8/3/2019 Makris

1/10

Eustathios Makris

'Greece, the Church Music of'

Orthodox Encyclopedia (Moscow)

If we define Byzantine music as the traditional liturgical chant of the Greek-speaking

Orthodox Church through the centuries (this is actually the modern Greek usage),

then the term Byzantine music covers the biggest part of what Greek church

music really is. On the other hand, Greek church music is mainly, but not only

Byzantine music, since it involves certain younger traditions as well, and Byzantine

music, although it evolved and flourished in a purely Greek cultural environment, it

had also a strong influence on other Orthodox nations, before and, even more, after

the fall of Constantinople. Nevertheless, the survival and further development of this

tradition in Postbyzantine times forms the basis of the music heard in most Greek

churches today. So we may begin from the time after 1453 (for the previous period

see 'Byzantium, the Church Music of'), following the line of evolution that leads to

the modern practice.

The end of the Byzantine empire was simultaneously the end of the golden age of

Byzantine music, which had begun about 1300. The production of manuscripts as well

as of new compositions is very small in the first 200 years of Turkish domination. But

this is exactly the period when the traditional melodic material undergoes a deep

change. Already by 1600 we have a quite different form of the heirmological

(deriving from the music-liturgical book Ermolgion) and sticherarical (deriving

from Stichrrion) repertoire, in comparison to the corresponding melodies from the

Byzantine period. Especially in Ermolgion there is also a new reality concerning

the modal characteristics of the chants (ambitus, recitation tones, cadence tones,

melodic formulas). New modal tendencies are found also in the contemporary

compositions of the melismatic, the so-called papadical genre (from the book

Papadik, an anthology of mainly melismatic chants). The complete modal

differentiation between these three chant genres (the sticherarical being the most

conservative) is perhaps one of the most important new features of Postbyzantine

times, which applies also to the current practice.

8/3/2019 Makris

2/10

A further novelty is the fact that the melodic versions of Ermolgion and

Stichrrion, transmitted anonymously in the Byzantine era (except for two copies of

the Ermolgion which are connected to 'Iwnnhj Koukouzlhj), bear now the

names of composers. This doesnt mean, of course, that the melodies contained are

entirely new compositions; simply, certain prominent composers used to present their

personal variants of the tradition. The earliest cases of this type, but without a wide

dissemination, are the 'Anastasimatrion (formerly part of the Stichrrion, from

the 16th

-17th

century transmitted separately) of the Cretan composer 'Akkioj

Calkepouloj (about 1500), and two versions of the Ermolgion,by Qeofnhj

Karkhj and the monk 'Iwsaf, the so-called noj (new) Koukouzlhj,

respectively, both about 1600. A wholly different thing is the melismatic (papadical)

genre, as these chants were ascribed to composers already from the 14th

century. In

each period the new compositions are included in the anthologies along with the older

ones, while the choice of composers and pieces belongs to the compiler, who decides

also about the balance between old and new. From the 17th

century onwards we find

additionaly two new composition forms: the setting of the complete Great Doxology

in a specific mode (there are cycles in all eight modes), sung at the end of the morning

service (Orqroj), and the so-called kalophonic heirmos (kalofwnikj ermj),

which is an elaborate composition, based on the text of a normal heirmos, yet in a

totally different style from the Byzantine kalophonic settings of the 14th

-15th

centuries. The kalophonic heirmoi were used as pieces of art music, not integrated in

their liturgical context.

Before we proceed further to the 17th

century, it is important to mention the local

traditions that appear in the 16th

century in Cyprus and Crete. These islands were then

under Venetian rule and had the opportunity to continue the legacy of Byzantine

music quite independently from what happened in the Ottoman-ruled regions. But

Cyprus fell to the Turks already in 1571, while in Crete an important period of

flourishing begins around this time and lasts until ca. 1645, when the island found the

same fate, except the city of Candia (Cndax, modern name: `Hrkleion), which

remained unoccupied till 1669. The most important Cretan composers of this period

in chronological order are 'Antnioj 'Episkoppouloj, his son Bendiktoj

'Episkoppouloj and Dhmtrioj Tamaj. After the capture of Crete, its musical

8/3/2019 Makris

3/10

tradition came with the refugees to the Ionian Islands (they remained under Venetian

rule up to the end of the Republic in 1797, avoiding for ever the Turkish occupation)

and contributed to the formation of a new musical idiom, which was named by the

locals Cretan music. This idiom is in some measure still alive in Zkunqoj (not

many years ago it could be heard also in Krkura (Corfu)) and is characterized by

the improvised harmonization of the melody in three or four parts, the parallel thirds

between the two upper voices playing a primary role. Nevertheless, there is no

evidence that this polyphonic practice came from Crete along with the melodies. The

same practice can be found in another Ionian Island, Kefaloni, but the local

melodic tradition is not much older than the 19th

century and is only indirectly

connected to the Cretan music.

Coming now back to the Ottoman-ruled regions, the first period of flourishing begins

when the Cretan tradition declines, that is in the middle of the 17th

century (an

interesting coincidence), and lasts to the beginning of the 18th

century. Crusfhj

noj (the new Crusfhj, in contradistinction to Manoul Crusfhj, 15th

century), Germanj Nwn Patrn (bishop ofNai Ptrai), Mpalsioj erej

(the priest) and Ptroj Mperekthj are the most prominent composers of this time

in chronological order. A flood of new compositions come into the anthologies, the

production of manuscripts grows significantly, while the 'Anastasimatrion of

Crusfhj, the versions of the Stichrrion by Crusfhj and by Germanj, and

the Ermolgion ofMpalsioj become the new standards.

The very important phenomenon of exegesis (xghsij) appears in this period, but

only sporadically. It refers to the fact that certain compositions of the older repertoire

are found in extended versions, much more melismatic than their original form. These

versions are characterized as interpretations (xhgseij) of the older pieces by

contemporary composers. This fact led later (19th

-20th

century) to the assumption that

such a melismatic interpretation were from the beginning hidden behind the signs of

the Byzantine notation, which are in this way believed to have rather a stenographic

function than an intervallic value. After the middle of the 18th

century we find a

significantly increased production of exegeses, based either on works by the 17th

-

century masters or on those compositions from Byzantine times that had survived in

8/3/2019 Makris

4/10

the oral tradition. This way of singing the old musical texts, in most cases even

without using a written exegesis, was seemingly the standard practice at this time.

But we are already in the next period of intensive creativity, which is more evident

from about 1770 to the beginning of the 19th

century. If the previous phase may be

called Postbyzantine, from now on it is more appropriate to talk about modern

Greek or Neobyzantine chant, since the core of the repertoire of our days comes

primarily from this time. And if the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople, the

so-called Great Church, was an important centre already in the 17th

century, from

now on and for the whole 19th

century it is where all significant developments take

place. The cantors (yltai) of the Patriarchal church are considered as the

undisputed source of tradition, which remains a firmly held belief of many Greek

church musicians even today. It would be no exaggeration if we would call the

Neobyzantine chant tradition simply Constantinopolitan church music.

Ptroj Peloponnsioj (from the Peloponnese, d. 1777 or 1778), known as

lampadrioj of the Great Church (second ranking cantor, standing on the left side of

the church), is the central figure of this time with a very rich compositional and

exegetical oeuvre. His Doxastrion (a handier book that replaced the bulky

Stichrrion, it contains only the most important category ofstichr,the so-called

doxastik) represents the new sticherarical chant, with much simpler melodies than

the old one, which had become very melismatic through the exegetic

interpretations, and with certain new modal behaviours. The same applies for his

'Anastasimatrion, which contains sticherarical along with heirmological settings.

Some years later 'Ikwboj, prwtoylthj of the Great Church (first ranking cantor,

standing on the right side of the church), d.1800, presented a Doxastrion in old

style, in order to preserve the treasure of the classical melodic formulas.

The Ermolgion ofMpalsioj was replaced by two separate versions, a longer one

(analogous to the neumatic style of plainchant) by Ptroj Peloponnsioj and a

purely syllabic one by his pupil Ptroj Buzntioj (from Byzantium, that is

Constantinople, d.1808), who served as prwtoylthj of the Great Church. Syllabic

are also the heirmological chants in 'Anastasimatrion ofPtroj Peloponnsioj.

8/3/2019 Makris

5/10

Although the recording of exclusively syllabic versions is something new in the

Postbyzantine tradition, the modal characteristics of the heirmological chant did not

change at all since about 1600, so there is no reference to a new heirmological style.

The production ofPapadik-compositions, finally, is so rich in this period, that in

many manuscripts the new settings (the exegeses of old chants included) outnumber

by far the older ones.

But the wide dissemination of the new repertoire would not be so easy without the

introduction of the New Method of church music by the Three Teachers, the

archimandrite Crsanqoj from Mdutoj (d.1843), Courmozioj Cartoflax

(the Archivist, an ecclesiastical office of the Patriarchate, d.1840)and Grhgrioj,

prwtoylthj of the Great Church (d.1821). The notation and theory of Byzantine

music had not undergone any significant changes since 1453. Certain writing

conventions may have evolved, but the whole system remained unaltered. The

notation used by Ptroj Peloponnsioj seems in many cases something simpler in

comparison with the older one, but this has to do with the different repertoire he

presents (exegeses, compositions in a new style, recordings of the recent tradition)

and not with the notation itself. The written transmission of music had been very

difficult because of three main problems. The first of them was the lack of a clearly

defined system of rhythm in the notation. The rhythm of the chants could be learned

only by means of the oral instruction. The same applied for the intervals to be sung,

and this is exactly the second problem: the lack of an accurate and rational description

of the tonal system. The third problem is connected with the oral practice of exegesis.

Despite the exegetic efforts by Ptroj Peloponnsioj and his contemporaries, a big

part of the repertoire had not been written down analytically, in the way it was

performed in the late 18th century, so that the existing notated texts served only as an

aid to the memory.

The New Method, approved in 1814 by the Patriarchate and accepted immediately by

most of the Greek cantors, corrected all three problems. A rhythmical system with

proportional values was introduced, inspired by the western practice. The intervallic

structure and the tonal centers of the modes in all three chant genres (heirmological,

sticherarical, papadical) were described in detail and each tone was named with a

8/3/2019 Makris

6/10

solmization syllable (a western influence again). And the whole recent repertoire

along with a very big part of the older one (Byzantine and Postbyzantine) was

transcribed into the analytical notation of the New Method by Courmozioj and

Grhgrioj, who were both skilled composers as well. The theory of the New Method

was formulated by Crsanqoj, who made considerable efforts to establish a

connection between this system and the ancient Greek theory of music. But his

calculations of the intervals were not mathematically correct, so that a Patriarchal

Committee was appointed in 1881 in order to make a more accurate account of the

traditional tuning. Its findings remain fundamental to the teaching of church music

today.

Generally speaking, the main goal of the Three Teachers was not to create a new

form of notation, but to make the traditional one more rational and simple to learn, so

that anyone could sing at sight. This is why many signs from the old practice were

simply abandoned as being superfluous. In this way a very important development

became possible: the beginning of music typography. The first four editions in

Bucharest, 1820 ('Anastasimatrion and Doxastrion, both by Ptroj

Peloponnsioj) and Paris, 1821 (part of the Doxastrion of Ptroj and the

Esagwg ej t qewrhtikn ka praktikn tj kklhsiastikj mousikj,

Introduction to the theory and practice of church music, by Crsanqoj) were

followed by a long series of editions in Constantinople, beginning with the Tameon

'Anqologaj, an anthology of papadical chants edited by Courmozioj in two

volumes in 1824, and the two Ermolgia,by Ptroj Peloponnsioj and Ptroj

Buzntioj, published in a single volume in 1825. After 1850 music printing comes

also to Athens (Greece was an independent state since 1830, Athens became its

capital in 1834). Nevertheless, the percentage of older (i.e. before 1750) chants in the

printed books is very low and remains so till nowadays. This comes not only from the

priority that is given to the current repertoire, but also from the fact that all

transcriptions of old chants into the notation of the New Method follow the tradition

of exegesis. The resulting melodies are extremely long and rather inappropriate for

liturgical use, except for the monastic vigils.

8/3/2019 Makris

7/10

A further important person of this time, something younger than the Three

Teachers, is Qedwroj Fwkaej, composer and music publisher, whose settings are

still widely used today. His death in 1851 indicates the end of that period of

Neobyzantine chant, which is considered as classical. The innovation efforts in the

second half of the 19th

and (roughly speaking) the first half of the 20th

century move

in two opposite directions. The first of them represents the oriental influence and is

expressed through the use of Arabo-Turkish makams, either directly with their names

or disguised as normal church modes, and through the development of a virtuosic,

extremely embellished vocal style, especially in melismatic compositions. The other

direction has to do with the introduction of western polyphony into the Greek church.

Already in 1844 the Greek communities in Vienna initiated the use of four-part

compositions in their services (mainly in the Divine Liturgy), based partly on

traditional melodies adapted to the western tonal and rhythmical standards of that

time. In the next years other Greek churches outside Greece adopted this practice as

well. In 1870 the Russian princess Olga, wife of the king of Greece George I,

organized a choir in the royal chapel, which performed polyphonic music in her

homelands style. This was the beginning of a strong Russian influence upon the local

musicians, especially in Athens and other big cities of Greece. The most prominent

composer of this new tradition is Qemistoklj Polukrthj (1863-1926), whose

works became extremely popular among the polyphony-enthusiasts.

A completely different case, but even more influential, is the Athenian cantor and

composer 'Iwnnhj Sakellardhj (1853-1938), who attempted to correct the

Neobyzantine melodies, in order to make them conform with the Europe-oriented

musical taste of his time. So he replaced in his editions the traditional flexible rhythm

with a fixed 4-beat meter, he proposed the use of tones and semitones instead of the

various intervals of the Chrysanthine theory, he composed many melodies of his own,

especially as replacements for existing melismatic chants, and he established a

simpler vocal style, without the traditional embellishments. Although he did not

support the use of polyphonic compositions, he employed a simple system of

harmonization with parallel thirds in certain cases, similar to that of the Ionian

Islands, perhaps under the influence of this tradition. It must be noted here that, in

spite of the new tendencies from the mid-19th

century onwards, the defenders of the

pure traditional chant, like the music scholar Kwnstantnoj Ycoj (1866-1949),

8/3/2019 Makris

8/10

were also present all these years and had a strong voice, although they did not refuse

the oriental influences with the same strength they refused the western ones.

The compositions and arrangements of Sakellardhj are still heard today in the

Sunday-Liturgy in some churches, especially abroad, but they are no more

mainstream in Greece, as they were perhaps in the first half of the 20th

century. In

even less cases the churchgoer will hear the works of Polukrthj and other

composers of polyphonic music. The controversy in more recent years is not about

which kind of music should be used in the church, but about the theory and

performance practice of the traditional chant. The music scholar Smwn Karj

(1903-1999) reorganized the tonal system on a multi-modal basis, so that every

deviation from the prescribed modal behavior or tuning that can be found in the

Neobyzantine chant, but also in the Greek folk songs, is arranged as an independent

branch of a mode. His purpose was to present a general theory of the national

music, in which he corrects additionally the tuning-calculations of the Patriarchal

Committee. On the other hand, he systematized the characteristic embellishments of

the melody and the microtonal alterations, which are performed by the traditional

cantors without being written down, in order to achieve an absolutely uniform

interpretation of the chants. For this reason, apart from the extensive use of

accidentals, he initiated the employment of some extra signs in the notation, borrowed

from the older practice (before the New Method). The result was not only a new

system of teaching, but also a different style of chant interpretation, especially in

choral performances. The specific style as well as the whole Karas theoretical work

has many supporters, it is however fervently disapproved by a large party of cantors,

who consider the oral tradition of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, handed down to the

younger generations by prominent cantors of the 20th century, like Qrasbouloj

Stantsaj (1910-1987, prwtoylthj of the Great Church 1961-1964), as the only

legitimate authority for Byzantine music. They refuse any modification of the existing

system of the Three Teachers and mistrust any performance practice that is based

on historical or musicological research, either serious or not. This controversy is still

in progress today (2005).

8/3/2019 Makris

9/10

Select bibliography

'Alugizkhj, 'Antnioj, 'Ekklhsiastiko coi ka rabopersik makmia,

Thessaloniki 1990.

Giannpouloj, 'Emmanoul, `H nqhsh tj yaltikj tcnhj stn Krth (1566-

1669)(Idruma Buzantinj Mousikologaj, Meltai 11), Athens 2004.

Dragomhj, Mrkoj, `H mousik pardosh tj zakunqinj kklhsaj, Athens

2000.

Karj, Smwn, Mqodoj tj `Ellhnikj Mousikj. Qewrhtikn, 2 vols, Athens

1982.

Okonmou, Flippoj, T no mousik zthma stn 'Orqdoxh 'Ekklhsa,

Eliki (`Elkh) 2002.

Papadpouloj, Gergioj, Sumbola ej tn storan tj par' mn

kklhsiastikj mousikj, Athens 1890, repr. 1977.

Stqhj, Grhgrioj, T ceirgrafa buzantinj mousikj. Agion Oroj, 3 vols,

Athens 1975, 1976, 1993.

Idem, `H xghsij tj palaij buzantinj shmeiografaj(Idruma Buzantinj

Mousikologaj, Meltai 2), Athens 1989.

Stoiceidhj didaskala tj kklhsiastikj mousikj [findings of the

Patriarchal Committee of 1881], Constantinople 1888, repr. Athens 1978.

Filpouloj, Ginnhj, Esagwg stn llhnik polufwnik kklhsiastik

mousik, Athens 1990.

Idem, Rsikej pidrseij stn llhnik polufwnik kklhsiastik mousik,

Athens 1993.

Catzhgiakoumj, Manlhj, Ceirgrafa kklhsiastikj mousikj 1453-1820,

Athens 1980.

Idem, `H kklhsiastik mousik to `Ellhnismo met tn Alwsh (1453-

1820). Scedasma storaj, Athens 1999.

Catzhqeodrou, Gergioj, Bibliografa tj buzantinj kklhsiastikj

mousikj. Perodoj A/ (1820-1899)(Patriarcikn Idruma Paterikn

Meletn, Yaltik Blatdwn 1), Thessaloniki 1998.

Crsanqoj of Mdutoj, Qewrhtikn Mga tj Mousikj, Trieste 1832, repr.

[Athens 1995].

8/3/2019 Makris

10/10

Ycoj, Kwnstantnoj, `H parashmantik tj buzantinj mousikj, Athens

1917, repr. 1978.