Nikolaos Giannoukakis
Παλαιό Μέλος
Το εν λόγω έργο του καθηγητού κ. Γεωργίου Κωνσταντίνου έτυχε να λάβει κριτική για την οποία γενική συζήτησις γίνετα εδω:
http://www.psaltologion.com/showthread.php?t=11838
Επειδή πιστεύω πως η μελέτη και οι σημειώσεις για τον εν λόγω τόμο ανοίκουν σε ξεχωριστή θεματική ενότητα, με την συγκατάθεση των συντονιστών του φόρουμ, ανοίγω αυτή την ενότητα.
Αναρτώ (στα Αγγλικά, δυστυχώς, διότι εκφράζομαι καλύτερα στην Αγγλική για την ακρίβεια λόγου) μια έκθεση που έγραψα ως απάντηση σε φίλους μη Έλληνες το 2008 για τον εν λόγο τόμο.
Συνοπτικά (στα Αγγλικά)
On whether the 2007 work of Mr. George N. Konstantinou "Θεωρητικόν μέγα της μουσικής Χρυσάνθου του εκ Μαδύτων. Το ανέκδοτο αυτόγραφο του 1816. Το έντυπο του 1832. Κριτική έκδοση υπο Γεωργίου Ν. Κωνσταντίνου" constitutes a "critical edition" in essence.
(in response to questions by a number of non-Greek Byzantine Musicologists on the matter)
A CONCISE SUMMARY OF AN ESSAY (APPENDED)
The essay argues that the work of Mr. George N. Konstantinou does not represent a critical edition by internationally-acceptable academic and literary research standards. The work unveils an unpublished, handwritten manuscript attributable to Chrysanthos of Madyta on the reformation of the theoretical framework of post-Byzantine chant paleography and vocal interpretation (which is referred to as the 1816 Dimitsana manuscript) and compares its contents to Chrysanthos' final authoritative publication of 1832 on the same matter. The use of the term "critical edition" would have been justified if there was no final authoritative publication by Chrysanthos and if multiple manuscripts were in Mr. Konstantinou's possession which exhibited various levels of interdocument thematic and literary variability. Thus, a critical analysis of all such unpublished documents would have been initiated in order to identify the archetype and if this were not possible, to construct a consensus document that would represent a critical edition.
Instead, Mr. Konstantinou presents the 1816 Dimitsana manuscript in juxtaposition with the 1832 publication and proceeds to editorialise, conjecture and arbitrarily suggest that the 1832 publication does not represent Chrysanthos' intent, thought and evolution of knowledge. While he goes to great length and argumentative resources to support his conjectures, he does not stop to consider that the 1816 Dimitsana document could represent a work-in-progress, a brainstorm, a proof, a rough canvas, whose thematic elements and contents were, over the intervening years, distilled by Chrysanthos into the final 1832 publication. Furthermore, Mr. Konstantinou suggests, without any verifiable evidence from manuscripts attributable to Chrysanthos or his contemporaries, that a novel view of post-Byzantine chant theory and practice (termed the Karas view) is justified by the thematic content of the 1816 Dimitsana manuscript.
Mr. Konstantinou could have used other titles to justify his tome that would reflect an intent in line with the substance of his arguments. But to assign the term "critical edition" raises concerns about the ability of the author, and his assembled team, to understand the fundamental tenets of what constitutes a critical edition of a literary or historical work as well as the underlying methodology.
NG
http://www.psaltologion.com/showthread.php?t=11838
Επειδή πιστεύω πως η μελέτη και οι σημειώσεις για τον εν λόγω τόμο ανοίκουν σε ξεχωριστή θεματική ενότητα, με την συγκατάθεση των συντονιστών του φόρουμ, ανοίγω αυτή την ενότητα.
Αναρτώ (στα Αγγλικά, δυστυχώς, διότι εκφράζομαι καλύτερα στην Αγγλική για την ακρίβεια λόγου) μια έκθεση που έγραψα ως απάντηση σε φίλους μη Έλληνες το 2008 για τον εν λόγο τόμο.
Συνοπτικά (στα Αγγλικά)
On whether the 2007 work of Mr. George N. Konstantinou "Θεωρητικόν μέγα της μουσικής Χρυσάνθου του εκ Μαδύτων. Το ανέκδοτο αυτόγραφο του 1816. Το έντυπο του 1832. Κριτική έκδοση υπο Γεωργίου Ν. Κωνσταντίνου" constitutes a "critical edition" in essence.
(in response to questions by a number of non-Greek Byzantine Musicologists on the matter)
A CONCISE SUMMARY OF AN ESSAY (APPENDED)
The essay argues that the work of Mr. George N. Konstantinou does not represent a critical edition by internationally-acceptable academic and literary research standards. The work unveils an unpublished, handwritten manuscript attributable to Chrysanthos of Madyta on the reformation of the theoretical framework of post-Byzantine chant paleography and vocal interpretation (which is referred to as the 1816 Dimitsana manuscript) and compares its contents to Chrysanthos' final authoritative publication of 1832 on the same matter. The use of the term "critical edition" would have been justified if there was no final authoritative publication by Chrysanthos and if multiple manuscripts were in Mr. Konstantinou's possession which exhibited various levels of interdocument thematic and literary variability. Thus, a critical analysis of all such unpublished documents would have been initiated in order to identify the archetype and if this were not possible, to construct a consensus document that would represent a critical edition.
Instead, Mr. Konstantinou presents the 1816 Dimitsana manuscript in juxtaposition with the 1832 publication and proceeds to editorialise, conjecture and arbitrarily suggest that the 1832 publication does not represent Chrysanthos' intent, thought and evolution of knowledge. While he goes to great length and argumentative resources to support his conjectures, he does not stop to consider that the 1816 Dimitsana document could represent a work-in-progress, a brainstorm, a proof, a rough canvas, whose thematic elements and contents were, over the intervening years, distilled by Chrysanthos into the final 1832 publication. Furthermore, Mr. Konstantinou suggests, without any verifiable evidence from manuscripts attributable to Chrysanthos or his contemporaries, that a novel view of post-Byzantine chant theory and practice (termed the Karas view) is justified by the thematic content of the 1816 Dimitsana manuscript.
Mr. Konstantinou could have used other titles to justify his tome that would reflect an intent in line with the substance of his arguments. But to assign the term "critical edition" raises concerns about the ability of the author, and his assembled team, to understand the fundamental tenets of what constitutes a critical edition of a literary or historical work as well as the underlying methodology.
NG
