowakei:
Konferenzbericht (Bratislava, 22.-24.10.2014). Bratislava: Slavistický ústav Jána Stanislava SAV,
219–241. https://www.academia.edu/30942813
Raasted, J. ed., 1983. The Hagiopolites—A Byzantine Treatise on Musical Theory, Cahiers de
l’Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin, 45, pp. 1-99.
http://cimagl.saxo.ku.dk/download/45/45Raasted1-99.pdf
Renoux, A. C., 2000. Les hymnes de la résurrection. 1. Hymnographie liturgique géorgienne.
Introduction, traduction et annotation des textes du Sinaï 18. Paris.
Renoux, A. C., ed., 1969-71. Le Codex arménien Jerusalem 121. Patrologia Orientalis 35/1, 36/2,
Turnhout.
Školnik, I., 1998. Byzantine prosomoion singing, a general survey of the repertoire of the notated
stichera models (automela). In L. Dobszay, ed. Cantus Planus: Papers read at the 7th Meeting,
Sopron, Hungary 1995. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences, pp. 521–537. http://www.uni-
regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_I/Musikwissenschaft/cantus/CPvolumes/1995.pdf#page=521.
Školnik, I., 1995. To the Problem of the Evolution of the Byzantine Stichera in the Second Half of
the V-VIIth Centuries, From the ‘Echos-Melodies’ to the Idiomela. In Cantus planus: Papers read
at the 6th meeting, Eger, Hungary, 1993. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences, pp. 409–425.
http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_I/Musikwissenschaft/cantus/CPvolumes/1993-
2.pdf#page=13
Školnik, I. & Školnik, M., 1994. Echos in the Byzantine-Russian Heirmologion. An Experience of
Comparative Research. Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Âge grec et latin, 64, pp.3–17.
http://cimagl.saxo.ku.dk/download/64/64Shkolnik3-17.pdf
Šlikhtina, J., 2004. Problems of the Theory and Practice of Prosomoia Singing as Illustrated by
Byzantine and Slavic Notated Prosomoia of the Good Friday Office. In G. Wolfram, ed.
Palaeobyzantine Notations 3. Leuven, Paris, Walpole: Peeters Publishers, pp. 173–198.
https://books.google.it/books?id=Bn8q1zs8ufwC&lpg=PA175&ots=a5gPC5II-
p&dq=prosomoia&hl=de&pg=PA173#v=onepage&q&f=true
Smelova, N., 2011. Melkite Syriac Hymns to the Mother of God (9th to 11th centuries):
Manuscripts, Language and Imagery. In L. Brubaker & M. B. Cunningham, eds. The Cult of the
Mother of God in Byzantium: Texts and Images. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 117–131.
https://www.academia.edu/2943617/
Strunk, O., 1977. Essays on Music in the Byzantine World, New York: Norton.
Thomas, J. & Constantinides Hero, A. edd., 2000. Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A
Complete Translation of the Surviving Founder’s Typika and Testaments, Washington, D.C.:
Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Available at:
http://staging.doaks.org/research/publications/doaks-online-publications/byzantine-monastic-
foundation-documents/.
Troelsgård, C., 2009. A New Source for the Early Octoechos? Papyrus Vindobonensis G 19.934 and
its musical implications. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference of the ASBMH. 1st
International Conference of the ASBMH, 2007: Byzantine Musical Culture. Pittsburgh, pp. 668–
679. http://www.asbmh.pitt.edu/page12/Troelsgard.pdf
Troelsgård, C., 2003. A handlist of the ‘Standard Abridged Version’ (SAV) of the Sticherarion

77
according to Oliver Strunk. Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Âge grec et latin, 74, pp.3–20. Updated
version: http://www.igl.ku.dk/MMB/standard.html
Troelsgård, C., 2001. What kind of chant books were the Byzantine Sticherária? Cantus planus:
Papers read at the 9th meeting, Esztergom & Visegrád, 1998. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of
Sciences, pp.563–574. http://www.uni-
regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_I/Musikwissenschaft/cantus/CPvolumes/1998.pdf
Wade, A., 1984. The Oldest Iadgari: The Jerusalem Tropologion V-VIII c. Orientalia Christiana
Periodica, 50, pp.451–456. https://www.academia.edu/6410061/
Wolfram, G., 2003. Der Beitrag des Theodoros Studites zur byzantinischen Hymnographie.
Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 53, pp.117–125.
http://hw.oeaw.ac.at/0xc1aa500d_0x0003b376

5.4. Cathedral rite

Anastos, M.V., 2001. Constantinople and Rome: A Survey of the Relations between the Byzantine
and the Roman Churches. In S. Vryonis, ed. Aspects of the Mind of Byzantium: Political Theory,
Theology, and Ecclesiastical Relations with the See of Rome. Variorum Collected Studies Series.
Farnham: Ashgate. http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_index.html
Artamonova, Y., 2013. Kondakarion Chant: Trying to Restore the Modal Patterns. Musicology
Today, 16. http://www.musicologytoday.ro/BackIssues/Nr.16/studies2.php
Conomos, D.E., 1980. Communion Chants in Magna Graecia and Byzantium. Journal of the
American Musicological Society, 33, pp.241–263. http://www.jstor.org/stable/831112
Cross, S. H. & Sherbowitz-Wetzor, O., ed. & tr., 1953. The Russian Primary Chronicle: Laurentian
Text. Cambridge, Mass.: The Mediaeval Acad. of America. Available at: http://www.mgh-
bibliothek.de/dokumente/a/a011458.pdf.
Doneda, A., 2011. “Computer Applications to Byzantin e Chant: A Relational Database for the
Koinonika of the Asmatikon” (9.2.2011). http://www.scribeserver.com/doneda/DBDoneda.pdf.
Doneda, A., 1994. I Koinonikà dell’Anno Liturgico nel Ms Kastoria 8. PhD. Pavia: University of
Pavia.
Engberg, S.G., 2016. The Needle and the Haystack - Searching for Evidence of the Eucharistic Old
Testament Lection in the Constantinopolitan rite. Bollettino della Badia greca di Grottaferrata, 13,
S.47–60. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/36017045.
Engberg, S.G., “Index of lections in the Prophetologium”:https://www.academia.edu/30376509/
Engberg, S.G., 1987. The Greek Old Testament Lectionary as a Liturgical Book. Cahiers de
l’Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin, 54, S.39–48. Available at:
http://cimagl.saxo.ku.dk/download/54/54Engberg39-48.pdf.
Featherstone, J.M., 2013. Der Grosse Palast von Konstantinopel: Tradition oder Erfindung?
Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 106, pp.19–38. https://www.academia.edu/4808138/
Featherstone, J.M., 2008. Δι’ Ἔνδειξιν:  Display in Court Ceremonial (De Cerimoniis II,15). In A.
Cutler & A. Papaconstantinou, eds. The Material and the Ideal: Essays in Mediaeval Art and
Archaeology in Honour of Jean-Michel Spieser. Leiden: Brill, pp. 75–112.
https://www.academia.edu/564887/
Featherstone, M., Grusková, J. & Kresten, O., 2006. Studien zu den Palimpsestfragmenten des
sogenannten „Zeremonienbuches“ I. Prolegomena. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 98(2), pp.423–430.

78
https://www.academia.edu/30078159/
Featherstone, J.M., 2006. The Great Palace as Reflected in the ‘De Cerimoniis’. In F. A. Bauer, ed.
Visualisierungen von Herrschaft. Fruehmittelalterliche Residenzen - Gestalt und Zeremoniell
(Internationales Kolloquium 3.-4. Juni 2004 in Istanbul). Byzas. Istanbul: Yayınları, pp. 47–60.
https://www.academia.edu/564884/
Featherstone, J.M., 2002. Preliminary Remarks on the Leipzig Manuscript of De Cerimoniis.
Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 95, pp.457–479. https://www.academia.edu/4808239/
Floros, C., 2015. Das mittelbyzantinische Kontaktienrepertoire. Untersuchungen und kritische
Edition, Universität Hamburg: Habilitation 1961. http://www.fbkultur.uni-
hamburg.de/hm/forschung/publikationen/byzantinische-kontakien.html
Floros, C., Das Kontakion, 1960. Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und
Geistesgeschichte, 34, pp.84–106. https://www.academia.edu/8010833/
Grinchenko, O., 2012. Musical Manuscripts in Ohrid and Tirana. Българско музикознание,
2012(3-4), 57–70. Available at: http://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=18363.
Koder, J., 2008. Imperial Propaganda in the Kontakia of Romanos the Melode. Dumbarton Oaks
Papers, 62, pp.275–291. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20788050
Konstaninos Porphyrogennetos, 1829. Constantini Porphyrogeniti Imperatoris De Ceremoniis
Aulae Byzantinae libri duo graece et latini e recensione Io. Iac. Reiskii cum eiusdem commentariis
integris Leipzig (1751-54). J. J. Reiske & J. H. Leich, eds., Bonn: Weber.
http://archive.org/details/corpusscriptorum07niebuoft
Krueger, D. & Arentzen, T., 2016. Romanos in Manuscript: Some Observations on the Patmos
Kontakarion. In B. Krsmanović, & L. Milanović, ed. Proceedings of the 23rd International
Congress of Byzantine Studies, Belgrade, 22-27 August 2016: Round Tables. Belgrade, 648–654.
Available at: https://www.academia.edu/29205084.
Kujumdžieva, S., 1998. The Byzantine-Slavic Sanctus: Its Liturgical Context through the Centuries.
Studia Musicologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 39(2/4), pp.223–232.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/902536
Levy, K., 1958. The Byzantine Sanctus and its Modal Tradition in East and West. Annales
musicologiques, 6, pp.7–67.
Lingas, A., 2013. From Earth to Heaven: The Changing Musical Soundscape of Byzantine Liturgy.
In C. Nesbitt & M. Jackson, hrsg. Experiencing Byzantium: Papers from the 44th Spring
Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Newcastle and Durham, April 2011. Farnham: Ashgate, S. 311–
358. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/4118102/.
Lingas, A.L., 2009. How Musical was the ‘Sung Office’? Some Observations on the Ethos of the
Byzantine Cathedral Rite. In I. Moody & T. Takala-Roszczenko, eds. Composing and chanting in
the Orthodox Church: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Orthodox Church
Music University of Joensuu, Finland 4-10 June 2007. Joensuu, pp. 217–234.
https://www.academia.edu/3643011/
Lingas, A.L., 1996. Sunday Matins in the Byzantine Cathedral Rite: Music and Liturgy. Electronic
Thesis or Dissertation (PhD). Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/6156
Lingas, A., 1995. The Liturgical Place of the Kontakion in Constantinople. In C. C. Akentiev, ed.
Liturgy, Architecture and Art of the Byzantine World: Papers of the XVIII International Byzantine
Congress (Moscow, 8–15 August 1991) and Other Essays Dedicated to the Memory of Fr. John

79
Meyendorff. Byzantino Rossica. St. Petersburg, pp. 50–57. https://www.academia.edu/3643142/
Mateos, J., ed., 1962-1963. Le Typicon de la Grande Église: Ms. Sainte-Croix no. 40. Introduction,
texte critique, traduction et notes. Orientaliae Christiana Analecta 165-66 (2 vols. I: Le cycle des
douze mois; II: Le cycle des fêtes mobiles). Rome: Ponificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum.
McKinnon, J.W. & Thodberg, C., Alleluia. Grove Music Online. Available at:
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/40711.
McKinnon, J., 2000. The Advent Project the Later-Seventh-Century Creation of the Roman Mass
Proper, Berkeley: University of California Press. Available at: http://books.google.de/books?
id=QHfxtBEGMPwC.
McKinnon, J.W., 1996. Preface to the Study of the Alleluia. Early Music History, 15, 213–249.
Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/853912.
Moran, N., 2002. Byzantine castrati. Plainsong and Medieval Music, 11(02), 99–112. doi:
10.1017/S0961137102002073.
Moran, N.K., 1986. Singers in Late Byzantine and Slavonic Painting. Leiden: Brill.
https://books.google.com/books?id=3dcUAAAAIAAJ
Moran, N.K., 1979. The Musical ‘Gestaltung’ of the Great Entrance Ceremony in the 12th century
in accordance with the Rite of Hagia Sophia. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 28,
pp.167–193. https://www.academia.edu/7056180/
Moran, N.K., 1977. Zwei Herrscherakklamationen in einer griechischen Handschrift aus Süditalien
(Codex Messina gr. 161). Die Musikforschung, 30, pp.3–13. https://www.academia.edu/6988974/
Moran, N.K., 1975. The Ordinary chants of the Byzantine Mass. In Hamburger Beiträge zur
Musikwissenschaft, 12. 2 vols. Hamburg: K. D. Wagner.
Myers, G., 2012. The Ritual and Music for the Dedication of a Church among the Medieval Slavs:
Byzantine Cathedral Practice Transplanted. Българско музикознание, 2012(3-4), pp.35–56.
http://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=18376.
Myers, G.A., 1994. The asmatic troparia, katavasiai, and hypakoai ‘cycles’ in their paleoslavonic
recensions. PhD. Vancouver: Univ. of British Columbia. http://hdl.handle.net/2429/7063.
Prinzing, G., 2014. Byzantiner und Seldschuken zwischen Allianz, Koexistenz und Konfrontation
im Zeitraum ca. 1180-1261. In N. Asutay-Effenberger & F. Daim, ed. Der Doppeladler: Byzanz und
die Seldschuken in Anatolien vom späten 11. bis zum 13. Jahrhundert. Byzanz zwischen Orient und
Okzident. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 25–36.
https://www.academia.edu/11798945
Strunk, W.O., 1956. The Byzantine Office at Hagia Sophia. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 9/10, 175–
202. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291096.
Strunk, W.O., 1942. The Tonal System of Byzantine Music. The Musical Quarterly, 28, 190–204.
Available at: http://mq.oxfordjournals.org/content/XXVIII/2/190.
Thodberg, C., 1966. Der byzantinische Alleluiarionzyklus: Studien im kurzen Psaltikonstil.
Monumenta musicae Byzantinae - Subsidia, 8. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard.
Thodberg, C., 1960. The Tonal System of the Kontakarium – Studies in Byzantine Psalticon Style.
Historiskfilosofiske Meddelelser udgivet af Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, vol.
37,3. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard.
Troelsgård, C., 1995. The Prokeimena in Byzantine Rite: Performance and Tradition. In Cantus
planus: Papers read at the 6th meeting, Eger, Hungary, 1993. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of

80
Sciences, 65–77. http://www.uni-
regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_I/Musikwissenschaft/cantus/CPvolumes/1993-1.pdf#page=65
Vladyševskaya, T.F., 2006. Типографский Устав и музыкальная культура Древней Руси XI–XII
веков [Tipografsky Ustav and the Old Rus’ music culture (11th-12th century)]. In B. A. Uspenskiy,
ed. Типографский Устав: Устав с кондакарем конца XI — начала XII века [Tipografsky Ustav:
Ustav with Kondakar end 11th-beginning 12th c.], 3 vols.. Памятники славяно-русской
письменности. Новая серия. Moscow: Языки славянских культур, iii:111–201.
Wellesz, E., 1967. Eastern Elements in Western Chant. Studies in the Early History of
Ecclesiastical Music, Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Wellesz, E., 1961. A history of Byzantine music and hymnography 2. rev. and enl. ed., Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Wellesz, E., 1954. Gregory the Great’s Letter on the Alleluia. Annales musicologiques, 2, 7–26.
Winkler, G., 2005. Die Basilius-Anaphora:  Edition der beiden armenischen Redaktionen und der
relevanten Fragmente, Übersetzung und Zusammenschau aller Versionen im Licht der
orientalischen Überlieferungen, Roma: Pontificio Istituto orientale.
Wolfram, G., 1995. Der byzantinische Chor, wie er sich in den Typika des 10.-12. Jh. darstellt. In
Cantus planus: Papers read at the 6th meeting, Eger, Hungary, 1993. Budapest: Hungarian Academy
of Sciences, 397–402. Available at: http://www.uni-
regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_I/Musikwissenschaft/cantus/CPvolumes/1993-2.pdf.
Wolfram, G., 1993. Erneuernde Tendenzen in der byzantinischen Kirchenmusik des 13.-14.
Jahrhunderts. Actas del XV Congreso de la Sociedad Internacional de Musicología: Culturas
musicales del Mediterráneo y sus ramificaciones, Madrid/3-10/IV/1992, 2, S.763–768. Available at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20795935.

81