Mousike Kypsele

Shota

Παλαιό Μέλος
#1
The 3 volume Mousike Kypsele attributed to Stephanos First Domestikos constitutes up to this day the basic book used by chanters for idiomela and doxastika. Because of this it is probably not totally uninteresting to examine its history. My information is mostly taken from G. Chatzitheodorou's book Bibliography of Byzantine Church Music.

The first edition of Kypsele appeared in 1857 in Constantinople. That first edition was a 2 volume book, where the 1st volume contained material for the church year, while the 2nd volume dealt with Triodion and Pentekostarion (Chatzitheodorou, pp. 116-117). The front pages of both volumes inform us that by its melos the work is in accord with Doxastarion of Petros (kata men to melos symfwnws pros to Doxastarion Petrou Lampadariou...), while by "pronunciation" (profora) in accord with that of Konstantinos Protopsaltis (kata de ten proforan pros to tou Konstantinou Protopsaltou) Most of chanters know the book through the republication by Polychronakis publishing house which does not contain Stephanos' original introduction. In it Stephanos informs us that the doxastika of the celebrated Saints (i.e. Saints with high rank services in Menaion) contained in the book were arranged according to melos in conformance with the Doxastarion of Petros Lampadarios, while according to rhythm and "apaggelia" in accord with Konstantinos Protopsaltis (h... seira twn doxastikwn twn eortazomenwn Agiwn [...] synhrmologhthh kata men to melos symfwnws pros to Doxastarion tou [...] Petrou Lampadariou [...], kata de ton rythmon kai thn apaggelian pros to tou [...] Konstantinou tou Protopsaltou). Stephanos' work, as he says, was mostly concerned with Kontakia, Apolytikia, Idiomela, Doxastika of Lite and Pentekostarion (...to pleiston exeponethesan yp'emou kata ton chronikon rythmon kai to yphos tes tou Christou M. Ekklesias...). Even though he says this, a simple comparison of his work with Manouel Protopsaltis' Sylloge Idiomelon published by Chourmouzios in 1831 shows that the latter book served as one of his main sources (this is noticed by Chatzitheodorou as well, see p. 66), with minimal changes here and there (from what I can see after a quick examination of two books).

Kypsele was reprinted in two volumes in 1882 by Dimitrios Protopsaltis, son of Ioannis Protopsaltis (Chatzitheodorou, pp. 166-168). The second volume was re-published by him in 1883, but now also containing as appendix material for non-celebrated Saints from September to December (i.e. Saints, who have a low rank service in Menaion), see Chatzitheodorou, p. 168. In 1884 this appendix was turned into a separate volume and completed to cover the non-celebrated Saints of the whole church year (Chatzitheodorou, pp. 173-174). This is the form in which modern chanters know Kypsele. I was unable to conclude from G. Chatzitheodorou's bibliography as whose melodies did the 3rd volume contain. Maybe this wasn't mentioned in the 1884 edition (the 1st volume of the 1882 edition contains both the introduction of the 1857 edition and the new introduction. Would be interesting to get hold of them). The 3 volume book was republished in 1898-1899 in Athens under the name Nea Mousike Kypsele by publisher N. Michalopoulos (editor of the edition was chanter Theod. N. Chaniotis), see Chatzitheodorou, pp. 205-207 and 211-212. New in comparison with Dimitrios Protopsaltis' edition were unpublished compositions by Ph. Bambas.

The 3 volume Kypsele was republished in 1968 by Polychronakis publishing house and recently in an edited form by fathers of Gregoriou monastery.

I would be interested if anyone could add extra information to the above.
 
Last edited:

Dimitri

Δημήτρης Κουμπαρούλης, Administrator
Staff member
#4
First Domesticos of the Patriarchate Angelos Boudouris' view of Kypsele was mentioned in one of my old messages here but I have yet to provide the exact reference. From memory, Boudouris does not support his statement (that Kypsele was a product of Stephanos' imagination and did not represent Patriarchal tradition) with any arguments. Fr Konstantine Terzopoulos' thesis may have some relevant information to this thread.
 

Shota

Παλαιό Μέλος
#5
First Domesticos of the Patriarchate Angelos Boudouris' view of Kypsele was mentioned in one of my old messages here but I have yet to provide the exact reference. From memory, Boudouris does not support his statement (that Kypsele was a product of Stephanos' imagination and did not represent Patriarchal tradition) with any arguments. Fr Konstantine Terzopoulos' thesis may have some relevant information to this thread.
Boudouris in his article Music Choirs of the Great Church of Christ says that Kypsele was used only when it did not contradict the Patriarchal tradition. This statement of his requires a separate investigation, which I'll try to do some other time. Elsewhere he claims that the 2 volume Doxastarion of Konstantinos Protopsaltis did not contain Konstantinos' compositions, but was a product of Stephanos' imagination. I'll try to give some evidence that he's probably exaggerating here.
 

Attachments

Shota

Παλαιό Μέλος
#6
The reason why Boudouris censures Stephanos is that his goal is to show that the Patriarchal chanters preserved the traditional melodies unchanged over decades, say, from Petros' times. This seems to be understandable, because during Nafpliotis' times here and there there were voices heard that the yphos of the Great Church was lost and Patriarchal chanters were criticised for various innovations, as e.g. in this article of Psachos. Being one of them, Boudouris probably wanted to bolster the prestige of Patriarchal chanters. To this one has to add his admiration of Nafpliotis. He also seems to be an idealist. There probably are many other reasons, but let's not speculate on them. Since his goal of justifying Patriarchal chanters was not always an easy task, Boudouris often had to come up with awkward explanations. For instance, he claims the leitourgika in Plagal Fourth which was at times chanted at the Patriarchate was an ancient one, see here. Similarly, he has to blame various differences that existed between the performance of Nafpliotis on badly notated books, which supposedly do not capture the true yphos of the Great Church, even though they are published by Patriarchal chanters, in particular by Stephanos First Domestikos.

Here I want to consider one particular example of the Doxastikon Ἀναστάσεως ἡμέρα. Its original form as written by Petros Lampadarios can be found in the Doxastarion of Petros Ephesios and I attach the relevant score. The Doxastarion of Konstantinos Protopsaltis (vol. 2, Constantinople, 1841) contains an embellished version of this Doxastikon, which is analysed in detail in the PhD thesis of Fr. Konstantinos Terzopoulos. In particular, Fr. Konstantinos shows that Konstantinos took as a basis the Doxastikon of Petros and while retaining its skeleton, embellished it by 1) Starting Ἀναστάσεως ἡμέρα immediately in the tetrachord Ke-Pa' and not gradually stepping up as Petros does; 2) dragging melos characteristically in words λαμπρυνθῶμεν and ἀλλήλους; 3) adding petagma in the phrase εἴπωμεν ἀδελφοί; 4) modulating to the chromatic genos in καὶ τοῖς μισοῦσιν ἡμᾶς and so on. I attach the score, while a line by line analysis can be found on pp. 374-378 of Fr. Konstantinos' book. So here we have an example of a Patriarchal chanter embellishing an older composition by Petros. In Boudouris' place we would have to blame Stephanos for "wrong" representation of the tradition (or other way around, Gregorios Protopsaltis for "wrong" exegesis of Petros!), but we also have other evidence for Konstantinos' kallopismoi in Ἀναστάσεως ἡμέρα. A simple look at Georgios Raidestinos' version of the Doxastikon as found in his Pentekostarion shows that the latter does basically the same type of embellishment on Petros' original. Raidestinos in his introduction to the Pentekostarion specifically stresses the use of some theseis and lines he heard from his teacher Konstantinos Protopsaltis, as well as Ioannis Lampadarios. Even more, we have two recordings, of Nafpliots himself (probably co-chanting with Pringos) and of his protokanonarchos Tsolakidis, which show that Konstantinos' influence (combined with that of Raidestinos) didn't passed unnoticed.

Comments?
 

Attachments

frephraim

Παλαιό Μέλος
#7
...Elsewhere he claims that the 2 volume Doxastarion of Konstantinos Protopsaltis did not contain Konstantinos' compositions, but was a product of Stephanos' imagination. I'll try to give some evidence that he's probably exaggerating here.
In my opinion, the strongest evidence that Boudouris was exaggerating is the fact that Stephanos published both Mousike Kypseli and the 2-volume Doxastarion of Konstantinos when Kontsantinos was still alive. It is unreasonable to think that Stephanos would have dared to use Konstantinos' name falsely and risk being caught.
Especially regarding Mousike Kypseli, which was published only 5 years before Konstantinos' death; if those compositions really were by Stephanos, he would have waited a few more years until after that old man (Konstantinos) had died so that he would not be around to refute Stephanos' false claim. It seems highly unlikely that he would have risked getting caught by Konstantinos.
 

Shota

Παλαιό Μέλος
#8
The fact that Konstantinos Protopsaltis' Doxastarion didn't contain purely ecclesiastic compositions wasn't made secret neither by him nor by Stephanos Domestikos. Thus in the announcement at the end of "Ermineia tes exoterikes mousikes" (p. 83) published jointly by Konstantinos and Stephanos they inform us that Konstantinos' Doxastarion contains many melodies of external music, which are difficult for understanding to those who are not well-versed in it, but with publication of "Ermineia..." this problem can be solved.

P.S. Excuses for a low quality scan, but that's the one I have.
 

Attachments

Shota

Παλαιό Μέλος
#9
Two examples from Kypsele (doxastikon of the Nativity of Theotokos Σήμερον ὁ τοῖς νοεροῖς θρόνοις ἐπαναπαυόμενος Θεός and doxastikon of the Nativity Αὐγούστου μοναρχήσαντος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς) showing that by its melos it indeed is in conformance with the Doxastarion of Petros Lampadarios (as published by Petros Ephesios). There are plenty of other examples, from which it is clear that Kypsele uses Petros' doxastika as its basis.
 

Attachments

Dimitri

Δημήτρης Κουμπαρούλης, Administrator
Staff member
#10
In my opinion, the strongest evidence that Boudouris was exaggerating is the fact that Stephanos published both Mousike Kypseli and the 2-volume Doxastarion of Konstantinos when Kontsantinos was still alive. It is unreasonable to think that Stephanos would have dared to use Konstantinos' name falsely and risk being caught.
Especially regarding Mousike Kypseli, which was published only 5 years before Konstantinos' death; if those compositions really were by Stephanos, he would have waited a few more years until after that old man (Konstantinos) had died so that he would not be around to refute Stephanos' false claim. It seems highly unlikely that he would have risked getting caught by Konstantinos.
That sounds logical father, though I am not sure whether Konstantinos could directly check the validity of the writings of Stephanos since he did not know the new notation. It is also alleged that the Patriarchals of the time were making profit by publishing books and selling them so Stephanos might have increased his sales by using the name and reputation of Konstantinos (perhaps with Konstantinos' agreement). But all that is theories and your argument does sound more likely.
 

Shota

Παλαιό Μέλος
#11
That sounds logical father, though I am not sure whether Konstantinos could directly check the validity of the writings of Stephanos since he did not know the new notation.
The notations are not totally disjoint (especially the analytic notation of Konstantinos and the New Method) so that Konstantinos couldn't get an idea as what was going on.

It is also alleged that the Patriarchals of the time were making profit by publishing books and selling them so Stephanos might have increased his sales by using the name and reputation of Konstantinos (perhaps with Konstantinos' agreement).
Doesn't sound logical to me: Stephanos could still make profits by publishing authentic books of Konstantinos. I don't see how altering Konstantinos' compositions could benefit him financially. Furthermore, see also an excerpt from the "Ermineia" that I posted. I'll give some interesting quotes from the preface of Konstantinos' Doxastarion later today.
 

Shota

Παλαιό Μέλος
#12
Here is an example of Ioannis Protopsaltis influencing later Patriarchal tradition: the opening phrase of the eothinon doxastikon "Eis to oros". One should look at a general picture and not expect that e.g. Pringos reproduces Ioannis in minute detail, because he obviously is not chanting from Ioannis' Anastasimatarion. A general idea is that Ioannis' opening line rests on Di in Εἰς τὸ ὄρος and gives an extensive treatment of ἐπειγομένοις. None of this is found in Petros' simple version. So according to Boudouris has this to be viewed as a corruption of the tradition (of Petros)? Obviously not, because he gives the same opening line as Ioannis in vol. 1 of his Oktoechos, p. 107. But then we have an example of some evolution of the Patriarchal melos attested even by Boudouris.
 

Attachments

Shota

Παλαιό Μέλος
#13
Another little example from the eothinon doxastikon Ὄρθρος ἦν βαθύς. Petros Lampadarios concludes the opening phrase Ὄρθρος ἦν βαθύς by ending on Pa. On the other hand, Ioannis, imitating his teacher Konstantinos, composes "according to the meaning" and descends to low Di. This is what we see in Pringos' Anastasimatarion and hear in Patriarchal recordings as well.

One can easily find a handful of other examples showing the Patriarchals from Nafpliotis' and Pringos' times do not always follow Petros Lampadarios' original melos, but use various theseis found in books of Konstantinos or Ioannis.

Finally, here is something interesting from Boudouris' "Musicological Memoirs", that Dimitri posted on byzantinechant forum: On the topic of whether the ancient mathemata were transcribed faithfully by the Three Teachers by the new notational system of 1815, the teacher [Nafpliotis] confirmed that the transcription of the ancient melodies into the new system was exact ("egeneto aparallaktws") as the ancient melodies were. That was what his predecessor teachers thought, namely Petros Agiotaphitis and protopsaltis Georgios Violakis. Because the transcribers didn't have a reason to change the melodies they had received from the older teachers. However, the transcribers didn't leave us the key ("kleida") of the exegesis of the melodies from the old notation to the new one.

So the version that the Three Teachers "misrepresented" Petros' tradition falls away even in Boudouris' eyes. Whether he wants to admit it or not, evolution of the musical lines used at the Patriarchate in comparison to those used by Petros is a fact.
 

Attachments

Shota

Παλαιό Μέλος
#17
In his new book that was published by Stamoulis, Georgios Aggelinaras says that Petros Agiotaphitis criticised Konstantinos Protopsaltis for mixing theseis from the slow sticheraric style into the compositions written in new sticheraric style (i.e. the short one). Unfortunately he does not provide a reference.

Konstantinos himself in the introduction of his Doxastarion writes that he transformed the short sticheraric style pieces into argosyntomon style. He also mentions that many were encouraging him to publish his new work, but that also there were some others, strict ones. He doesn't name those who criticised him, but now it appears Petros Agiotaphitis was one of them.

The bottom line is that Boudouris' accusation that it was Stephanos who misrepresented Konstantinos' works holds even less water than it did before.
 
Top